Add repository coverage status page

[LipeGheno]

Summary

• Adds a new concept page, Repository coverage status, documenting the four statuses Codacy uses internally to classify whether a repository has coverage set up: No coverage, Up to date, Waiting for coverage, Stopped receiving coverage.
• Registers the page in mkdocs.yml nav under Repositories on Codacy, right after Coverage page.
• Source: Repository hasCoverage Linear project.

Note for reviewers

organizations/reporting/organization-overview.md currently defines "Repositories reporting coverage" as "repositories with coverage data from the latest merged pull request" — the old metrics-adapter mechanism. This new page documents the newer engine-driven coverage-status state machine, which isn't wired into that metric yet (migration is OD-50 / OD-48, both still in Linear backlog). The two pages describe different mechanisms for the same underlying question and aren't reconciled in this PR — flagging it for your call on whether/how to align them, rather than resolving it unilaterally.

Related: none of the UI-facing pieces that would let a user actually see this status (the "waiting for coverage" banner, gate warnings, repository list filter) have shipped yet either (OD-47, OD-49, OD-51). The page is scoped to the status definitions only — no claims about where it surfaces in the product.

Checks run

• mkdocs build --strict — passes (only pre-existing, unrelated warnings)
• nav: entry confirmed by eye
• Linked target files confirmed to exist (repositories/coverage.md, coverage-reporter/index.md, faq/code-analysis/why-does-codacy-show-unexpected-coverage-changes.md)
• Vale — not run (not installed in this environment); advisory only per repo convention

Test plan

• Confirm the page appears under Repositories on Codacy in the built site nav
• Confirm reviewers are comfortable publishing ahead of the OD-47/48/49/50/51 backlog work landing

[github-actions]

Overall readability score: 53.9 (🟢 +0.05)

File	Readability
why-does-codacy-show-unexpected-coverage-changes.md	65.49 (🟢 +0.19)
which-metrics-does-codacy-calculate.md	61.38 (🔴 -0.02)
how-does-codacy-determine-if-a-repository-has-coverage.md	66.21 (-)

View detailed metrics

🟢 - Shows an increase in readability
🔴 - Shows a decrease in readability

File	Readability	FRE	GF	ARI	CLI	DCRS
why-does-codacy-show-unexpected-coverage-changes.md	65.49	52.6	9.95	11.8	11.31	6.14
	🟢 +0.19	🟢 +0.21	🟢 +0.07	🟢 +0	🟢 +0	🟢 +0.01
which-metrics-does-codacy-calculate.md	61.38	38.52	9.44	11.6	12.58	6.5
	🔴 -0.02	🟢 +0	🔴 -0.01	🟢 +0	🟢 +0	🟢 +0
how-does-codacy-determine-if-a-repository-has-coverage.md	66.21	40.45	8.44	10.3	11.71	6.6
	-	-	-	-	-	-

Averages:

	Readability	FRE	GF	ARI	CLI	DCRS
Average	53.9	42.9	10.94	12.38	12.3	8.02
	🟢 +0.05	🔴 -0.01	🟢 +0.01	🟢 +0.01	🟢 +0	🟢 +0.01

View metric targets

Metric	Range	Ideal score
Flesch Reading Ease	100 (very easy read) to 0 (extremely difficult read)	60
Gunning Fog	6 (very easy read) to 17 (extremely difficult read)	8 or less
Auto. Read. Index	6 (very easy read) to 14 (extremely difficult read)	8 or less
Coleman Liau Index	6 (very easy read) to 17 (extremely difficult read)	8 or less
Dale-Chall Readability	4.9 (very easy read) to 9.9 (extremely difficult read)	6.9 or less

[codacy-production]

Up to standards ✅

🟢 Issues 0 issues

Results:
0 new issues

View in Codacy

AI Reviewer: first review requested successfully. AI can make mistakes. Always validate suggestions.

_{TIP This summary will be updated as you push new changes.}

[codacy-production]

Pull Request Overview

This documentation update follows the required structural layout and passes automated quality checks, but it contains technical inaccuracies and alignment risks. The definitions provided for 'Waiting for coverage' and 'Stopped receiving coverage' are inaccurate as they rely on the historical activity of the default branch rather than a single 'most recent commit.' There is also a conflict with existing documentation in 'organization-overview.md' and the inclusion of UI features that have not yet been released. These issues should be addressed to ensure the documentation is accurate and consistent before being merged.

About this PR

• The documentation refers to UI elements (status banners and filters) that are currently unreleased. Consider adding a 'Beta' disclaimer or delaying the release of this page to align with the product launch to avoid user confusion.
• The coverage status definitions introduced here contradict existing documentation in 'organizations/reporting/organization-overview.md'. Please ensure these pages are synchronized to provide consistent information about how metrics are calculated.

Test suggestions

• Verify that the new 'Repository coverage status' page is correctly registered in mkdocs.yml and appears in the site navigation.\n- [ ] Verify that all internal links to 'coverage.md', 'coverage-reporter/index.md', and the FAQ page resolve correctly.

Prompt proposal for missing tests

Consider implementing these tests if applicable:
1. Verify that the new 'Repository coverage status' page is correctly registered in mkdocs.yml and appears in the site navigation.\n- [ ] Verify that all internal links to 'coverage.md', 'coverage-reporter/index.md', and the FAQ page resolve correctly.

_{TIP Improve review quality by adding custom instructions
TIP How was this review? Give us feedback}

[LipeGheno]

Moved to Troubleshooting and FAQs → Code analysis

Re-checked placement against .claude/reference/information-architecture.md and the docs-review-structure process. Repositories on Codacy turned out to be the wrong section — every other page there (Dashboard, Commits, Files, Issues, Coverage, Pull requests) documents an actual product page verbatim; this page is a concept explainer, which doesn't match that pattern.

Moved to faq/code-analysis/, next to its closest sibling why-does-codacy-show-unexpected-coverage-changes.md, and renamed to how-does-codacy-determine-if-a-repository-has-coverage.md to match that section's question-style titles (Which metrics does Codacy calculate?, Why does Codacy show unexpected coverage changes?, etc.). Added cross-links from both that page and which-metrics-does-codacy-calculate.md.

No redirect needed — the page never merged, so the URL never went live.

mkdocs build --strict passes clean; verified the moved page's links resolve correctly in the built HTML.