Trim the review cards' boilerplate by CamSoper · Pull Request #21920 · pulumi/docs

CamSoper · 2026-09-26T00:12:51Z

Proposed changes

Follow-up to #21908. It cuts fixed text on both review cards that repeated something else on the card, or said nothing.

Author card

"How to answer" only while something blocks. A "nothing blocks merge" card still carried the collapsed fold, which opens "Every 🚨 and ❓ item above needs one of these". Now the fold drops when the count hits zero and comes back if a finding reopens.
Shorter callouts:
- Blocking: "You = the PR author. Answer every item below before this PR can merge." followed by the reply format. "A reply without the #update-review tag doesn't count" stays in the always-visible callout.
- Nothing blocking: "Nothing here needs an answer from you. A human reviewer still approves the merge."
Shorter browser-editing hint, style-suggestion caption, and closing line.

Reviewer's guide

Footer is one line: "something look wrong? Comment @claude <your point> #update-review and the review re-checks with your input." The rest ("the ⚠️ items above are the minutes that matter", where the author's items live) repeated the TIP callout and the Waiting-on-the-author block.
TIP callout: "Check the ⚠️ items, then approve. Your approval covers only those; links, shortcodes, metadata, and verified claims were checked by machine (receipts on the evidence page). Code samples are read, not compiled."
Shorter Waiting-on-the-author lead-in and "Not your area?" hand-off line.
An empty editorial-stances list renders nothing. It used to render a heading, a caption, and "None", right under a ⚠️ line saying the stances "still need a human eye" (Show the 👀 on PRs whose branch predates the reaction helper #21918's guide). The validator already accepts an absent block when there are no records, and the evidence page keeps the extractor's record.

Old cards pick this up on their next refresh. Both refresh lanes now re-write both cards' footers from the templates. Before this, a card kept whatever footer it was first published with, so cards from before #21908, like #21760's, kept the fully expanded "### How to answer" through every refresh. The rest of the fixed text follows on the next refresh the same way.

The v2 monolith (pre-v3 PRs) keeps its long style caption and its explicit-empty stances block, because its output is pinned byte-identical by test_v2_golden_unchanged.

Testing

make test-review-pipeline passes. New tests cover:
- the fold dropping at zero and returning on reopen
- an old-format footer on both cards being replaced on refresh
- empty stances rendering nothing on v3 but the explicit-empty form on v2
- the footer helper
v3 fixtures regenerated. The v2 golden is unchanged.
Compatibility sweep against the live cards on all 31 open PRs that have v3 cards: 0 new validator violations on the cards as-is, on no-op refreshes, and on 10 refreshes that resolve and accept real findings. On Refresh CDKTF deprecation post for 2026: CDK Terrain fork, OpenTofu/Terragrunt update, FAQ #21810 and Cache registry CSS/JS bundles immutably for one year #21760 (nothing blocks), a refresh takes the author footer from 33 lines to 6.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01GKHS8qr1o8N7QkAdtHyWPz

Generated by Claude Code

Author card: - Drop the collapsed "How to answer" fold when nothing blocks merge. It opened "Every 🚨 and ❓ item above needs one of these" on cards that had none. It comes back if a finding reopens. - Shorter IMPORTANT/NOTE callouts, browser hint, v3 style caption, and closing line. Reviewer's guide: - The footer is one line: how to push back with #update-review. The rest ("the minutes that matter", where the author's items live) repeated the TIP callout and the Waiting-on-the-author block. - Shorter TIP callout, Waiting-on-the-author lead-in, and hand-off line. - An empty editorial-stances list renders nothing instead of a heading, caption, and "None" under a line saying stances "still need a human eye". The v2 monolith keeps its explicit-empty form and long captions (its golden output is pinned). Both refresh lanes now re-stamp both cards' footers from the templates (build-evidence.restamp_footer). Before, a card kept whatever footer it was first published with, so pre-fold cards like #21760 kept an expanded "### How to answer" through every refresh. Compat sweep over the 31 open PRs with v3 cards: 0 new validator violations on as-is, no-op, and real refreshes. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01GKHS8qr1o8N7QkAdtHyWPz

github-actions · 2026-09-26T00:13:18Z

Sentinel — merge gate status (preview)

Warning

⚠️ Preview mode — this check is NOT blocking your merge

The Sentinel is in preview (report-only) mode: its check-run concludes neutral whatever the gates below say, so nothing here gates this PR. The rows are informational and safe to ignore for now. It would have concluded failure.

This will be enforced in the near future. Once it is, every row below has to be green before this PR can merge. The rows are the sign-offs a merge needs — some yours, some a reviewer's or a deploy's. Tell us in #docs if one looks wrong.

1 of 5 gates would block this merge once the Sentinel is enforced.

	Gate	What it needs
✅	G1 review-ran	Nothing to do: review current at `3a6b06f7d`.
✅	G2 findings-answered	Nothing to do: every finding answered.
🔴	G3 right-approver	Needs approval from a member of any review team (pulumi/docs-blog-review, pulumi/docs-guild, pulumi/docs-marketing-review, pulumi/docs-tools) or a repository administrator — no qualifying human approval at this head (bot approvals never count).
➖	G4 infra-evidence	Doesn't apply to this PR: no changed path affects the deploy.
➖	G5 oversized-ack	Doesn't apply to this PR: not oversized.

Break glass: a member of a routing team (.github/review-routing.yml teams:) can apply review:waived, which is logged.

_{Evaluated at head 3a6b06f7d.}

A refresh already rewrote the author card's callout and both footers; the guide's TIP callout was the one piece of fixed text an old card kept through every refresh. apply-update now swaps it for the composer's current one (build-evidence.restamp_brief_orient). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01GKHS8qr1o8N7QkAdtHyWPz

github-actions · 2026-09-26T00:17:02Z

🤖 Review errored. Flip to draft and back to ready, or mention @claude #update-review, to retry.

pulumi-bot · 2026-09-26T00:17:48Z

Your site preview for commit 3a6b06f is ready! 🎉

http://www-testing-pulumi-docs-origin-pr-21920-3a6b06f7.s3-website.us-west-2.amazonaws.com

The v3 self-check refuses drafts that carry v2 section names like "⚠️ Low-confidence", to catch composer scaffolding that wasn't rewritten. It scanned the whole draft, including text quoted from the PR. This PR edits output-format.md, whose changed line mentions "⚠️ Low-confidence"; the extractor listed it as an editorial stance, the stance bullet quoted it, the self-check failed, and the review errored (run 36204219422). Any PR that edits the review docs could hit the same thing. Quoted text always renders through quote() inside *"…"*, so the check now strips those spans first. Reproduced with that stance: CAUTION banner before the fix, none after. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01GKHS8qr1o8N7QkAdtHyWPz

CamSoper · 2026-09-26T00:22:13Z

@claude #new-review

(The first review errored on a composer self-check that tripped on text quoted from this PR's own diff. Fixed in 3a6b06f.)

Generated by Claude Code

CamSoper · 2026-09-26T00:42:31Z

@claude #new-review

(Retry: the previous request was cancelled by the triage run from the same push, which then skipped.)

Generated by Claude Code

github-actions · 2026-09-26T00:46:52Z

Reviewer's guide v1 — not for the author

Tip

Check the ⚠️ items, then approve. Your approval covers only those; links, shortcodes, metadata, and verified claims were checked by machine (receipts on the evidence page). Code samples are read, not compiled.

PR author: nothing here is yours. Your to-do list is the "Author action guide" comment.

Approval needed from: @pulumi/docs-tools — any member's approval satisfies the merge gate.

Note

What this PR changes:

Review card footers: author and reviewer footer text shortened.
compose-review.py: card boilerplate trimmed and the stale-vocabulary check now skips quoted PR text.
build-evidence.py: evidence page takes over content moved off the cards.
apply-update.py and post-style-suggestions.py: adjusted to the trimmed card layout.
Tests and v3 fixtures updated to match.

The risk is a composer or evidence-builder change that drops or misrenders a finding on the published cards. The claim pipeline and the infra-domain read of the changed scripts ran; tests weren't run in this review.

Review confidence:

Dimension	Level	Notes
mechanics	MEDIUM	script changes read, not executed; rely on `make test-review-pipeline` in CI
facts	HIGH

⚠️ Check these before approving

No findings to check — but the editorial stances below still need a human eye.

Editorial stances introduced by this PR

Superlatives and comparisons the diff adds. Framing isn't fact-checkable, so confirm each is a stance the docs should take.

L340 .claude/commands/docs-review/references/output-format.md — "- Editorial stances (no verdict). compose-review.py renders a second H4 inside ⚠️ Low-confidence, before #### Style suggestions: `#### Editorial…" — comparison (found by regex)
L340 .claude/commands/docs-review/references/output-format.md — "- Editorial stances (no verdict). compose-review.py renders a second H4 inside ⚠️ Low-confidence, before #### Style suggestions: `#### Editorial…" — positioning (found by regex)

✅ What you can rubber-stamp

Facts: 1 factual claim checked — 1 verified clean.
Mechanics: no internal links added.
Style: 0 advisory suggestions left with the author; never blocking.

Pre-existing issues in touched files: 0 — details on the evidence page.

Full evidence: verification trail, investigation log, review history.

_{Review v1 · updated 2026-09-26T00:44:23Z · head commit 3a6b06f}

For the reviewer: something look wrong? Comment @claude <your point> #update-review and the review re-checks with your input.

github-actions · 2026-09-26T00:46:54Z

Author action guide v1 — nothing blocks merge

Note

Nothing here needs an answer from you. A human reviewer still approves the merge.

This PR trims boilerplate from the v3 review cards (footers, composer and evidence-page output, style-suggestion posting) and updates tests and fixtures; the review checked the changed scripts, reference docs, and the one factual claim.

Full evidence: verification trail, investigation log, review history.

_{Review v1 · updated 2026-09-26T00:44:23Z · head commit 3a6b06f}

Please don't edit or delete this comment; it's the review's record.

CamSoper had a problem deploying to testing September 26, 2026 00:12 — with GitHub Actions Error

CamSoper marked this pull request as ready for review September 26, 2026 00:15

github-actions Bot added review:triaging Claude Triage is currently classifying the PR domain:other PR touches no domain-specific path; reviewed under shared criteria only labels Sep 26, 2026

pulumi-bot requested a review from a team September 26, 2026 00:16

github-actions Bot removed the review:triaging Claude Triage is currently classifying the PR label Sep 26, 2026

github-actions Bot added the review:in-progress Claude review is currently running label Sep 26, 2026

github-actions Bot added review:error Workflow failed before publishing a review; see Actions logs and removed review:in-progress Claude review is currently running labels Sep 26, 2026

CamSoper had a problem deploying to testing September 26, 2026 00:18 — with GitHub Actions Error

CamSoper deployed to testing September 26, 2026 00:23 — with GitHub Actions Active

github-actions Bot added review:in-progress Claude review is currently running and removed review:error Workflow failed before publishing a review; see Actions logs labels Sep 26, 2026

github-actions Bot added review:no-blockers Claude review completed cleanly; outstanding is empty and removed review:in-progress Claude review is currently running labels Sep 26, 2026

CamSoper merged commit 0ca86bc into master Sep 28, 2026
19 checks passed

CamSoper deleted the camsoper/magical-gauss-rvf2iz branch September 28, 2026 18:32

CamSoper deployed to testing September 28, 2026 18:32 — with GitHub Actions Active

This was referenced Sep 28, 2026

Review loop: fix dropped forced reviews, stale labels, REVIEW_STATE gaps, and id reuse #21948

Merged

Rework the weekly digest into one scannable message wired to the SLA sweep #21952

Merged

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

Trim the review cards' boilerplate - #21920

Trim the review cards' boilerplate#21920
CamSoper merged 3 commits into
masterfrom
camsoper/magical-gauss-rvf2iz

CamSoper commented Sep 26, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Sep 26, 2026 •

edited

Loading

⚠️ Preview mode — this check is NOT blocking your merge

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Sep 26, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

pulumi-bot commented Sep 26, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

CamSoper commented Sep 26, 2026

Uh oh!

CamSoper commented Sep 26, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Sep 26, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Sep 26, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

This branch was successfully deployed

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Conversation

CamSoper commented Sep 26, 2026

Proposed changes

Testing

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Sep 26, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Sentinel — merge gate status (preview)

⚠️ Preview mode — this check is NOT blocking your merge

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Sep 26, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

pulumi-bot commented Sep 26, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

CamSoper commented Sep 26, 2026

Uh oh!

CamSoper commented Sep 26, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Sep 26, 2026

Reviewer's guide v1 — not for the author

⚠️ Check these before approving

Editorial stances introduced by this PR

✅ What you can rubber-stamp

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Sep 26, 2026

Author action guide v1 — nothing blocks merge

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

This branch was successfully deployed

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

github-actions Bot commented Sep 26, 2026 •

edited

Loading

github-actions Bot commented Sep 26, 2026 •

edited

Loading

pulumi-bot commented Sep 26, 2026 •

edited

Loading