docs: rewrite README to house standard

[yakimoto]

Summary

• Rewrites the README to WAVE's house README standard (badges, quick start, links row, repo-layout and related-packages tables) used by the org's best-scoring READMEs (adk, mcp-server).
• Every claim is grounded in this repo: openapi.yaml (43 paths / 16 tags, counted directly), capabilities.json (lifecycle ga, v3.0.0), and the existing usage commands.
• Corrects an ungrounded "34 API modules" claim inherited from a different package's README — that number describes @wave-av/sdk, not this spec; api-spec's own README now states its own counted numbers (43 paths, 16 tags) instead.
• No new capabilities are claimed beyond what's in this repo.

Test plan

• Preview renders correctly on GitHub
• Linked npm packages (sdk, adk, mcp-server, cli) resolve on npmjs.org

---

Note

^{Cursor Bugbot is generating a summary for commit 386e5a9. Configure here.}

Note

Rewrite README to match house standard for api-spec

• Updates README.md with a centered header, badges, and corrected metrics (43 endpoints, 17 tags including MoQ and Render).
• Adds sections for 'What this is', 'Errors', repo layout, and 'Related packages' with structured tables.
• Clarifies that renderVideo, renderPoll, and renderEvents omit Bearer auth via security: [] and use x402 payment challenge instead.
• Logs the README rewrite in CHANGELOG.md under Unreleased > Documentation.

^{Macroscope summarized 2afdfda.}

[cursor]

Bugbot couldn't run - usage limit reached

Bugbot is counted against Cursor usage for this user or team, and this run hit a usage or spend limit.

A user or team admin can review and increase usage limits in the Cursor dashboard.

(requestId: serverGenReqId_bb4c6d15-f895-4dcb-acdc-ec0333193f5d)

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

You’ve reached a temporary PR review limit under our Fair Usage Limits Policy.

Your recent review volume is higher than typical usage, so adaptive limits are currently applied.

Next review available in: 10 minutes

Your organization has reached its usage spending cap. Adjust your spending cap in the billing tab.

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 0701c94a-76b0-41d7-9459-454354f152d5

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 6649096 and ab89c73.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• CHANGELOG.md
• README.md

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[qodo-code-review]

Code Review by Qodo

🐞 Bugs (0) 📘 Rule violations (0) 📎 Requirement gaps (0)

Great, no issues found!

Qodo reviewed your code and found no material issues that require review

_{To customize comments, go to the Qodo configuration screen, or learn more in the docs.}

[macroscopeapp]

Approvability

Verdict: Approved 2afdfda

Pure documentation changes to README.md and CHANGELOG.md with no runtime impact. The author owns both modified files.

^{You can customize Macroscope's approvability policy. Learn more.}

[qodo-code-review]

PR Summary by Qodo

docs: rewrite README to WAVE house standard with grounded claims

📝 Documentation 🕐 10-20 Minutes

AI Description

• Adopt WAVE house README layout (badges, links row, quick start, tables).
• Ground README metrics in-repo; remove incorrect “34 API modules” claim.
• Document auth, error envelope, pagination/rate-limit notes, and related packages.

Diagram

graph TD
R["README.md"] --> O["openapi.yaml"] --> SDK["Generators / @wave-av/sdk"]
R --> CAP["capabilities.json"] --> META["Lifecycle + version"]
R --> PKG["Related packages section"] --> NPM["npmjs.org links"]

Loading

High-Level Assessment

The following are alternative approaches to this PR:

1. Auto-generate README metrics from the spec in CI

• ➕ Prevents drift for endpoint/tag counts and other spec-derived numbers
• ➕ Makes future updates mechanical and reviewable via generated diffs
• ➖ Adds CI complexity and a generation script/tooling dependency
• ➖ Generated README sections can be harder to edit manually

2. Replace hard counts with “see spec” references only

• ➕ Eliminates risk of numeric claims becoming stale
• ➕ Keeps README shorter and more maintenance-free
• ➖ Less informative at a glance for newcomers
• ➖ Reduces marketing/at-a-glance clarity compared to house standard

Recommendation: The chosen approach (house-style README with explicitly grounded claims) is the right default for a public spec repo and directly addresses prior ungrounded statements. If the endpoint/tag counts are expected to change frequently, consider the CI-generated metrics option later to keep those numbers correct without manual recounting.

Files changed (1) +55 / -15

Documentation (1) +55 / -15

README.mdRewrite README to WAVE house format and correct/spec-ground all claims +55/-15

Rewrite README to WAVE house format and correct/spec-ground all claims

• Replaces the prior minimal README with a standardized WAVE layout including badges, link row, and a quick-start command block. Corrects the inherited inaccurate “34 API modules” statement by instead documenting spec-derived counts (43 paths / 16 tags) and adds sections for errors, pagination/rate limits, repo layout, and related packages.

README.md

[qodo-code-review]

Qodo Fixer

No findings are available for this PR yet. Findings appear here once Qodo has reviewed the PR.