Condense docs bot PR template addition - #4326
Conversation
![buildsworth-bk-app[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/3010600?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The renamed heading breaks the docs bot's deterministic extraction, so the checked publication instruction will not reach generated docs PRs. One blocking issue is inline.
Want to dig deeper?
Paste this into your agent to explore the findings from this review's Buildkite build:
Download the buildsworth logs from build 25355, then answer my questions about the findings.
Install the reading-buildsworth-logs skill to run this.
About buildsworth
Model: gpt-5.6-sol with xhigh thinking.
How to request a review: Comment @buildsworth-bk review on the PR, or request buildsworth-bk as a reviewer.
Risk labels (how buildsworth classifies risk) — buildsworth classifies risk itself from the diff. Unless repository policy already allows L2 approval, grant it by mentioning @buildsworth-bk (see approval ceiling and L2 approval grant):
- L1 — Low risk (dep bumps, docs/copy, lockfiles, small presentational fixes). buildsworth may approve by default.
- L2 — Standard risk (new UI, additive API fields, refactors). Approved only when repository policy or a verified grant allows it; otherwise comment-only.
- L3 — High risk (auth, migrations, payments, secrets, perf-critical pipeline paths). Human review always required.
| **Publication notes:** | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- If documentation must be held or needs availability language, explain what reviewers should know and when it can be published. --> | ||
| ### Public documentation |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Blocking: The docs writer's extraction step currently matches only Documentation and publication as the section heading. With this rename, PRs created from the template produce an empty PUBLICATION_READINESS, so generated docs PRs get the “did not provide publication-readiness information” fallback instead of the checked instruction. Please preserve the existing heading or update the consumer before this lands.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@buildsworth-bk I will address that in a separate PR.
pda
left a comment
pda
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I assume the downstream consumer will be updated subsequently 👍🏼
|
@buildsworth-bk review please. |
Previous concerns have been addressed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The downstream extraction update is deferred to a separate PR, so I’m leaving this as a comment rather than approving this revision.
Want to dig deeper?
Paste this into your agent to explore the findings from this review's Buildkite build:
Download the buildsworth logs from build 25545, then answer my questions about the findings.
Install the reading-buildsworth-logs skill to run this.
4 participants
Description
After internal discussion we decided it was best to condense the docs section of the PR template. No code changes here.