Refresh TagoDeploy docs for the rebranded SPA

[RicardoStoklosa]

Summary

Refresh the TagoDeploy documentation to match the rebranded React SPA (migrated off HTMX). Audited and rewrote the 23 docs the in-app docs panel links, created the 7 docs the SPA registry expects but had only as bundled local-fallback drafts, and corrected the orphan docs against the live UI.

Why

The docs were written against the old HTMX UI. Terminology, routes, form fields, and flows had drifted from the current SPA. The SPA docs panel (packages/web/src/docs/registry.ts) also references 7 slugs that did not exist upstream and 1 (open-connectors) that does exist in the UI but was never linked.

Test plan

• Ground-truth survey of every relevant SPA screen captured in specs/spa-survey.md (logged in as the fully-loaded seed account against the local stack)
• All 7 new docs carry frontmatter slug matching registry.ts exactly (tokens, mqtt/connections, mqtt/instances, container/instances, webservice/overview, webservice/settings, webservice/instances)
• Style sweep: no em dashes, en dashes, curly quotes, or emojis in docs/tagodeploy
• Internal .md link targets resolved (fixed services/overview.md to services/index.md)
• Frontmatter present (title + slug) on every changed and new doc
• Full pnpm build not run here: this worktree's local dependency tree is broken independent of the docs (lockfile is gitignored; a fresh install resolves @docusaurus/theme-mermaid@3.10.1 against core 3.9.2 and a webpack ProgressPlugin schema mismatch). Run the build in CI.

Screenshots

No screenshot changes. The docs are largely text; the few existing image refs were left intact.

Breaking changes

None. Documentation only.

Risk (CIA)

Likelihood: 🟢 Low | Impact: 🟢 Low | Exposure: 🟢 Low
Documentation-only change; no code or schema affected.

Related

• Survey artifact: specs/spa-survey.md
• Orphan-doc disposition and product flags to confirm: specs/orphans-disposition.md
• Design + plan: docs/superpowers/specs/2026-05-29-tagodeploy-docs-refresh-design.md, docs/superpowers/plans/2026-05-29-tagodeploy-docs-refresh.md
• Follow-up in tago-io/deploy: once these docs are live on docs.tago.io, wire an open-connectors DocsButton and remove the 7 now-redundant local fallbacks + TODO(docs) lines in registry.ts.

Notes for reviewers (from the audit)

• mqtt/acl-permissions, mqtt/credentials, mqtt/topic-mappings and container/docker-image|environment-variables|network|runtime have no standalone SPA page; they are sections of a parent screen. Kept as corrected cross-reference stubs. See specs/orphans-disposition.md for a consolidation recommendation.
• container/logs documents a page that does not exist in the SPA (logs are project-level). Flagged as a deletion candidate, not deleted.
• Product flags to confirm before publish: Bills "Queue" category visibility, backups restore UI, tokens dialog detail, in-memory DB recommended size. Listed in specs/orphans-disposition.md.

[Freddyminu]

Comment
Good rewrite overall: accurate, direct, and consistent. A batch of counted enumerations and a few heading case inconsistencies need fixing before this approves.

In this PR

Questions

• specs/spa-survey.md (new file) and specs/orphans-disposition.md (new file): internal planning artifacts committed to a public repo. Intentional? If not, they can be removed without touching any docs.
• docs/tagodeploy/services/container/logs.md (not modified here): the PR description flags it as a deletion candidate because no Logs sub-page exists in the SPA. Delete in this PR or open a follow-up?

Improvements

The writing-style rule bans counted enumerations of things that can grow or shrink. These will rot when the UI changes:

• docs/tagodeploy/getting-started/new-project.md:17: "There are two ways to start a new project" — rewrite to "You can open the App Catalog from the project switcher or the Apps nav item"
• docs/tagodeploy/services/index.md:18: "Two service types are available today" — rewrite to "The service types available today are"
• docs/tagodeploy/services/container/overview.md:15: "has three pages in its sidebar" — rewrite to "The sidebar has these pages"
• docs/tagodeploy/project/project-services/api.md:45: "There are two ways to scale it" — rewrite to "You scale it by adjusting the vertical config, the horizontal config, or both"
• docs/tagodeploy/project/project-services/in-memory-database.md:46: same counted-enumeration pattern as the API doc above
• docs/tagodeploy/project/management/billing.md:21: "Three cards summarize current spend" — rewrite to "The cards at the top summarize current spend"
• docs/tagodeploy/project/management/domains.md:38: "It runs in three steps" — rewrite to "The wizard steps are"

Reply Applied, Deferred, or Declined to each before this approves.

Heading case: the PR uses sentence case for H2+ headings throughout, but these three use Title Case without a product-name reason:

• docs/tagodeploy/getting-started/new-project.md:44: ## Add Services Later should be ## Add services later
• docs/tagodeploy/services/container/overview.md:27: ### Service Information should be ### Service information
• docs/tagodeploy/services/webservice/overview.md:14: ## Service Information should be ## Service information

Reply Applied, Deferred, or Declined to each before this approves.

Praise

• The rewrite from third-person corporate prose to direct second-person is consistent across all 46 changed files — reads like a human wrote it.
• The test plan is honest about the build gap, and CI confirms the build passed anyway.
• The orphans disposition file cleanly separates wire-up candidates, sub-section stubs, and obsolete pages — exactly the right artifact for the deploy-side follow-up in the deploy repo.

Risk (CIA)

Likelihood: 🟢 Low | Impact: 🟢 Low | Exposure: 🟢 Low.
Confirmed. Documentation only; no code, schema, or data touched.

(Minor: the PR description's Risk line is missing the trailing period and the rationale should be on its own line per the pr-and-issue-descriptions format.)

---

Outside this PR

Pre-existing

• docs/tagodeploy/services/container/logs.md: pre-existing style issues independent of this PR: "significantly" (banned word per writing-style), Title Case headings throughout, and old third-person prose. If deleted in a follow-up, nothing to fix; if kept, it needs a rewrite alongside the deletion decision.