Skip to content

Add Agent Playbook section for automated updates - #37

Merged
stefanvacareanu7 merged 1 commit into
masterfrom
docs/agent-update-playbook
Jul 29, 2026
Merged

Add Agent Playbook section for automated updates#37
stefanvacareanu7 merged 1 commit into
masterfrom
docs/agent-update-playbook

Conversation

@stefanvacareanu7

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Summary

  • Adds a new README.md section, "Agent Playbook: Updating This Repository End-to-End", documenting how an AI agent (or human) should perform a Staticcheck version bump / dependency update in this repo, based on investigation of the actual build (sbt/Scala), the doc generator, CI config, and prior bump commits.
  • No functional code changes — README.md only.

Test plan

  • Verified content reflects actual repo structure (build.sbt, DocGenerator.scala, .circleci/config.yml, prior bump commits 8ec77cd/38116a4/8175a69).
  • CI checks pass on this PR.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

@stefanvacareanu7
stefanvacareanu7 requested a review from lolgab as a code owner July 28, 2026 18:12
@codacy-production

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Up to standards ✅

🟢 Issues 0 issues

Results:
0 new issues

View in Codacy

AI Reviewer: first review requested successfully. AI can make mistakes. Always validate suggestions.

Run reviewer

TIP This summary will be updated as you push new changes.

@codacy-production codacy-production Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pull Request Overview

The Agent Playbook successfully addresses the requirements for standardized automated update procedures and architectural documentation. Codacy reports that the additions are up to standards. All acceptance criteria—including the tool architecture explanation, the definition of done, and local environment setup—are well-integrated. One correction is required in the failure modes table to ensure local troubleshooting commands are consistent with the project's build structure and syntactically correct.

Test suggestions

  • Verify that the instructions for sbt doc-generator/run and formatting commands match the existing project build structure.
  • Verify the list of files to check for version bumps (Section 2) is exhaustive based on the cited previous commits (8ec77cd, etc.).
  • Confirm the documentation accurately describes the Docker image's behavior (entry.sh exiting 1).

TIP Improve review quality by adding custom instructions
TIP How was this review? Give us feedback

Comment thread README.md
|---|---|---|
| `docs/description/*.md` explanations look stale or wrong after regenerating | `staticcheck` on `$PATH` is not the version you intended to bump to | Reinstall/verify with `staticcheck -version` before rerunning `sbt doc-generator/run`. |
| `DocGenerator` run doesn't pick up new upstream rules | The `rules` list in `DocGenerator.scala` is a hardcoded literal, not derived from Staticcheck's own rule registry | Manually diff Staticcheck's release notes against the existing `rules` list and edit it by hand. |
| CI `codacy/sbt` job fails on `check_fmt_and_compile` | Code not formatted with the project's `.scalafmt.conf` | Run `sbt scalafmt test:scalafmt sbt:scalafmt::test` locally and recommit. |

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

⚪ LOW RISK

The command sbt:scalafmt::test contains a typo and is inconsistent with the instructions in sections 1 and 3. It should be updated to match the recommended local validation command.

Suggested change
| CI `codacy/sbt` job fails on `check_fmt_and_compile` | Code not formatted with the project's `.scalafmt.conf` | Run `sbt scalafmt test:scalafmt sbt:scalafmt::test` locally and recommit. |
CI codacy/sbt job fails on check_fmt_and_compile | Code not formatted with the project's .scalafmt.conf | Run sbt scalafmt test:scalafmt sbt:scalafmt test:compile locally and recommit. |

@stefanvacareanu7
stefanvacareanu7 merged commit 9b2751c into master Jul 29, 2026
7 checks passed
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.

2 participants