docs(advisor): refresh README/AGENTS/setup for recent capabilities

[herosjourney]

Problem

advisor/README.md, advisor/AGENTS.md, and setup.md were last touched Sep 3 for MCP-provisioning wording, but several capabilities merged since mid-August were never reflected there: same-model OpenAI-on-Bedrock routing (#210, #250, #237), OpenAI Admin API discovery (#236), GCP Document AI/Vision/Speech-to-Text detection (#240, #241), Savings Plan/RI eligibility + report section (#266, #270, #272, #277), and account-security baseline.tf on both migration skills (#261 and gcp Generate). Same pass also found pre-existing inaccuracies in setup.md (wrong prompt/agent counts, missing Lambda MicroVMs) and a stale "Last updated" date on the knowledge-base skill that drives its own staleness nudge to users.

Separately, the docs over-stated the azure-to-aws skill: they described it as a 7-phase workflow that discovers from Terraform/Bicep/ARM plus a live az CLI capture. In reality only Terraform (azurerm_*) + application-code discovery is built today — the Bicep, ARM-template, and live-az extractors are planned follow-ups (a Bicep/ARM/live-only workspace halts rather than guessing), and the backbone is 6 phases, consistent with the sibling gcp-to-aws / heroku-to-aws skills.

Solution

Doc-only update to advisor/README.md, advisor/AGENTS.md, advisor/plugins/aws-startup-advisor/setup.md, and knowledge-base-for-startups/SKILL.md's Last updated date. No skill, schema, or tool files touched — nothing here changes behavior, only what the docs claim about existing behavior.

Follow-up on review: baseline.tf now notes Config/Security Hub when compliance is declared and is attributed to both gcp-to-aws and heroku-to-aws; OpenRouter/LiteLLM wording is limited to OpenAI models that have a Bedrock same-model target.

Azure correction: changed azure-to-aws from 7 phases to 6 phases and from "Terraform/Bicep/ARM + az capture" to Terraform (azurerm_*) + app code (billing exports as fallback) across README, AGENTS, setup, and the azure-to-aws SKILL description — with Bicep, ARM templates, and live az capture explicitly called out as not-yet-available follow-ups. Also corrected the SKILL body's Migration mode default line, which still claimed "IaC (Terraform/Bicep/ARM) fully supported" and would otherwise have contradicted the fix. Branch brought up to date with main.

Type of Change

• New plugin/power/tool
• Bug fix
• Enhancement to existing content
• Documentation update
• Guardrail/CI update

Team Folder

• advisor/
• migrate/
• solution-architecture/
• Other: ___

Checklist

• I have read the ../CONTRIBUTING.md guidelines
• My changes do not include hardcoded secrets, credentials, or internal-only content
• I have run mise run build locally and it passes — doc-only change; ran dprint check on the touched files instead (no code/schema touched)
• I have updated documentation if needed
• My changes are scoped to my team's folder only

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.

[herosjourney]

Pushed a follow-up for the review nits:

• baseline.tf: note Config + Security Hub when compliance is declared; attribute the baseline to both gcp-to-aws and heroku-to-aws (gcp Generate already emits it).
• Same-model wording: OpenRouter/LiteLLM parenthetical now says OpenAI models reached via those gateways, not “models” in general.
• Checklist: clarified that this is doc-only / dprint check on touched files rather than a full mise run build claim.

[leon1418]

[🤖 AI review 🤖]

Reviewed e3dd985 against the committed discovery, estimate, and generation contracts. Three documentation claims need correction; details are inline.

All nine GitHub checks and a local dprint check of the four changed files pass. This review validates the documentation against source contracts; it does not claim a deployed migration test.

[herosjourney]

Pushed a second follow-up (e8d23ba5) for the third nit, which my prior "pushed a follow-up" comment missed:

• Database RI/SP sizing: the "only when IaC supplies an instance class" wording was wrong — estimate-infra.md's $50/month rule keys off Design having mapped a target instance class, and Design gets that from live discovery (Cloud SQL settings.tier via discover-live.md) just as much as from Terraform. Fixed in both AGENTS.md and README.md — README carried the identical narrower framing that wasn't flagged inline but needed the same fix.

All three of your comments checked out on verification; thanks for catching that I'd only closed two of three.

[leon1418]

[🤖 AI review 🤖]

Completed the follow-up review of c039bed against base dd7096b. The database-sizing finding is fixed in README and AGENTS. Two P2 documentation issues remain in the original threads: the unrestricted baseline.tf guarantee and the broader-than-implemented Config/Security Hub compliance condition. Please correct both claims consistently in README, AGENTS, and setup before merging.

Validation: changed-file dprint check --incremental=false, git diff --check, and cross-plugin drift pass (275 identical, 25 allowlisted). I compared 33 relevant source pairs, including the applicable allowlisted differences. All nine current GitHub checks pass. This is a source-contract review; no migration or deployment was executed.

[leon1418]

[🤖 AI review 🤖]

Completed the current-head review of 75fa6d7 against ade57ad. The three original substantive findings are addressed: AI-only/billing-only runs no longer promise the account baseline; Config/Security Hub use the four implemented compliance frameworks; and database sizing still accepts a Design-mapped class from IaC or live discovery above the $50/month threshold. No new substantive finding from the full documentation diff and relevant producer/consumer review.

Local changed-file formatting, patch-whitespace, and cross-plugin drift checks pass (281 identical, 27 allowlisted); 38 relevant mirror pairs were inspected, including applicable allowlisted differences. All nine current GitHub checks pass. No migration or deployment was executed. This COMMENT records verification; human approval and the remaining conversation/review-state requirements are still outstanding.

[leon1418]

[🤖 AI review 🤖]

Completed the startups-hybrid-v1 review of 362623c against ec681ba: actual OCR delegation, a fresh independent general reviewer, the repository review, and explicit candidate verification.

One verified P2 remains in the existing compliance thread: GCP Clarify produces design_constraints.compliance.value, while the baseline generator reads root compliance. The mismatch predates this PR, but the new automatic Config/Security Hub guarantee is not ensured for the standard producer output. Qualify that GCP claim or align the handoff before merging. The earlier route-scope and live database-sizing corrections remain intact.

All four changed Markdown files were reviewed despite OCR excluding their extension. Local formatting, whitespace and cross-plugin drift checks pass; the independent source probes and all nine current GitHub checks pass. No live migration or deployment was executed.

[herosjourney]

Qualified the GCP Config/Security Hub claim in c5830aa9 instead of changing the generator.

Confirmed the handoff the review described: Clarify Step 5 writes design_constraints.compliance.value (the example is ["hipaa"] with no root compliance), and generate-artifacts-infra.md Step 1.5 reads root preferences.json.compliance, treating absent/empty as no framework. A standard Clarify answer therefore takes the base-only baseline.tf branch.

README.md, AGENTS.md, and setup.md now say those controls are added only when that root field contains soc2, pci, hipaa, or fedramp, and that a standard Clarify answer does not set it. Heroku is unchanged in behavior and now names global.compliance, which Clarify does write.

The producer/consumer mismatch itself is pre-existing and still unfixed; this only stops the docs from guaranteeing controls the current handoff does not emit. dprint check and markdownlint-cli2 on the three files are clean.

[leon1418]

[🤖 AI review 🤖]

Completed the hybrid/convergence follow-up at c5830aa (base ec681ba). F1 is fixed: the GCP compliance limitation is now accurately qualified. No generator repair is required for that documentation fix.

One P2 documentation issue remains, missed in my prior review, not introduced by this fix: billing-only RI/SP and dedicated-section promises exceed that route's estimator/report contract. The consolidated correction is limited to README, AGENTS, and setup:

• Do not promise commitment options or a dedicated RI/SP section for no-CUD billing-only inputs.
• Describe active-CUD billing-only guidance as conditional percentage comparison, without implying instance sizing or optimization rows.
• Keep infrastructure/Heroku guidance and the valid compliance qualification intact.

OCR delegation, both independent impact maps, candidate verification and the convergence gate are complete. Local formatting, whitespace, drift and source-contract checks pass; all nine current CI checks pass. No migration or deployment was executed.

[herosjourney]

Status: all review findings addressed at a9df5bbe

Recap of every raised thread and where it was fixed. All are addressed in code and have a reply on the thread; the threads still show "unresolved" only because they're marked outdated (the referenced lines moved) and haven't been clicked-resolved.

Finding	Reviewer	Fixed in	Notes
[P2] Scope baseline.tf to the infrastructure-generation route	leon1418	75fa6d7d	AI-only/billing-only runs no longer promise the account baseline. Reviewer replied "Verified… addressed."
[P2] Name the four compliance frameworks (soc2/pci/hipaa/fedramp)	leon1418	75fa6d7d	Replaced "when compliance is declared" across README/AGENTS/setup. Reviewer replied "addressed."
[P2] Allow DB sizing from live discovery, not just IaC	leon1418	e8d23ba5	$50/mo rule keys off a Design-mapped instance class from IaC or live discovery. Reviewer replied "addressed."
[F1] Qualify the GCP Q2→Generate compliance handoff	leon1418	c5830aa9	Documented that Clarify writes design_constraints.compliance.value, not root compliance. Reviewer replied "fixes F1."
[P2] Qualify billing-only commitment / RI-SP guidance	leon1418	6837b50a	A no-CUD billing-only run gets neither the dedicated RI/SP section nor percentage options — only a conditional CUD-vs-AWS comparison when the export shows active CUDs. Corrected in README, AGENTS, and the GCP setup summary.
There are 11 skills in the plugin now	jkzietz	6837b50a	Added contextual-offers-for-startups to the install-confirmation list and "What these skills do"; count 10 → 11.

Also addressed while here (Azure had shipped to main but the docs lagged):

• Corrected azure-to-aws from 7 phases → 6 phases and from "Terraform/Bicep/ARM + az capture" to Terraform (azurerm_*) + app code — Bicep, ARM, and live az discovery are called out as not-yet-available follow-ups (491f7333).
• Included Azure in the "GCP or Heroku" migration-source phrasing in README and setup (a9df5bbe).

No open comments remain. @leon1418 — the last automated review predates the billing-only fix; a re-review against a9df5bbe would confirm. Reviewers, please resolve the threads if they look good to you.