docs: add Details links for GroqCloud, LLM Proxy, Windsurf, and Manus

[kiranmagic7]

Four provider documentation pages on main had no corresponding Details: link in docs/providers.md, making them effectively undiscoverable from the provider index:

• GroqCloud (new H2 section): docs/groqcloud.md exists on main — added section with env vars, Prometheus metrics, status URL, and Details link.
• LLM Proxy (new H2 section): docs/llm-proxy.md exists on main — added section with API key/base URL config, quota-stats endpoint, and Details link.
• Windsurf (new H2 section): docs/windsurf.md exists on main — added section with web/local fetch modes, daily/weekly quota windows, and Details link.
• Manus (existing H2 section): docs/manus.md exists on main — added missing - Details: docs/manus.md line.

All env vars, endpoints, session labels, and status URLs were verified against the provider source files. No runtime behavior changed.

Verification: lint.sh lint-linux (1210 Swift files, 0 violations) · check-documentation-links.mjs (141 local links OK) · check-site-locales.mjs (21 locales OK) · generate-llms.mjs --check (llms index OK).

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: needs maintainer review before merge. Reviewed July 2, 2026, 5:41 AM ET / 09:41 UTC.

Summary
The PR adds provider-index documentation entries or Details links for GroqCloud, LLM Proxy, Windsurf, and Manus, and adjusts the docs link checker to skip node_modules.

Reproducibility: not applicable. as a docs discoverability PR. Source inspection shows current main has the detail pages while the provider index lacks the corresponding detailed entries.

Review metrics: 2 noteworthy metrics.

• Changed surface: 2 files, +21/-1. The diff is limited to provider documentation plus the docs-link checker traversal guard.
• Runtime surface: 0 app source files changed. No provider runtime, settings, auth, or persisted-data behavior changes are introduced by this PR.

Merge readiness
Overall: 🐚 platinum hermit
Proof: 🐚 platinum hermit
Patch quality: 🦞 diamond lobster
Result: ready for maintainer review.

Overall follows the weaker of proof and patch quality, so missing proof can cap an otherwise strong patch.

Rank-up moves:

• none.

Next step before merge

• [P2] No repair lane is needed because the branch is narrow and no discrete actionable defect was found.

Security
Cleared: The diff changes provider docs and a local docs-link traversal guard; it does not add dependencies, workflows, secret handling, or runtime code execution paths.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Merge the scoped provider-index update after the normal PR checks finish, keeping the docs-link script change limited to validation traversal.

Do we have a high-confidence way to reproduce the issue?

Not applicable as a docs discoverability PR. Source inspection shows current main has the detail pages while the provider index lacks the corresponding detailed entries.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes. Adding the missing entries to the existing provider overview is the narrowest maintainable fix, and the node_modules skip is scoped to the docs-link traversal.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 450ca4d91565.

Label changes

Label changes:

• add proof: sufficient: Contributor real behavior proof is sufficient. The PR body includes copied validation output for the documentation link check and related docs checks, which is adequate proof for this docs/link-checker change.
• add rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🐚 platinum hermit and patch quality is 🦞 diamond lobster.
• remove rating: 🦞 diamond lobster: Current PR rating is rating: 🐚 platinum hermit, so this older rating label is no longer current.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is a low-risk documentation discoverability improvement with no runtime behavior change.
• rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🐚 platinum hermit and patch quality is 🦞 diamond lobster.
• status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Sufficient (live_output): The PR body includes copied validation output for the documentation link check and related docs checks, which is adequate proof for this docs/link-checker change.
• proof: sufficient: Contributor real behavior proof is sufficient. The PR body includes copied validation output for the documentation link check and related docs checks, which is adequate proof for this docs/link-checker change.

Evidence reviewed

What I checked:

• AGENTS policy: AGENTS.md was read fully; its docs-validation and small-scoped-change guidance applies to this docs/link-checker review. (AGENTS.md:1, 450ca4d91565)
• Current provider-index gap: On current main, the Manus detailed section has no Details link and the detailed list jumps from Warp to ElevenLabs and from Grok to AWS Bedrock, so the Windsurf, GroqCloud, and LLM Proxy sections are absent there. (docs/providers.md:125, 450ca4d91565)
• Standalone provider docs exist: Current main already has standalone detail pages for GroqCloud, LLM Proxy, Windsurf, and Manus, which supports linking them from the provider index. (docs/groqcloud.md:8, 450ca4d91565)
• PR docs diff: The PR adds the missing Manus Details line plus concise detailed sections for Windsurf, GroqCloud, and LLM Proxy in docs/providers.md. (docs/providers.md:127, e21bed40166b)
• PR link-checker diff: The latest PR head also changes the local documentation link checker to skip node_modules directories during markdown traversal. (Scripts/check-documentation-links.mjs:135, 5e5f4e18fe0d)
• Source consistency: Provider source confirms the added docs details: Groq status/dashboard and metrics, LLM Proxy quota-stats, Windsurf web/local fetch modes, and Manus credits endpoint. (Sources/CodexBarCore/Providers/Groq/GroqProviderDescriptor.swift:24, 450ca4d91565)

Likely related people:

• kmatsunami: Git blame attributes the current provider-index detailed sections and the four standalone provider detail pages to the merged provider documentation baseline. (role: introduced docs surface; confidence: high; commits: 5bfd1d1474bb; files: docs/providers.md, docs/groqcloud.md, docs/llm-proxy.md)
• kiranmagic7: Prior merged history shows related work on docs/providers.md and the documentation link checker before this PR, so this is relevant beyond opening the branch. (role: recent provider-docs contributor; confidence: medium; commits: 7971bede84f3, ba97bc8134dd; files: Scripts/check-documentation-links.mjs, docs/providers.md, docs/t3chat.md)
• Heejin Jung: Recent merged cleanup touched the same provider-index documentation surface shortly before this PR. (role: recent adjacent contributor; confidence: medium; commits: b6ce90c6f9f4; files: docs/providers.md)
• steipete: Recent current-main provider docs/link work and the latest PR branch update touch the same docs and validation area. (role: recent adjacent contributor; confidence: medium; commits: d53b438a56df, 5e5f4e18fe0d; files: docs/providers.md, Scripts/check-documentation-links.mjs)

What the crustacean ranks mean

• 🦀 challenger crab: rare, exceptional readiness with strong proof, clean implementation, and convincing validation.
• 🦞 diamond lobster: very strong readiness with only minor maintainer review expected.
• 🐚 platinum hermit: good normal PR, likely mergeable with ordinary maintainer review.
• 🦐 gold shrimp: useful signal, but proof or patch confidence is still limited.
• 🦪 silver shellfish: thin signal; proof, validation, or implementation needs work.
• 🧂 unranked krab: not merge-ready because proof is missing/unusable or there are serious correctness or safety concerns.
• 🌊 off-meta tidepool: rating does not apply to this item.

Shiny media proof means a screenshot, video, or linked artifact directly shows the changed behavior. Runtime, network, CSP, and security claims still need visible diagnostics.

How this review workflow works

• ClawSweeper keeps one durable marker-backed review comment per issue or PR.
• Re-runs edit this comment so the latest verdict, findings, and automation markers stay together instead of adding duplicate bot comments.
• A fresh review can be triggered by eligible @clawsweeper re-review comments, exact-item GitHub events, scheduled/background review runs, or manual workflow dispatch.
• PR/issue authors and users with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review or @clawsweeper re-run on an open PR or issue to request a fresh review only.
• Maintainers can also comment @clawsweeper review to request a fresh review only.
• Fresh-review commands do not start repair, autofix, rebase, CI repair, or automerge.
• Maintainer-only repair and merge flows require explicit commands such as @clawsweeper autofix, @clawsweeper automerge, @clawsweeper fix ci, or @clawsweeper address review.
• Maintainers can comment @clawsweeper explain to ask for more context, or @clawsweeper stop to stop active automation.

[steipete]

Landed as 18fc600f24814c5e6d64d5b5e78f17876958d6a4.

Proof on exact PR head 5e5f4e18fe0d408e9527d595bf7948fb0d39adb1:

• node Scripts/check-documentation-links.mjs — 141 local links OK
• node Scripts/check-site-locales.mjs and node Scripts/check-llms-index.mjs — passed
• make check — SwiftFormat 0/1222, SwiftLint 0/1221
• make test — all 45 shards passed
• exact-head GitHub checks — 10/10 successful
• autoreview — clean, no actionable findings

Also hardened the documentation-link crawler to ignore generated node_modules trees, keeping local and CI results reproducible. Docs/tooling-only change; no runtime UI validation needed. Thanks @kiranmagic7!