Add comprehensive documentation templates and schemas for project documentation workflow

- Introduced agent instruction template for generating documentation tasks.
- Created CSV schema for tasks including definitions and example entries.
- Defined documentation dimensions across five waves with specific focus areas.
- Established quality standards for documentation, including completeness, accuracy, clarity, and context integration.

.codex/skills/project-documentation-workflow/specs/quality-standards.md

@@ -0,0 +1,195 @@
+# Quality Standards for Documentation
+
+Quality assessment criteria for generated documentation.
+
+---
+
+## Quality Dimensions
+
+### 1. Completeness (30%)
+
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 100% | All required sections present, all topics covered |
+| 80% | All sections present, some topics incomplete |
+| 60% | Most sections present, some missing |
+| 40% | Several sections missing |
+| 0% | Major sections absent |
+
+**Checklist per Document**:
+- [ ] All sections in `doc_sections` are present
+- [ ] Each section has substantial content (not just placeholders)
+- [ ] Cross-references to related documentation
+- [ ] Code examples where applicable
+- [ ] Diagrams where applicable
+
+### 2. Accuracy (25%)
+
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 100% | All information correct, file references accurate |
+| 80% | Minor inaccuracies, most references correct |
+| 60% | Some errors, most file references work |
+| 40% | Multiple errors, broken references |
+| 0% | Significant inaccuracies |
+
+**Checklist**:
+- [ ] Code examples compile/run correctly
+- [ ] File paths and line numbers are accurate
+- [ ] API signatures match actual implementation
+- [ ] Configuration examples are valid
+- [ ] Dependencies and versions are correct
+
+### 3. Clarity (25%)
+
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 100% | Clear, concise, well-organized, easy to navigate |
+| 80% | Clear, minor organization issues |
+| 60% | Understandable but could be clearer |
+| 40% | Confusing in places |
+| 0% | Unclear, hard to follow |
+
+**Checklist**:
+- [ ] Logical flow and organization
+- [ ] Clear headings and subheadings
+- [ ] Appropriate level of detail
+- [ ] Well-formatted code blocks
+- [ ] Readable diagrams
+
+### 4. Context Integration (20%)
+
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 100% | Builds on previous waves, references earlier findings |
+| 80% | Good context usage, minor gaps |
+| 60% | Some context usage, could be more |
+| 40% | Limited context usage |
+| 0% | No context from previous waves |
+
+**Checklist**:
+- [ ] References findings from context_from tasks
+- [ ] Uses discoveries.ndjson
+- [ ] Cross-references related documentation
+- [ ] Builds on previous wave outputs
+- [ ] Maintains consistency across documents
+
+---
+
+## Quality Gates (Per-Wave)
+
+| Wave | Gate Criteria | Required Completion |
+|------|--------------|---------------------|
+| 1 | Overview + Tech Stack + Directory | 3/3 completed |
+| 2 | Architecture docs with diagrams | ≥3/4 completed |
+| 3 | Implementation details with code | ≥3/4 completed |
+| 4 | Feature + Usage + API docs | ≥2/3 completed |
+| 5 | Synthesis with README | 3/3 completed |
+
+---
+
+## Document Quality Metrics
+
+| Metric | Target | Measurement |
+|--------|--------|-------------|
+| Section coverage | 100% | Required sections present |
+| Code example density | ≥1 per major topic | Code blocks per section |
+| File reference accuracy | ≥95% | Valid file:line references |
+| Cross-reference density | ≥2 per document | Links to other docs |
+| Diagram presence | Required for architecture | Diagrams in arch docs |
+
+---
+
+## Issue Severity Levels
+
+### Critical (Must Fix)
+- Missing required section
+- Broken cross-references
+- Incorrect API documentation
+- Code examples that don't work
+- File references to non-existent files
+
+### High (Should Fix)
+- Incomplete section content
+- Minor inaccuracies
+- Missing diagrams in architecture docs
+- Outdated dependency versions
+- Unclear explanations
+
+### Medium (Nice to Fix)
+- Formatting issues
+- Suboptimal organization
+- Missing optional content
+- Minor typos
+
+### Low (Optional)
+- Style consistency
+- Additional examples
+- More detailed explanations
+
+---
+
+## Quality Scoring
+
+### Per-Document Score
+
+```
+Score = (Completeness × 0.30) + (Accuracy × 0.25) + (Clarity × 0.25) + (Context × 0.20)
+```
+
+### Overall Session Score
+
+```
+Score = Σ(Document Score × Weight) / Σ(Weights)
+```
+
+**Weights by Wave**:
+| Wave | Weight | Rationale |
+|------|--------|-----------|
+| 1 | 1.0 | Foundation |
+| 2 | 1.5 | Core architecture |
+| 3 | 1.5 | Implementation depth |
+| 4 | 1.0 | User-facing |
+| 5 | 2.0 | Synthesis quality |
+
+### Quality Thresholds
+
+| Score | Status | Action |
+|-------|--------|--------|
+| ≥85% | PASS | Ready for delivery |
+| 70-84% | REVIEW | Flag for improvement |
+| <70% | FAIL | Block, require re-generation |
+
+---
+
+## Documentation Style Guide
+
+### Markdown Standards
+- Use ATX headings (# ## ###)
+- Code blocks with language hints
+- Mermaid for diagrams
+- Tables for structured data
+
+### Code Reference Format
+```
+src/module/file.ts:42-56
+```
+
+### Cross-Reference Format
+```markdown
+See: [Document Title](path/to/doc.md#section)
+```
+
+### LaTeX Format (when formula_support=true)
+```markdown
+$$
+\frac{\partial u}{\partial t} = \nabla^2 u
+$$
+```
+
+### Diagram Format
+```mermaid
+graph TD
+    A[Start] --> B[Process]
+    B --> C[End]
+```