About WorkBuddy Central: Who Verifies These Pages and What Stays Unverified?
The About WorkBuddy Central page is written and verified by one independent developer, checked on 2026-11-10. Every claim is tested against the vendor's own endpoints or this machine's own files, under five written rules. This page names what was built here, what remains unverified, and how to report a correction.
01 /Who writes these pages?
I'm a developer who works with AI agents daily, building Skills and wiring them into real workflows. WorkBuddy is one of the tools I use, and the gap between its documentation and what a Linux user meets was large enough to write about. I keep 19 user-level Skills on this machine, and I have 87 WorkBuddy session archives here. Five of those Skills were cleaned and published as public repositories on 2026-11-11; each has a page here explaining why I wrote it, how I developed it and who should use it. I do not quote star counts or client numbers I cannot show.
I don't work for Tencent. I don't get paid by Tencent. Nothing on this site is sponsored.
This is an independent site about WorkBuddy. It is not affiliated with Tencent. It exists because the official documentation is good at describing features and quiet about the things that break. The shortest route into the material is the WorkBuddy guide home page, which states what has been verified and what has not before anything else.
The session archives are not a claim about scale. On this machine ~/.workbuddy/projects/ holds 87 session directories and 256 .jsonl files, read on 2026-11-10. Those are the records I can point to, and I do not turn them into a count of users or customers. Where I have no number, I say there is no number.
| What is on this machine | Status | How it is known |
|---|---|---|
| 19 user-level Skills | Self-reported, checked on 2026-11-10 | Local Skills directory |
| 87 WorkBuddy session archives | Present in ~/.workbuddy/projects/ | Local directory listing |
256 .jsonl files | Present alongside the archives | Local directory listing |
| Five public Skill repositories | Published on 2026-11-11 | Linked from the FAQ below and from the five Skill pages on this site |
02 /Why does this site exist?
WorkBuddy is a capable product with documentation that covers the intended path. What it does not cover is what happens when your platform is not the documented one, when an API behaves differently from the guide, or when you need the limits before committing a team. That is the space this site works in. It is not a rewrite of the manual, but the answers that fall between its sections.
Most pages here start from a real search query rather than a keyword tool. Autocomplete reflects what people actually type, and most WorkBuddy long-tail terms are not in the Google Keyword Planner yet because the product is too new. No volume data does not mean no demand; it means the tool has not caught up. That distinction decides which questions get a page, including the ones about what WorkBuddy Skills are.
This About WorkBuddy Central page is a trust page, not a landing page. It records the method, the boundaries, and the way to reach me, so a reader can judge the other pages before using them. There is no signup, no affiliate link, and no ranking of products I have not tested. If a page cannot be verified, it stays unpublished.
03 /How does a page get published?
Every page starts from a real search query, confirmed through autocomplete rather than guessed from a keyword tool. Technical details are checked against the vendor's own endpoints on the date in the page footer. Claims about behaviour come from running the thing, not from a press release. Where I do not have the data, the page does not exist yet.
A comparison page requires actually comparing. I would rather have a gap in the site than a confident page built on guesses. The Linux page verifies endpoints and package metadata, checked on 2026-11-10, and it does not claim every distribution will run the package. That split between verified and unverified is written into each page rather than left implicit.
The endpoint values behind the verified WorkBuddy Linux notes are the clearest example. A version string, a hash, and a response field are reproduced as read. I do not paraphrase a number into something more readable, because the exact string is the part worth keeping. If the value changes, the correction is dated.
| Claim type | Checked against | Boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Version numbers, URLs, HTTP responses | Vendor endpoints, 2026-11-10 | Not every platform |
| Behaviour claims | Running the tool on this machine | Not a side-by-side comparison |
| Demand for a page | Autocomplete, not a keyword tool | No volume estimate |
| Missing data | Nothing published | No guessed figure |
04 /What rules apply to every page?
The About WorkBuddy Central rules table is the short version of the method above. Each row is a constraint I hold to rather than a promise about coverage. It is reproduced here because a trust page should show its own rules. The table has five rows and no exceptions.
| Rule | What it means in practice |
|---|---|
| No fabricated benchmarks | If I haven't run both tools side by side, I don't publish a verdict on which is better. |
| No paid rankings | Nothing here is paid placement. If a page ever contains a sponsored link, it says so at the top, before the content. |
| Corrections stay visible | If a page turns out wrong, the fix is noted with a date. Not silently overwritten. |
| Dated, not timeless | Every page carries a last-updated date, and that date only moves when the page is actually re-verified. |
| Limits stated plainly | Where a page can only verify part of a claim, it says which part. The Linux page verifies endpoints and package metadata; it does not claim every distro will run the package. |
The rules are not aspirational. A page that breaks one is pulled back rather than defended. This is also why the site is small and early, and why I say so plainly. Pretending it is bigger would contradict the first row.
05 /What will this site not do?
I will not tell you the client beats a tool I have not tested against it. I will not publish a list of Skills assembled from other people's READMEs and presented as testing. I will not inflate a small verified fact into a big claim. Each of those would trade a checkable record for a sentence that sounds better.
The same limit applies to WorkBuddy Notes field records, which publish no speed or quality verdict. That page and this one share the rule that a gap stays a gap. Readers who want the shape of the local traces can read the WorkBuddy Comparison page instead. Neither page turns the absence of a test into a conclusion.
The five rules on About WorkBuddy Central apply to every other page here. A Notes entry that cannot be reproduced is held back, and a comparison verdict without a test is not written. The site stays small because of that constraint, not despite it. I would rather leave a question unanswered than answer it with a guess.
06 /How do you get in touch?
I build custom WorkBuddy Skills against specific workflows, your file formats, your rules, and your edge cases. Scope and price are discussed by email after I have seen a sample input and expected output, because two Skills that sound identical are rarely the same job. The qualifying test, a minimum project shape, and a copyable email template are on the Custom WorkBuddy Skill page. I do not quote before seeing a sample or promise a date before scope is fixed.
For anything else, including a correction, write to [email protected]. I read that address myself; there is no team or ticketing system behind it. A useful report names the page, the value that looks wrong, and the date it was checked. That is enough for me to re-run the check rather than argue about the wording.
07 /Frequently asked questions
Is this site affiliated with Tencent?
No. The About WorkBuddy Central page is written by one independent developer, and nothing on it is sponsored. Trademark ownership and the lack of endorsement are stated verbatim at the end of this page. If a page ever carried paid placement, it would say so at the top.
How do I report a correction?
Write to [email protected] and name the page, the value, and the date it was checked. A correction is more useful than a compliment, and I would rather re-run a check than defend a wording. The fix is added with a date rather than silently overwriting the old line. That rule applies to every page here, including this one.
Why is there no comparison page yet?
A comparison needs two tools actually run side by side. On this machine the traces are uneven: WorkBuddy left a full session archive, Codex left logs without threads, and Claude Code left no trace at this path. I have not run a head-to-head test, so no verdict on speed or quality is published. The gap is deliberate, not an oversight.
Where is the open-source repository?
There are five, all public since 2026-11-11: seo-dev-spec, geo-ai-traffic, presale-validation, gamesite and gaming-site-selection. Together they hold 37 files, and each was checked file by file against the local copy before publication. The rule sources are in Chinese and each repository has an English README as a guide, not a translation. The five pages on this site — SEO Dev Spec, GEO AI Traffic, presale validation, game site development and game site selection — explain what each one does and why it exists. I do not quote star counts or client numbers I cannot show.
08 /Independence and trademarks
WorkBuddy is a product of Tencent. Codex is a product of OpenAI. Claude Code is a product of Anthropic. Cursor, Trae, Qoder and CodeBuddy belong to their respective owners. None of them sponsor, endorse, or review this site.
The name "WorkBuddy Central" is descriptive of the site's subject, not a claim to anyone's brand.
If you spot something wrong on any page here, the correction is worth more to me than having been right. Send it.