feat: add Rejected Proposals page (#166)

.gitignore

@@ -3,3 +3,6 @@ node_modules/
 !website/public/logo.png
 !website/public/icon.png
 .playwright-mcp/
+*:Zone.Identifier
+website/public/CONTRIBUTING.html
+website/public/CONTRIBUTING.de.html

CONTRIBUTING.adoc

@@ -45,6 +45,8 @@ The anchor can be *traced to key proponents, publications, or documented standar
 *Bad:* "Best practices" - no specific source or authority
 ====
 
+TIP: Not sure if your proposal qualifies? Check our link:#/rejected-proposals[Rejected Proposals] page to see previously evaluated terms that didn't meet the criteria — and why.
+
 == Testing Your Semantic Anchor
 
 Before proposing, test the anchor with this prompt in an LLM:

docs/plans/2026-03-09-rejected-proposals-design.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+# Rejected Proposals Page — Design
+
+> **For Claude:** REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:executing-plans to implement this plan task-by-task.
+
+**Goal:** Static page listing evaluated but not qualified anchor proposals with categorized rejection reasons.
+
+## Design Decisions
+
+- **Format:** Static AsciiDoc (`docs/rejected-proposals.adoc` + `.de.adoc`), manually maintained
+- **Placement:** Footer link + reference from Contributing page (not in main nav)
+- **Rejection categories** (each links to quality criteria):
+  - "Structurally unsuitable" — too vague, no defined methodology (fails: Precise, Rich)
+  - "Not in training data" — good concept, LLMs don't reliably recognize it (fails: Consistent)
+  - "Too niche" — too specialized for reliable activation (fails: Consistent, Rich)
+- **Scope:** Only actually submitted proposals. GoF Tier-3 stays in umbrella context only.
+- **Initial entries:** TLDR, ELI5, MIRRR UX Framework (#150)
+- **Tech:** Same pipeline as Changelog/AgentSkill — render-docs.js, i18n, bilingual
+
+Closes #166

docs/rejected-proposals.adoc

@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+= Rejected Proposals
+
+This page lists anchor proposals that were evaluated but did not meet the link:#/about[quality criteria] for semantic anchors. Each entry explains why the proposal was rejected.
+
+Understanding why proposals are rejected helps contributors submit better proposals and avoids re-submission of already evaluated terms.
+
+== Rejection Categories
+
+Structurally unsuitable::
+The term is too vague, has no defined methodology, or is a pure instruction rather than a concept. Fails the link:#/about[Precise] and/or link:#/about[Rich] criteria.
+
+Not in training data::
+A legitimate concept or framework, but not established enough in LLM training data to reliably activate the right knowledge. Fails the link:#/about[Consistent] criterion.
+
+Too niche::
+A real methodology but too specialized for reliable activation across different LLMs and contexts. Fails the link:#/about[Consistent] and/or link:#/about[Rich] criteria.
+
+== Rejected Proposals
+
+[cols="2,2,3", options="header"]
+|===
+| Proposal | Category | Reason
+
+| *TLDR*
+| Structurally unsuitable
+| Underspecified instruction with no defined structure. Just means "be brief" without any framework for how. Not a methodology.
+
+| *ELI5* (Explain Like I'm 5)
+| Structurally unsuitable
+| Vague target level with no pedagogical framework. No consistent interpretation of what "5-year-old level" means technically.
+
+| *MIRRR UX Framework* (https://github.com/LLM-Coding/Semantic-Anchors/issues/150[#150])
+| Not in training data
+| A real UX framework with defined methodology, but not widely enough documented for LLMs to reliably recognize it and activate the correct concepts.
+
+|===
+
+== How We Evaluate
+
+Every proposal is tested against our four quality criteria:
+
+. *Precise* — Does it reference a specific, established body of knowledge?
+. *Rich* — Does it activate multiple interconnected concepts?
+. *Consistent* — Do different LLMs reliably understand it the same way?
+. *Attributable* — Can it be traced to key proponents or publications?
+
+We test by prompting an LLM with:
+
+[quote]
+____
+What concepts do you associate with '<proposed term>'?
+____
+
+If the response is vague, inconsistent across models, or fails to activate a coherent body of knowledge, the proposal does not qualify.
+
+See link:#/about[About] for the full quality criteria and examples.

docs/rejected-proposals.de.adoc

@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+= Abgelehnte Vorschläge
+
+Diese Seite listet Anker-Vorschläge auf, die bewertet wurden, aber die link:#/about[Qualitätskriterien] für semantische Anker nicht erfüllen. Jeder Eintrag erklärt, warum der Vorschlag abgelehnt wurde.
+
+Das Verständnis der Ablehnungsgründe hilft Mitwirkenden, bessere Vorschläge einzureichen und vermeidet die erneute Einreichung bereits bewerteter Begriffe.
+
+== Ablehnungskategorien
+
+Strukturell ungeeignet::
+Der Begriff ist zu vage, hat keine definierte Methodik oder ist eine reine Anweisung statt eines Konzepts. Erfüllt das link:#/about[Precise]- und/oder link:#/about[Rich]-Kriterium nicht.
+
+Nicht in Trainingsdaten::
+Ein legitimes Konzept oder Framework, aber nicht ausreichend in den LLM-Trainingsdaten etabliert, um zuverlässig das richtige Wissen zu aktivieren. Erfüllt das link:#/about[Consistent]-Kriterium nicht.
+
+Zu spezialisiert::
+Eine echte Methodik, aber zu spezialisiert für zuverlässige Aktivierung über verschiedene LLMs und Kontexte hinweg. Erfüllt das link:#/about[Consistent]- und/oder link:#/about[Rich]-Kriterium nicht.
+
+== Abgelehnte Vorschläge
+
+[cols="2,2,3", options="header"]
+|===
+| Vorschlag | Kategorie | Begründung
+
+| *TLDR*
+| Strukturell ungeeignet
+| Unterspezifizierte Anweisung ohne definierte Struktur. Bedeutet nur "fasse dich kurz" ohne ein Framework dafür. Keine Methodik.
+
+| *ELI5* (Explain Like I'm 5)
+| Strukturell ungeeignet
+| Vages Zielniveau ohne pädagogisches Framework. Keine konsistente Interpretation dessen, was "Niveau eines 5-Jährigen" technisch bedeutet.
+
+| *MIRRR UX Framework* (https://github.com/LLM-Coding/Semantic-Anchors/issues/150[#150])
+| Nicht in Trainingsdaten
+| Ein echtes UX-Framework mit definierter Methodik, aber nicht weit genug dokumentiert, damit LLMs es zuverlässig erkennen und die richtigen Konzepte aktivieren.
+
+|===
+
+== Wie wir bewerten
+
+Jeder Vorschlag wird gegen unsere vier Qualitätskriterien getestet:
+
+. *Precise* — Referenziert er ein spezifisches, etabliertes Wissensgebiet?
+. *Rich* — Aktiviert er mehrere zusammenhängende Konzepte?
+. *Consistent* — Verstehen verschiedene LLMs ihn zuverlässig gleich?
+. *Attributable* — Lässt er sich auf Schlüsselvertreter oder Publikationen zurückführen?
+
+Wir testen, indem wir ein LLM fragen:
+
+[quote]
+____
+Welche Konzepte verbindest du mit '<vorgeschlagener Begriff>'?
+____
+
+Wenn die Antwort vage ist, über Modelle hinweg inkonsistent, oder kein kohärentes Wissensgebiet aktiviert, qualifiziert sich der Vorschlag nicht.
+
+Siehe link:#/about[Über] für die vollständigen Qualitätskriterien und Beispiele.

scripts/render-docs.js

@@ -67,5 +67,14 @@ renderFile(path.join(ROOT, 'docs/changelog.adoc'), path.join(WEB_DOCS, 'changelo
 renderFile(path.join(ROOT, 'docs/agentskill.adoc'), path.join(WEB_DOCS, 'agentskill.html'))
 renderFile(path.join(ROOT, 'docs/agentskill.de.adoc'), path.join(WEB_DOCS, 'agentskill.de.html'))
 
+renderFile(
+  path.join(ROOT, 'docs/rejected-proposals.adoc'),
+  path.join(WEB_DOCS, 'rejected-proposals.html')
+)
+renderFile(
+  path.join(ROOT, 'docs/rejected-proposals.de.adoc'),
+  path.join(WEB_DOCS, 'rejected-proposals.de.html')
+)
+
 // all-anchors.adoc uses include:: directives — resolved automatically in Node.js
 renderFile(path.join(ROOT, 'docs/all-anchors.adoc'), path.join(WEB_DOCS, 'all-anchors.html'))

website/src/components/footer.js

@@ -36,6 +36,12 @@ export function renderFooter(version) {
               data-i18n="footer.allAnchors"
             >${i18n.t('footer.allAnchors')}</a>
             <span class="text-gray-300 dark:text-gray-600">|</span>
+            <a
+              href="#/rejected-proposals"
+              class="text-sm text-[var(--color-text-secondary)] hover:text-[var(--color-text)] transition-colors"
+              data-i18n="footer.rejectedProposals"
+            >${i18n.t('footer.rejectedProposals')}</a>
+            <span class="text-gray-300 dark:text-gray-600">|</span>
             <a
               href="https://github.com/LLM-Coding/Semantic-Anchors"
               target="_blank"

website/src/main.js

@@ -104,6 +104,7 @@ function initApp() {
   addRoute('/contributing', renderContributingPage)
   addRoute('/changelog', renderChangelogPage)
   addRoute('/agentskill', renderAgentSkillPage)
+  addRoute('/rejected-proposals', renderRejectedProposalsPage)
   addRoute('/all-anchors', renderAllAnchorsPage)
 
   const app = document.querySelector('#app')
@@ -198,6 +199,15 @@ function renderAgentSkillPage() {
   loadDocContent('docs/agentskill.adoc')
 }
 
+function renderRejectedProposalsPage() {
+  const pageContent = document.getElementById('page-content')
+  if (!pageContent) return
+
+  pageContent.innerHTML = renderDocPage()
+  updateActiveNavLink()
+  loadDocContent('docs/rejected-proposals.adoc')
+}
+
 function renderAllAnchorsPage() {
   const pageContent = document.getElementById('page-content')
   if (!pageContent) return
@@ -405,6 +415,8 @@ function handleLanguageChange() {
     loadDocContent('docs/changelog.adoc')
   } else if (currentRoute === '/agentskill') {
     loadDocContent('docs/agentskill.adoc')
+  } else if (currentRoute === '/rejected-proposals') {
+    loadDocContent('docs/rejected-proposals.adoc')
   } else if (currentRoute === '/all-anchors') {
     loadDocContent('docs/all-anchors.adoc')
   } else if (currentRoute === '/') {

website/src/translations/de.json

@@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
   "footer.leaveStar": "Dir gefallen die semantischen Anker? Hinterlasse einen Stern!",
   "footer.llmsTxt": "llms.txt",
   "footer.allAnchors": "Vollständige Referenz",
+  "footer.rejectedProposals": "Abgelehnte Vorschläge",
   "categories.communication-presentation": "Kommunikation & Präsentation",
   "categories.design-principles": "Design-Prinzipien & Muster",
   "categories.development-workflow": "Entwicklungs-Workflow",

website/src/translations/en.json

@@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
   "footer.leaveStar": "Like Semantic Anchors? Leave a star!",
   "footer.llmsTxt": "llms.txt",
   "footer.allAnchors": "Full Reference",
+  "footer.rejectedProposals": "Rejected Proposals",
   "categories.communication-presentation": "Communication & Presentation",
   "categories.design-principles": "Design Principles & Patterns",
   "categories.development-workflow": "Development Workflow",