Repository navigation
docs: auto-sync other with merged PRs (through 2026-10-25) - #15445
github-actions[bot] wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
![kilo-code-bot[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/2193792?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| - State which plans and billing periods a fee applies to, including whether it covers annual plans, renewals, or only new monthly purchases. <!-- id=scope-fee-by-plan scope=edit source=comment:4045668762 date=2026-09-18 --> | ||
| - Explain why a required flag or option is needed rather than only stating that it is required. <!-- id=explain-required-flags scope=edit source=comment:4046075608 date=2026-09-18 --> | ||
| - Note when items created before a behavior change, such as older links or shares, may need to be retried. <!-- id=document-legacy-link-retries scope=edit source=comment:4053112613 date=2026-09-19 --> | ||
| - Link each listed item to the source change it documents when the introduction promises such references. <!-- id=fulfill-promised-references scope=edit source=comment:4053902533 date=2026-09-19 --> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
WARNING: This re-adds rules that were deleted from main on 2026-10-17, reversing that correction.
These three added rules (same ids, same source=comment:..., same dates) are exactly the set that commit daf9e8afdf (docs: sync other with merged PRs (2026-10-17)) removed when it wrote explain-flag-purpose, link-related-reference-docs, and scope-fee-by-plan. The file's own contract (lines 6-8) says a deletion "is a correction the extraction step is instructed not to undo", and the extraction prompt's hard rules say never re-add a rule removed in the window and never add a reworded near-duplicate.
Net effect here is an oscillation with no new information: the same three September comments (4046075608, 4053112613, 4053902533) keep producing a different three-rule set every few runs, and the billing-plan-scope rule (scope-fee-by-plan, from comment:4045668762) is dropped again as collateral. That suggests the learned-through comment watermark is not advancing past these September corrections, so each run re-derives them instead of learning only from new maintainer corrections.
Worth checking whether the previous removal was intended before merging, and whether the deletion of scope-fee-by-plan (guidance to state which plans/billing periods a fee applies to) is acceptable.
| - Explain why a flag or option is needed, not just that it exists. <!-- id=explain-flag-purpose scope=edit source=comment:4046075608 date=2026-09-18 --> | ||
| - Link the relevant reference documentation when describing platform-specific actions or shortcuts so the mapping is obvious. <!-- id=link-related-reference-docs scope=edit source=comment:4044915525 date=2026-09-18 --> | ||
| - State which plans and billing periods a fee applies to, including whether it covers annual plans, renewals, or only new monthly purchases. <!-- id=scope-fee-by-plan scope=edit source=comment:4045668762 date=2026-09-18 --> | ||
| - Explain why a required flag or option is needed rather than only stating that it is required. <!-- id=explain-required-flags scope=edit source=comment:4046075608 date=2026-09-18 --> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
SUGGESTION: This narrows the rule from "a flag or option" to "a required flag or option".
The rule it replaces covered every flag/option; the new wording only covers required ones, so guidance for optional flags is silently lost even though the source (comment:4046075608) is unchanged. Unless the maintainer correction was specifically about required flags, consider keeping the broader wording, e.g. "Explain why a flag or option is needed rather than only stating that it exists."
Code Review SummaryStatus: 2 Issues Found | Recommendation: Address before merge Overview
This PR only changes Fix LinkFix these issues in Kilo Cloud Issue Details (click to expand)WARNING
SUGGESTION
Files Reviewed (1 file)
Note: no images or code are touched by this PR; the markdown image-format and memory-leak checks do not apply. Reviewed by deepseek-flash-latest · Input: 56.6K · Output: 9.4K · Cached: 482.6K Review guidance: REVIEW.md from base branch |
github-actions
Bot
changed the title
Automated docs sync — 2026-10-25
This PR keeps kilo.ai/docs in sync with features merged to Kilo-Org/cloud and Kilo-Org/kilocode. Every change below links to the merged PR it documents.
2026-10-24T07:03:19.791Z→2026-10-25T07:03:39.767ZSurface:
otherother(the explicit other prefixes are listed under other.docs). The cloud surfaces are derived the same way from the Kilo-Org/cloud layout: cloud-mobile = apps/mobile/, cloud-web = apps/web/, cloud-extension = apps/extension/, and cloud-agent = the cloud-agent packages under packages/ (packages/cloud-agent-sdk/ + packages/cloud-agent-profile/). A cloud source names its repository while a bare string still means this repository. The pages under packages/kilo-docs/pages/collaborate/ document the cloud web app (app.kilo.ai: teams dashboard, billing, SSO, adoption dashboard), so they route to cloud-web. No page under packages/kilo-docs/pages/ documents the browser side-panel extension yet, so cloud-extension lists no docs prefix..github/docs-sync/surfaces.jsoncli,vscode,jetbrains,gateway,web,cloud-mobile,cloud-web,cloud-extension,cloud-agent,otherpackages/kilo-docs/pages/community/,packages/kilo-docs/pages/contributing/,packages/kilo-docs/LEARNINGS.md,docs/other:packages/kilo-docs/pages/community/,packages/kilo-docs/pages/contributing/,packages/kilo-docs/LEARNINGS.md,docs/otherhas no source paths to rank, so it keeps the fixed reviewers @lambertjosh and @intentionally-left-nil from surfaces.json.Changes
Pending — will retry
None.
Considered, no docs change needed
(bot) Generated by the docs-sync workflow. Humans review and merge; while this PR stays open, the next daily run appends new changes here. Branch:
docs/auto-sync-2026-10-25.