Skip to content

docs: fix inaccuracies found during the README rewrite - #235

Merged
ThomasK33 merged 5 commits into
mainfrom
docs-accuracy-fixes
Sep 24, 2026
Merged

ThomasK33 merged 5 commits into
mainfrom
docs-accuracy-fixes

Conversation

@ThomasK33

@ThomasK33 ThomasK33 commented Sep 24, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Fixes pre-existing inaccuracies found while rewriting the docs in #234. Follow-up to #234 (merged).

Verification tier: verified against source for every item.

  1. requestTimeoutMs: the agent options table called it a "per‑turn time budget". It bounds each server segment, not the whole call (packages/agent/src/agent/coder-agent.ts option doc, and the README's Timeouts section). The table now says "per‑segment … not per call".
  2. Provider "Why": "developers never handle raw provider keys" is true only in centralized mode (the default). The paragraph now says so, and notes that in BYOK mode developers supply their own upstream key.
  3. release-please-ai: said there was "nothing for the model to get factually wrong". The AI-written summary and Highlights, including the linked PR numbers, are not checked against commits (src/prompt.ts, src/generate.ts). It now says they can be wrong, and that release-please's own output cannot be changed by them.
  4. Snippets that didn't compile: five new CoderAgent({ /* … */ }) placeholders omitted the required organizationId. They now pass it; all five typecheck (negative control: the old placeholders fail with TS2345).
  5. Links broken in installed packages: links to paths not shipped in npm packages (examples/, src/, sibling packages) are now absolute GitHub URLs. (Shipping docs/ itself moved into docs: rewrite READMEs for readability and split long guides into docs/ #234.)

Validation: pnpm check passes; the link and anchor checker finds 0 broken links.


Generated with xum • Model: anthropic:claude-opus-5-5 • Thinking: high

@ThomasK33

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@codex review

@ThomasK33

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@codex security review

@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Sep 24, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review Status Commit Review trigger
📝 Code Review ✅ Completed 2026-09-24T10:45:56.930830Z 9059b1f Manual request
🔒 Security Review ✅ Completed 2026-09-24T10:46:44.869888Z 9059b1f Manual request
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

@ThomasK33

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@codex review

@ThomasK33

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@codex security review

@chatgpt-codex-connector

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. What shall we delve into next?

Reviewed commit: 2aaca3113c

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

@chatgpt-codex-connector

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🛡️ Codex Security Review

Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 2aaca3113c

View security finding report

Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex.

ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHub

This is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:

  • You comment "@codex security review"
  • A regular code review gets triggered (for example, "@codex review" or when a PR is opened), and you’re opted in so security review runs alongside code review

Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found.

Base automatically changed from docs-ahhh to main September 24, 2026 10:42
… options table

Change-Id: I50985e9036cea8902da623b88ca11627f598152d
Signed-off-by: Thomas Kosiewski <tk@coder.com>
Change-Id: Id4788263c585a6e546dcf147cdb815ade7b60ca1
Signed-off-by: Thomas Kosiewski <tk@coder.com>
Change-Id: I0cc8cb86b7a37a70b94cad70cf728df7d3d220de
Signed-off-by: Thomas Kosiewski <tk@coder.com>
Change-Id: Iddfe1960280de6f659bf0ecea1154e02d8b31474
Signed-off-by: Thomas Kosiewski <tk@coder.com>
Change-Id: I81b536bd2918a3c85f87d280f7e9bcd057634a66
Signed-off-by: Thomas Kosiewski <tk@coder.com>
@ThomasK33

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@codex review

@ThomasK33

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@codex security review

@chatgpt-codex-connector

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Keep them coming!

Reviewed commit: 9059b1fe00

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

@chatgpt-codex-connector

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🛡️ Codex Security Review

Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 9059b1fe00

View security finding report

Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex.

ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHub

This is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:

  • You comment "@codex security review"
  • A regular code review gets triggered (for example, "@codex review" or when a PR is opened), and you’re opted in so security review runs alongside code review

Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found.

@ThomasK33
ThomasK33 added this pull request to the merge queue Sep 24, 2026
Merged via the queue into main with commit f91e7d0 Sep 24, 2026
7 checks passed
@ThomasK33
ThomasK33 deleted the docs-accuracy-fixes branch September 24, 2026 10:50
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant