De-slop: remove every em-dash + banned words across all modules + capstone (#94)

Co-authored-by: claude <claude@jpaul.io>
Co-committed-by: claude <claude@jpaul.io>

modules/10-reviewing-code-you-didnt-write/README.md

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-# Module 10 — Reviewing Code You Didn't Write
+# Module 10: Reviewing Code You Didn't Write
 
 > **The AI wrote a diff that reads beautifully and is wrong in one line you'll skim right past.**
 > Reviewing for *plausibility traps*, not just bugs, is a skill almost nobody teaches. This module
@@ -8,12 +8,12 @@
 
 ## Prerequisites
 
-- **Module 2 — Version Control as a Safety Net.** You read changes with `git diff`. This module
+- **Module 2: Version Control as a Safety Net.** You read changes with `git diff`. This module
   turns that one-off habit into a disciplined review pass over a whole change.
-- **Module 8 — Remotes and Hosting.** Your repo lives on a host now, and a change arrives as a
+- **Module 8: Remotes and Hosting.** Your repo lives on a host now, and a change arrives as a
   *pull request* (GitHub/Gitea/Forgejo) or *merge request* (GitLab): same thing, different name.
   We'll write "PR" throughout; it's the unit of review.
-- **Module 9 — Issues and the Task Layer** (helpful, not required). A PR usually answers an issue;
+- **Module 9: Issues and the Task Layer** (helpful, not required). A PR usually answers an issue;
   the issue is the "what I asked for" you review the diff against.
 
 If you only have Modules 1–2, you can still do the core skill of this module locally (reviewing a
@@ -205,7 +205,7 @@ real change, then review a diff the "AI" produced and catch the trap planted in
 - **Optional (Part A as a real PR):** the repo you pushed to a host in Module 8. If you don't have
   one, do Part A locally as a branch; the review skill in Parts B–C is identical either way.
 
-### Part A — Open a PR as a gate
+### Part A: Open a PR as a gate
 
 1. Have your agent set up the base app as a throwaway `review-lab` repo, then confirm the baseline
    behavior yourself. This `review-lab` is *separate* from the `tasks-app` you've built up across
@@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ real change, then review a diff the "AI" produced and catch the trap planted in
    automatic on a dangerous one. Once you've read it and it's exactly what you asked for, tell the
    agent to merge it into `main`.
 
-### Part B — Review the AI's diff (the real exercise)
+### Part B: Review the AI's diff (the real exercise)
 
 3. Now a teammate-who-is-an-AI has opened a PR. The prompt it was given was exactly:
    **"Add a `delete <index>` command to the tasks app."** The change is captured as a patch in the
@@ -279,7 +279,7 @@ real change, then review a diff the "AI" produced and catch the trap planted in
    that changes behavior you tested in Part A. Write down what you think the trap is *before*
    step 5.
 
-### Part C — Confirm the trap by running the failure case
+### Part C: Confirm the trap by running the failure case
 
 5. Now verify your read by running the *failure* path, not the happy one:
 

modules/10-reviewing-code-you-didnt-write/lab/ai-diff-review-checklist.md

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-# Reviewing an AI-generated diff — working checklist
+# Reviewing an AI-generated diff: working checklist
 
 Keep this open while you read a diff the AI produced. The point is not to re-read the whole
 file; it's to interrogate **the change** against the prompt you gave. Work top to bottom.
@@ -10,24 +10,24 @@ file; it's to interrogate **the change** against the prompt you gave. Work top t
 - [ ] **Read the diff, not the summary.** Ignore the AI's account of what it did; the diff is the
       only ground truth. (`git diff main..<branch>`)
 
-## 1. Scope — did it change only what was asked?
+## 1. Scope: did it change only what was asked?
 
 - [ ] Every hunk maps to the request. Anything outside it is **scope creep** until proven
       otherwise.
 - [ ] No unrelated files touched (formatting churn, import reshuffles, version bumps).
 - [ ] No "while I was here" refactors of code the request never mentioned.
 
-## 2. Deletions — what did it take away?
+## 2. Deletions: what did it take away?
 
 - [ ] Read every `-` line. Deletions are higher-risk than additions and skim right past you.
 - [ ] **Edge-case handling still there?** Bounds checks, `None`/empty guards, `try/except`,
-      validation, error returns — confirm none were dropped or weakened.
+      validation, error returns; confirm none were dropped or weakened.
 - [ ] An error that used to be raised/logged isn't now silently swallowed (`except: pass`).
 
-## 3. Plausibility — does it only *look* right?
+## 3. Plausibility: does it only *look* right?
 
 - [ ] **Invented APIs.** Every function, method, kwarg, attribute, import, env var, CLI flag,
-      config key, and endpoint actually exists. Confidence is not evidence — verify the
+      config key, and endpoint actually exists. Confidence is not evidence; verify the
       unfamiliar ones against real docs/source.
 - [ ] **Invented behavior.** It isn't relying on a flag/option that doesn't do what the name
       suggests (e.g. assuming `list.pop` takes a default like `dict.pop`).
@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ file; it's to interrogate **the change** against the prompt you gave. Work top t
 - [ ] **Inverted or weakened conditions.** `if not x` vs `if x`, `<` vs `<=`, `and` vs `or`,
       a filter quietly dropped from a comprehension.
 
-## 4. Behavior change — would the happy path hide it?
+## 4. Behavior change: would the happy path hide it?
 
 - [ ] Does any existing command/function behave differently now? Trace one real call through.
 - [ ] **Run the failure case, not the success case.** The trap usually survives the happy
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ file; it's to interrogate **the change** against the prompt you gave. Work top t
 ## 5. Decide
 
 - [ ] I can explain, in my own words, what every hunk does and why it's correct.
-- [ ] If I can't, I **request changes** — the burden of proof is on the diff, not on me.
+- [ ] If I can't, I **request changes**; the burden of proof is on the diff, not on me.
 
 > Rule of thumb: a diff is guilty until proven correct. "It runs" is the weakest possible
 > evidence; "I read every `-` line and ran the failure case" is the bar.

modules/10-reviewing-code-you-didnt-write/lab/tasks-app/cli.py

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ Run it:
     python cli.py done 0
 
 State is kept in tasks.json next to this file. The `done` command turns a bad index into a
-clean error message and a non-zero exit code — note that behavior before you review the AI
+clean error message and a non-zero exit code; note that behavior before you review the AI
 change, so you can tell if the change quietly alters it.
 """
 

modules/10-reviewing-code-you-didnt-write/lab/tasks-app/tasks.py

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 
 Same running example as Modules 1 and 2, with one addition: `complete` now validates the
 index and raises a clear error for a bad one. That explicit edge-case handling is here on
-purpose — it's the kind of thing an AI "refactor" likes to quietly remove. This is the
+purpose; it's the kind of thing an AI "refactor" likes to quietly remove. This is the
 known-good base you'll review an AI change against in Module 10.
 """