README: Add validate and gather examples

[fzlzjerry]

Summary

• add complete README output examples for validating disaster recovery clusters and a protected application
• replace the older test-run example with the primary validation workflows
• link the examples to the detailed validation documentation

Fixes #362

Validation

• go test ./... with Go 1.26.5
• go run ./cmd/ramenctl.go validate clusters --help
• go run ./cmd/ramenctl.go validate application --help
• git ls-files -z '*.md' | xargs -0 mdformat --check
• codespell --skip="go.sum"
• git diff --check

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: ef53a686-a30c-4d93-8074-65e64f7ceaf3

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between e945659 and 3af5169.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• README.md

📜 Recent review details

🧰 Additional context used

🧠 Learnings (2)

📚 Learning: 2026-05-17T21:55:49.135Z

Learnt from: nirs
Repo: RamenDR/ramenctl PR: 455
File: docs/init.md:123-126
Timestamp: 2026-05-17T21:55:49.135Z
Learning: This repository does not use markdownlint for enforcement. During code reviews, do not flag or comment on markdownlint rule warnings (e.g., MD028, MD014, MD040 or any other markdownlint rule IDs) in markdown files, even if they appear in diff output or editor warnings.

Applied to files:

• README.md

📚 Learning: 2026-05-17T21:55:51.068Z

Learnt from: nirs
Repo: RamenDR/ramenctl PR: 455
File: docs/test/plan.md:209-209
Timestamp: 2026-05-17T21:55:51.068Z
Learning: Do not report or flag violations that would be raised by the markdownlint rules (the “MD*” family, e.g., MD040 for fenced-code-language). Since this repository does not use markdownlint, markdown formatting checks tied to markdownlint should be ignored across all Markdown files.

Applied to files:

• README.md

🔇 Additional comments (3)

README.md (3)

59-79: LGTM!

---

81-103: LGTM!

---

105-106: LGTM!

---

📝 Walkthrough

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Updated README examples to showcase cluster and application validation workflows.
  • Added sample validation output, report names, and completion summaries.
  • Linked to validation documentation covering report details and secret sanitization.

Walkthrough

The README replaces the disaster recovery test example with cluster and application validation examples. It adds sample command output, validation results, report names, and a link to validation documentation.

Changes

Validation examples

Layer / File(s)	Summary
README validation workflow README.md	The examples now show validate clusters and validate application commands, their output, generated reports, and the validation documentation link.

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~2 minutes

Suggested reviewers: nirs

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly identifies the README change and names the validate and gather examples added.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description directly explains the README example updates and links them to issue #362.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	The README updates address issue #362 by adding examples for the validate and gather commands.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	The changes are limited to README examples, validation documentation links, and related sample output.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[nirs]

@fzlzjerry Thanks for the PR!

[Copilot]

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.