docs: replace removed whatcms_scan with web_technologies_scan

[StarDustNova-57]

Fix outdated documentation

The whatcms_scan module is no longer available, but it is still referenced in the Usage.md examples.

This PR replaces the outdated example with the web_technologies_scan module, which is currently available and provides similar functionality.

Changes made

• Removed usage of whatcms_scan
• Updated example to use web_technologies_scan

This improves accuracy and prevents confusion for new users.

[coderabbitai]

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Updated command examples section with new web technologies scanning example, replacing previous API-based scanning guidance to reflect current documentation.

Walkthrough

Documentation was updated to replace a WhatCMS scanning example with a Web Technologies Scan example against eng.uber.com. The change removes API key references and module-specific arguments from the command example guidance.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Documentation Examples docs/Usage.md	Replaced WhatCMS scanning example with Web Technologies Scan example, removing API key guidance and module-specific arguments.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately summarizes the main change: replacing the outdated whatcms_scan documentation with web_technologies_scan.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description is clearly related to the changeset, explaining why whatcms_scan was replaced and what the new example uses.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

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

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

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

[coderabbitai]

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

docs/Usage.md (1)

337-339: Add language identifier to code fence.

The command example correctly demonstrates web_technologies_scan usage without requiring an API key. However, the code fence should specify a language identifier for better rendering and consistency with other examples in the file.

📝 Proposed fix to add language identifier

-```
+```bash
 python nettacker.py -i eng.uber.com -m web_technologies_scan

</details>

<details>
<summary>🤖 Prompt for AI Agents</summary>

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In @docs/Usage.md around lines 337 - 339, Update the code fence around the
example command "python nettacker.py -i eng.uber.com -m web_technologies_scan"
to include a language identifier (e.g., bash) so the fenced block becomes
bash ... for consistent rendering with other examples; ensure only the
fence markers are modified and the command text remains unchanged.

</details>

</blockquote></details>

</blockquote></details>

<details>
<summary>🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents</summary>

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

Nitpick comments:
In @docs/Usage.md:

• Around line 337-339: Update the code fence around the example command "python
  nettacker.py -i eng.uber.com -m web_technologies_scan" to include a language
  identifier (e.g., bash) so the fenced block becomes bash ... for
  consistent rendering with other examples; ensure only the fence markers are
  modified and the command text remains unchanged.

</details>

---

<details>
<summary>ℹ️ Review info</summary>

<details>
<summary>⚙️ Run configuration</summary>

**Configuration used**: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

**Review profile**: CHILL

**Plan**: Pro

**Run ID**: `cc4365ca-7d53-416f-9fbe-db33b8636096`

</details>

<details>
<summary>📥 Commits</summary>

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 74c2217473c710918a5eb60165bd0161fee183cb and 833440185e95b4e8a2aba2c1ffc524425cd8635e.

</details>

<details>
<summary>📒 Files selected for processing (1)</summary>

* `docs/Usage.md`

</details>

</details>

<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit for review status -->

[securestep9]

@coderabbitai remember to flag and report duplicate/conflicting PRs

[coderabbitai]

Tip

For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes.

🧩 Analysis chain

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# List all open PRs and check for ones that might touch Usage.md or related docs
gh pr list --repo OWASP/Nettacker --state open --limit 50 --json number,title,author,createdAt,files,headRefName

# Check commits in PR `#1499` for signatures
gh pr view 1499 --repo OWASP/Nettacker --json commits,body,author

# Search for any PRs mentioning whatcms or web_technologies in title or body
gh pr list --repo OWASP/Nettacker --state open --search "whatcms OR web_technologies OR Usage.md" --json number,title,author,headRefName

# Check files changed in PR `#1499`
gh pr view 1499 --repo OWASP/Nettacker --json files

Length of output: 40200

---

@securestep9 — Here is the full duplicate/conflict and pre-merge analysis for PR #1499:

---

⚠️ Duplicate PR — Flag for Maintainers

PR #1499 ("docs: replace removed whatcms_scan with web_technologies_scan") is a direct duplicate of two other open PRs that address the identical issue in docs/Usage.md:

PR	Author	Title	Files Changed	Date
#1413	@dhruv7539	docs: replace removed whatcms_scan examples	docs/Usage.md (+4/-4)	Mar 16, 2026
#1433	@swethas274	docs: remove stale whatcms_scan references from docs and locale files	docs/Usage.md + 5 locale files (+4/-5+more)	Mar 21, 2026

PR #1499 (+2/-3 in docs/Usage.md) is strictly narrower in scope than both of those PRs. PR #1433 is also broader, additionally fixing stale whatcms_scan references in locale files (en.yaml, hi.yaml, bn.yaml, pt-br.yaml, uz.yaml).

---

❌ Pre-Merge Check Failures

1. Unsigned commits — @StarDustNova-57, the commit contains a Signed-off-by: DCO trailer in the message body, but this is not a cryptographic commit signature. Per project requirements, all commits must be digitally signed with a GPG or SSH key. This PR fails pre-merge checks. Please see GitHub's guide on signing commits.

2. PR template non-compliance — The PR description does not follow the required .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md. Missing:

• ❌ Linked issue under "Proposed change"
• ❌ "Type of change" section with exactly one checkbox
• ❌ Full 11-item "Checklist" (including make pre-commit, make test, sole authorship confirmation, no unreviewed AI output, etc.)

3. Contribution farming indicators — Trivial cosmetic doc change (2 additions, 3 deletions), no linked issue, and duplicates two already-open PRs on the same topic.

---

Recommendation: Close PR #1499 as a duplicate of #1413 and #1433. If the author wants to contribute, they should engage with one of the existing PRs or address a unique, issue-linked problem.

---

✏️ Learnings added

Learnt from: securestep9
URL: https://github.com/OWASP/Nettacker/pull/1499

Timestamp: 2026-04-04T10:12:27.379Z
Learning: When reviewing PRs in OWASP/Nettacker, always search open PRs for duplicates or conflicts by checking other open PRs that modify the same files or address the same topic. Report all duplicate PRs to maintainers, identify which PR is broader/older, and recommend closing the narrower/newer duplicate. Flag duplicate PRs alongside other pre-merge check failures (unsigned commits, PR template non-compliance, contribution farming).

Note: Learnings are effective only in the context of similar code segments. To apply general coding guidelines, please configure review instructions. You can manage existing learnings in the app.

---

🧠 Learnings used

Learnt from: securestep9
Repo: OWASP/Nettacker PR: 0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2026-04-01T22:22:07.355Z
Learning: Flag low-value or "contribution farming" PRs in OWASP/Nettacker. Indicators include: trivial/cosmetic changes (e.g., minor README edits), no linked issue, no functional impact, no tests, content that duplicates existing documentation, and first-time contributors making only superficial changes. Such PRs should be flagged to maintainers and the author asked to provide a linked issue and full PR template compliance before the PR is considered for merge.

---

Learnt from: securestep9
Repo: OWASP/Nettacker PR: 0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2026-01-15T17:07:23.769Z
Learning: When securestep9 requests to check commit signatures in open PRs, always verify all commits are signed using GitHub CLI and report unsigned commits immediately with explicit notification that the PR fails pre-merge checks.

---

Learnt from: securestep9
Repo: OWASP/Nettacker PR: 0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2026-04-03T12:22:41.028Z
Learning: In OWASP/Nettacker, always verify that PR authors have a properly configured Git identity (author name should not be "unknown" in commit metadata). Flag PRs where commit author name is "unknown" as this indicates a misconfigured Git environment and should be flagged alongside unsigned commits as a pre-merge check failure.

---

Learnt from: securestep9
Repo: OWASP/Nettacker PR: 0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2026-01-13T22:48:26.796Z
Learning: When reviewing any pull request in the OWASP/Nettacker repository, always remind the PR author to use signed commits and explicitly state that the PR fails pre-merge checks if any commits are unsigned. Tag the author by username and provide instructions on how to sign commits.

---

Learnt from: securestep9
Repo: OWASP/Nettacker PR: 0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2026-04-01T22:22:07.355Z
Learning: Always check that PR submissions in OWASP/Nettacker follow the PR template at .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md. The template requires three sections: "Proposed change" (with description and linked issue), "Type of change" (exactly one checkbox), and "Checklist" (11 items including: following contributing guidelines, digitally signing commits, running `make pre-commit` and `make test`, updating docs, linking an open issue, attaching screenshots, confirming no unreviewed AI output, and confirming sole authorship). Flag PRs that omit the template as non-compliant.

---

Learnt from: securestep9
Repo: OWASP/Nettacker PR: 0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2026-01-10T14:58:54.638Z
Learning: When reviewing a pull request, always analyze other open PRs in the repository to identify potential conflicts, such as duplicate changes to the same files, overlapping features, or merge conflicts. Use GitHub CLI to search for related PRs by file changes, keywords, or linked issues.

---

Learnt from: Gauravsharma2040
Repo: OWASP/Nettacker PR: 0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2026-03-18T18:37:47.395Z
Learning: In PR `#1420` (OWASP/Nettacker, by Gauravsharma2040, branch fix-main.js), the crawler results pagination fix was intentionally excluded from scope. The decision was documented by the author: full rectification requires backend changes in nettacker/database/db.py and nettacker/api/engine.py (0-based vs 1-based offset, also addressed in PR `#1294` by kwei-zhang). PR `#1420` only fixes/cleans bugs within nettacker/web/static/js/main.js itself.

[StarDustNova-57]

Thanks for the feedback!
Closing this PR to avoid conflicts with my newer PR (#1503), which contains improved documentation changes.
Appreciate the guidance!