Quiet. I think I prefer to stick with Rene's version. I see he worked on most of the adj-ku entries, and I accept that he eschewed it for this entry.

@@ -16,2 +16 @@
-<pos>&aux;</pos>
-<pos>&adj-ku;</pos>
+<pos>&aux-v;</pos>

I can see there are clearly two paths here and I'm not really fussed either way. Daijisen's handling of 可し and 如し look pretty much the same to me.
Any other views on this one?

Proposing that the adj-ku tag be reinstated - the inflections are defective but they still fit the paradigm.

The argument that led to its removal is not sound, dictionaries have it tagged as 助動 because that is the part of speech they lump any inflectable auxiliary under, they at most stick a note saying 「形容型」or something at times. Even べし and ない are listed as 助動 by kokugos, and they have the full adjective paradigm.

@@ -16 +16,2 @@
-<pos>&aux-v;</pos>
+<pos>&aux;</pos>
+<pos>&adj-ku;</pos>

Point taken. We still have some work to do here.
I see GG5 in its 如し entry has examples using ごとく and ごとき. We have them in their own entries.

@@ -16 +16 @@
-<pos>&adj-ku;</pos>
+<pos>&aux-v;</pos>
@@ -17,0 +18 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="1466920">如く・ごとく</xref>

shinmeikai lists as （助動･形ク型）, however see below
all other dictionaries give simply as 助動

it doesn't conjugate as adj-ku.  如し doesn't have a 已然形 form
如し   =「○･く･し･き･○･○」
ク活用 =「（く）･く･し･き･けれ･○」

this is a 助動詞, which we have unresolved PoS naming issues with.  we generally call them [aux-v], sometimes [aux].  it's inconsistent.  this is an issue that needs to be visited, but this shouldn't be marked [adj-ku].