Skip to content

docs: auto-sync other with merged PRs (through 2026-10-25) #15445

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
github-actions wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
+3 −3
Open

docs: auto-sync other with merged PRs (through 2026-10-25) #15445

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
6 changes: 3 additions & 3 deletions packages/kilo-docs/LEARNINGS.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ branch, so the rule is gone from its input, and the deletion itself is a correct
extraction step is instructed not to undo.

<!-- docs-sync:learnings:start -->
- 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 -->

@kilo-code-bot kilo-code-bot Bot Oct 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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."

- 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 -->

@kilo-code-bot kilo-code-bot Bot Oct 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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.

<!-- docs-sync:learnings:end -->