Skip to content

docs: fix checks best practices examples and add skill links#10591

Merged
sestinj merged 1 commit intomainfrom
nate/more-docs-2941
Feb 17, 2026
Merged

docs: fix checks best practices examples and add skill links#10591
sestinj merged 1 commit intomainfrom
nate/more-docs-2941

Conversation

@sestinj
Copy link
Contributor

@sestinj sestinj commented Feb 17, 2026

Summary

  • Remove diff-scoping language ("in the changed code") from two examples on the best practices page that contradicted the page's own advice about not including scoping instructions
  • Delete the Conventional Commits example since PR title format validation is a pattern-match task better suited for a linter — contradicts the "Checks vs. tests vs. linting" guidance on the same page
  • Add links to the writing-checks and check skills on their respective pages

Test plan

  • Verify the best practices page renders correctly
  • Confirm no remaining examples contain diff-scoping language
  • Confirm skill links resolve correctly

🤖 Generated with Claude Code


Continue Tasks: ▶️ 7 not started · ✅ 13 no changes · 🔴 1 closed — View all


Summary by cubic

Align checks docs with best practices and make skill installation clearer. Removed diff-scoping language from two examples, deleted the Conventional Commits example (title format should be linted), and added links to the writing-checks and check skills.

Written for commit d81d593. Summary will update on new commits.

Remove diff-scoping language ("in the changed code") from examples that
contradicts the page's own advice, delete the Conventional Commits example
since PR title format validation is a pattern-match task better suited
for a linter, and add links to the writing-checks and check skills.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@sestinj sestinj requested a review from a team as a code owner February 17, 2026 16:58
@sestinj sestinj requested review from RomneyDa and removed request for a team February 17, 2026 16:58
@dosubot dosubot bot added the size:S This PR changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. label Feb 17, 2026
@continue-staging
Copy link
Contributor

Docs Review: No additional documentation updates needed.

This PR is itself a documentation improvement that:

  • Fixes contradictory diff-scoping language in check examples
  • Removes the Conventional Commits example (better suited for linters)
  • Adds helpful skill links to the generating-checks and running-locally pages

The changes are well-scoped and improve clarity without expanding scope unnecessarily.

@continue-staging
Copy link
Contributor

No additional documentation updates needed.

This PR already contains well-scoped documentation improvements:

  • Language consistency: Removed diff-scoping language from examples that contradicted the page's own guidance about automatic diff scoping
  • Example cleanup: Removed the Conventional Commits example since PR title validation is a pattern-matching task better suited for linters (correctly follows the 'Checks vs. tests vs. linting' guidance)
  • Improved discoverability: Added direct links to the writing-checks and check skills in the GitHub repository

All changes align with the documentation's own best practices and improve clarity without adding unnecessary scope.

Copy link
Contributor

@cubic-dev-ai cubic-dev-ai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No issues found across 3 files

@sestinj sestinj merged commit 89d4707 into main Feb 17, 2026
59 of 64 checks passed
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from Todo to Done in Issues and PRs Feb 17, 2026
@sestinj sestinj deleted the nate/more-docs-2941 branch February 17, 2026 17:15
@github-actions github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Feb 17, 2026
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

size:S This PR changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files.

Projects

Status: Done

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant