docs: add analysis types to CLI commands page

[mariusvniekerk]

Summary

• Add analysis types table (duplication, refactor, complexity, test-fixtures, api-design, dead-code, architecture) to the CLI commands page, matching what the README documents
• Expand the analysis types table in the assisted-refactoring guide with 1-2 sentence descriptions sourced from the actual prompt templates
• Update CLI examples to lead with duplication for discoverability

Closes roborev-dev/roborev#589

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[vercel]

@mariusvniekerk is attempting to deploy a commit to the Wes McKinney's projects Team on Vercel.

A member of the Team first needs to authorize it.

[roborev-ci]

roborev: Combined Review (aa4af8f)

Verdict: 2 medium-severity documentation accuracy issues should be addressed before merge.

Medium

• Shell-dependent glob examples may be unreliable
  Location: src/content/docs/commands.mdx:296, src/content/docs/commands.mdx:298
  Finding: The new examples use unguarded shell globs like *.go and internal/*_test.go. These are shell-dependent, can fail in shells such as zsh when nothing matches, and are narrower than the previous ./... form.
  Suggested fix: Prefer shell-agnostic examples such as ./..., or explicitly document that these examples rely on shell expansion and only apply to matched files.

• Analyzer descriptions may overstate guaranteed output
  Location: src/content/docs/guides/assisted-refactoring.mdx:22, src/content/docs/guides/assisted-refactoring.mdx:23, src/content/docs/guides/assisted-refactoring.mdx:27
  Finding: The new table entries promise specific report details such as “estimated line reduction,” “ranks suggestions by impact,” and “flags confidence level per finding.” Unless those fields are consistently emitted, the docs risk making stronger guarantees than the product actually provides.
  Suggested fix: Reword these rows to describe analysis goals instead of exact output fields, or add supporting examples/docs that establish those details as guaranteed behavior.

---

Synthesized from 3 reviews (agents: codex, gemini | types: default, security)

[roborev-ci]

roborev: Combined Review (2aa6a05)

Documentation looks mostly clean; 1 medium-severity accuracy issue should be addressed before merge.

Medium

• src/content/docs/guides/assisted-refactoring.mdx:24
  The complexity description currently says the analysis "Flags cyclomatic complexity hotspots" and "functions with too many parameters." The surrounding section frames these analyses as prompt templates, so this reads like a concrete metric-based guarantee the feature may not actually provide. Rephrase it to describe the analysis more softly at the prompt level, or align it exactly with the underlying prompt's real scope.

---

Synthesized from 3 reviews (agents: codex, gemini | types: default, security)

[roborev-ci]

roborev: Combined Review (60866a4)

Verdict: No medium, high, or critical findings.

The reviewed changes look clean at the requested severity threshold. Two agents reported no issues, and the remaining review only raised low-severity documentation concerns, which are omitted here per instruction.

---

Synthesized from 3 reviews (agents: codex, gemini | types: default, security)