[No QA] Create What-Concierge-Can-Do.md

[stephanieelliott]

See: https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/614349
Slack convo: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C090U774ZH7/p1774671219391169

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR introduces a new reference article for Concierge capabilities in Expensify. The article is well-structured, clearly written, and largely compliant with governance standards. It serves as a capability overview with example prompts users can try. A few compliance gaps need attention, primarily around the "single workflow" principle and heading specificity.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - The article is clear, scannable, and well-organized. Bullet-pointed examples make it easy to browse. Sentences are concise and benefit-focused.
• AI Readiness: 8/10 - Good YAML metadata with all required fields present. Headings are task-based and include feature names. Multiple "How to" and "What" headings support retrieval well. Minor concern: some headings could be more specific to improve search precision.
• Style Compliance: 8/10 - Terminology is consistent ("Workspace" is capitalized correctly, "Concierge" used consistently). No UI element referencing issues since the article is non-procedural. Cross-links use proper relative paths and descriptive anchor text.

Key Findings

Positive aspects:

• All four required YAML frontmatter fields (title, description, keywords, internalScope) are present and well-crafted. The internalScope clearly defines audience and exclusions.
• Heading hierarchy is correct: exactly one # heading (article title) plus # FAQ, with all content sections using ## only. No ### or deeper headings.
• Every ## heading begins with a question word (What, Who, How) or is task-based, satisfying the heading rules. No generic headings (Overview, Introduction, etc.) are used.
• Cross-links use relative paths, descriptive anchor text ("Learn where to find Concierge", "Learn more about Concierge as a support agent", "Learn about Concierge Expense Assistant"), and are placed outside of numbered steps. Link volume is restrained (3 inline links plus 1 in "Who can use" section).
• FAQ section is well-structured with question-based ## headings and concise answers.

Items requiring attention:

• Single workflow principle (Section 1 of HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md): The article covers questioning, troubleshooting, expense actions, report actions, explanations, and workflow improvement -- essentially six distinct capability areas. The governance rules state "Solve one primary workflow only" and "If multiple workflows are detected, split into multiple articles." The internalScope acknowledges this is a "comprehensive capability reference" rather than a single workflow. This is the most significant governance tension in the article. If the intent is a reference/index page, this may be an acceptable exception, but it should be explicitly acknowledged.
• "How to understand what you can ask Concierge to do" heading: This heading is technically task-based but the section content does not actually teach the user how to understand anything -- it simply says "talk naturally." Consider whether this section adds value beyond the intro paragraph, or if it could be folded into the introduction.
• "What happens after you message Concierge" section: This heading is compliant (starts with "What"), but the content is lightweight. It lists four bullet points that could be consolidated into the introduction or a FAQ answer.

Minor observations:

• Trailing spaces appear after some lines (e.g., after cross-link lines and bullet items with two trailing spaces). These are likely intentional Markdown line breaks but are not necessary after paragraph-level content.
• The article does not reference any specific UI elements, buttons, or navigation paths, so naming convention rules around bolding buttons and navigation instructions are not applicable here. This is appropriate given the article's reference nature.

Recommendations

1. Clarify the single-workflow exception. If this article is intentionally a reference/index page rather than a single-workflow article, consider noting that in the PR description or internalScope. Alternatively, confirm with the team that capability reference pages are an accepted article type.
2. Consider tightening the "How to understand" section. The content ("talk naturally, be specific") largely repeats what the introduction already says. Merging it into the intro or renaming to something more specific like "How to phrase requests for Concierge" with richer guidance would strengthen the article.
3. Review whether "What happens after you message Concierge" merits its own section or whether it would work better as a FAQ entry (e.g., "What happens after I send Concierge a message?").
4. Verify cross-link targets exist. The article links to four other articles in the concierge-ai directory (Concierge-Basics, Support-Agent, Expense-Assistant, Concierge-Intelligence). Confirm these files exist or are being created in parallel PRs.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/concierge-ai/What-Concierge-Can-Do.md (new file, 167 lines) -- Well-structured reference article with good metadata, compliant heading hierarchy, and proper cross-linking. Primary concern is alignment with the single-workflow principle.

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://03997ce5.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/concierge-ai/What-Concierge-Can-Do

[melvin-bot]

Concierge reviewer checklist:

• I have verified the accuracy of the article
  • The article is within a hub that makes sense, and the navigation is correct
  • All processes, screenshots, and examples align with current product behavior.
  • All links within the doc have been verified for correct destination and functionality.
• I have verified the readability of the article
  • The article's language is clear, concise, and free of jargon.
  • The grammar, spelling, and punctuation are correct.
  • The article contains at least one image, or that an image is not necessary
• I have verified the formatting of the article
  • The article has consistent formatting (headings, bullet points, etc.) with other HelpDot articles and that aligns with the HelpDot formatting standards.
  • The article has proper text spacing and breaks for readability.
• I have verified the article has the appropriate tone and style
  • The article's tone is professional, friendly, and suitable for the target audience.
  • The article's tone, terminology, and voice are consistent throughout.
• I have verified the overall quality of the article
  • The article is not missing any information, nor does it contain redundant information.
  • The article fully addresses user needs.
• I have verified that all requested improvements have been addressed

For more detailed instructions on completing this checklist, see How do I review a HelpDot PR as a Concierge Team member?

cc @RachCHopkins

[melvin-bot]

@RachCHopkins Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

[RachCHopkins]

What happens after you message Concierge
After you send a message:

Concierge responds instantly in the same chat

Should we make that "quickly"? I was demoing this in a webinar this morning and it took a good minute to respond. I don't want to set expectations that make people think it's broken.

A workspace change takes 12s but an expense coding change takes 30s. I've seen it take upward of a minute to respond or do anything.

[stephanieelliott]

Good call @RachCHopkins - 'instantly` was used pretty liberally. Edited those out!

[RachCHopkins]

LGTM!

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/RachCHopkins in version: 9.3.54-0 🚀

platform	result
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android
• iOS