docs(route-issue): simplify page, picker description + template comments by dkastl · Pull Request #61 · geolonia/.github

dkastl · 2026-06-12T00:40:10Z

Simplifies all user-facing route-issue text to the adopter's perspective.

docs/workflows/route-issue.md, workflow-templates/route-issue.properties.json (picker description), and workflow-templates/route-issue.yml (inline comments).

Removed: dispatch-to-central explanation + flow diagram, preview-API note, token/secret names, and hardcoded department/project names (Operations/Security/Design).

Kept: what it does, how to add it (picker, default branch), the exclusive_routing option, and short troubleshooting.

The SHA pin in the template is unchanged (pinact stays green); routing config and the Design board stay in geolonia-operations.

Summary by CodeRabbit

Documentation
- Updated issue auto-routing workflow documentation to clarify opt-in behavior through organization Department field configuration.
- Simplified routing option descriptions to better explain exclusive vs. additive routing modes.
- Streamlined requirements and troubleshooting guidance for improved clarity.

Trim the page to what an adopting maintainer needs: what it does, how to add it, the exclusive_routing option, requirements, and short troubleshooting. Drop the dispatch-to-central internals, flow diagram, preview-API note, token/secret names, and hardcoded project/department names.

coderabbitai · 2026-06-12T00:40:21Z

Warning

Review limit reached

@dkastl, we couldn't start this review because you've reached your PR review rate limit.

More reviews will be available in 7 minutes. Learn how PR review limits work.

Your organization has run out of usage credits. Purchase more credits in the billing tab to continue.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit.

🚦 How do rate limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization.

Our paid plans include higher PR review limits than trial, open-source, and free plans. In all cases, reviews become available again over time. During sustained high-volume PR review activity, CodeRabbit may temporarily slow when the next review becomes available.

Please see our Fair Usage Limits Policy for further information.

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Run ID: ed62a7e8-da38-4b37-a2ff-7c7db344d10a

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between beaf9be and 998a117.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

docs/workflows/route-issue.md

Walkthrough

Updated docs/workflows/route-issue.md to clarify the route-issue workflow as a repo opt-in model triggered by setting the org Department field, tightened the exclusive_routing option documentation, and consolidated lengthy explanation into focused Requirements and Troubleshooting sections.

Changes

Route-issue workflow documentation update

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Documentation updates for repo opt-in routing model `docs/workflows/route-issue.md`, `workflow-templates/route-issue.properties.json`, `workflow-templates/route-issue.yml`	Introductory description reframed from "org-wide" to repo opt-in model (Department field controls assignment to team board). The `exclusive_routing` option clarified to specify default behavior (move on change, remove when cleared) and additive behavior when `false` (add only, never remove). Prior extensive explanation and troubleshooting content replaced with concise Requirements section (default-branch and dispatch-secret access) and Troubleshooting section (department board existence and general guidance link).

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~8 minutes

Possibly related issues

geolonia/geolonia-operations#156: Both concern Department-based issue routing and the route-issue workflow behavior.
Add reusable workflow: route tagged issues to team boards (public dispatch leg) #56: Targets the same route-issue workflow/template and documentation updates.

Possibly related PRs

geolonia/.github#58: Implements the route-issue workflow semantics that this PR documents.
geolonia/.github#57: Updates workflow and template documentation for the same route-issue behavior.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly and concisely describes the main changes: simplifying route-issue documentation, picker description, and template comments.
Description check	✅ Passed	The PR description provides a comprehensive summary of changes across all three affected files, clearly explains what was removed and kept, and includes important context about unchanged elements.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

Create PR with unit tests
Commit unit tests in branch docs/route-issue-simplify

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

github-actions · 2026-06-12T00:40:22Z

Secret Leak Check

OK No secrets detected in this PR's diff.

Drop the dispatch-to-central wording, secret names, and verbose internals from the workflow-template description and inline comments. Keep what an adopter acts on: what it does, the default-branch requirement, and exclusive_routing. SHA pin unchanged.

github-actions · 2026-06-12T00:43:35Z

Secret Leak Check

OK No secrets detected in this PR's diff.

coderabbitai

Actionable comments posted: 1

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Inline comments:
In `@docs/workflows/route-issue.md`:
- Around line 45-47: The cross-reference "[Sync Team Access](../workflows.md)"
in docs/workflows/route-issue.md is pointing to a non-existent section; update
that link so it targets the correct anchor in docs/workflows.md (e.g., change to
../workflows.md#team-access or similar) or change the link text to match an
existing heading in docs/workflows.md; verify and keep the existing
"[Troubleshooting](../workflows.md#troubleshooting)" links as-is since they
already match the "## Troubleshooting" heading.

🪄 Autofix (Beta)

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
Create a new PR with the fixes

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 7a0b5f38-7eba-4eee-a5bb-e3c9fc701e17

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between f9bead4 and 2df141a.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

docs/workflows/route-issue.md

workflows.md has no Sync Team Access section, so the labelled link pointed nowhere meaningful. Reword to plain 'org-level Actions secrets' (CodeRabbit).

github-actions · 2026-06-12T00:48:38Z

Secret Leak Check

OK No secrets detected in this PR's diff.

dkastl changed the title ~~docs(route-issue): simplify, drop internals + hardcoded project names~~ docs(route-issue): simplify page, picker description + template comments Jun 12, 2026

coderabbitai Bot reviewed Jun 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread docs/workflows/route-issue.md Outdated

docs(route-issue): drop misleading Sync Team Access link

998a117

workflows.md has no Sync Team Access section, so the labelled link pointed nowhere meaningful. Reword to plain 'org-level Actions secrets' (CodeRabbit).

dkastl merged commit 0847099 into main Jun 12, 2026
3 checks passed

dkastl deleted the docs/route-issue-simplify branch June 12, 2026 00:51

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

docs(route-issue): simplify page, picker description + template comments#61

docs(route-issue): simplify page, picker description + template comments#61
dkastl merged 3 commits into
mainfrom
docs/route-issue-simplify

dkastl commented Jun 12, 2026 •

edited by coderabbitai Bot

Loading

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Jun 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Review limit reached

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 12, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 12, 2026

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot left a comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 12, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

1 participant

Conversation

dkastl commented Jun 12, 2026 • edited by coderabbitai Bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Summary by CodeRabbit

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Jun 12, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Review limit reached

Walkthrough

Changes

Estimated code review effort

Possibly related issues

Possibly related PRs

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 12, 2026

Secret Leak Check

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 12, 2026

Secret Leak Check

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 12, 2026

Secret Leak Check

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

1 participant

dkastl commented Jun 12, 2026 •

edited by coderabbitai Bot

Loading

coderabbitai Bot commented Jun 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading