Summary
After #19 fixed the functional regression (constant flipped back to RTK.md, hardcoded @RTK.md literal written to user CLAUDE.md), there remain ~30 cosmetic occurrences in src/hooks/init.rs where user-facing print strings and doc comments still say RTK.md / @RTK.md even though the actual file is now CONTEXTCRAWLER.md.
This is misleading-but-non-functional: users see messages like RTK.md reference added when the reference is actually @CONTEXTCRAWLER.md.
Approach
Replace each hardcoded literal with {} + RTK_MD / RTK_MD_REF interpolation. Examples:
// Before
println!(" RTK.md: {} (10 lines)", rtk_md_path.display());
println!(" CLAUDE.md: @RTK.md reference added");
// After
println!(" {}: {} (10 lines)", RTK_MD, rtk_md_path.display());
println!(" CLAUDE.md: {} reference added", RTK_MD_REF);Lines to touch (approx, in src/hooks/init.rs):
721, 725, 728, 730, 733, 751, 878, 881, 883, 886, 918, 1028, 1112, 1134, 1145, 1152, 1156, 1160, 1411, 1443, 2331, 2338, 2347, 2354, 2363, 2448, 2471, 2474, 2489, 2498, 2508, 2515, 2537, 2542, 2633, 2647, 3289, 3291, 3293, 3322, 3433, 3438, 3439, 3440, 3466, 3485
Why follow-up vs. in #19
Scope discipline — #19's PR (#TBD) is the functional regression fix with a pinning test. Adding 30+ string changes would make the diff hard to review and would mix mechanical cleanup with the regression fix. The pinning test already prevents the functional regression; the cosmetic strings can be cleaned up at leisure.
Summary
After #19 fixed the functional regression (constant flipped back to
RTK.md, hardcoded@RTK.mdliteral written to user CLAUDE.md), there remain ~30 cosmetic occurrences insrc/hooks/init.rswhere user-facing print strings and doc comments still sayRTK.md/@RTK.mdeven though the actual file is nowCONTEXTCRAWLER.md.This is misleading-but-non-functional: users see messages like
RTK.md reference addedwhen the reference is actually@CONTEXTCRAWLER.md.Approach
Replace each hardcoded literal with
{}+RTK_MD/RTK_MD_REFinterpolation. Examples:Lines to touch (approx, in
src/hooks/init.rs):721, 725, 728, 730, 733, 751, 878, 881, 883, 886, 918, 1028, 1112, 1134, 1145, 1152, 1156, 1160, 1411, 1443, 2331, 2338, 2347, 2354, 2363, 2448, 2471, 2474, 2489, 2498, 2508, 2515, 2537, 2542, 2633, 2647, 3289, 3291, 3293, 3322, 3433, 3438, 3439, 3440, 3466, 3485
Why follow-up vs. in #19
Scope discipline — #19's PR (#TBD) is the functional regression fix with a pinning test. Adding 30+ string changes would make the diff hard to review and would mix mechanical cleanup with the regression fix. The pinning test already prevents the functional regression; the cosmetic strings can be cleaned up at leisure.