update docs #759
Merged
update docs #759
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Important
Looks good to me! 👍
Reviewed everything up to f235099 in 1 minute and 32 seconds. Click for details.
- Reviewed
5491lines of code in34files - Skipped
0files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
4draft comments. View those below. - Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.
1. docs/introduction.mdx:66
- Draft comment:
There appears to be duplicate information regarding setting custom environment variables. The section at lines 41–43 and the FAQ entry starting at line 66 repeat similar instructions. Consider consolidating this content to avoid redundancy. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% Looking at the structure of the document, having this information in both places actually makes sense. The Installation section provides a quick reference, while the FAQ provides more detailed information with examples. This is a common and valid documentation pattern. The redundancy here is intentional and helpful for users who might look in different sections. The comment might have a point about DRY principles in documentation. Having the same information in multiple places could lead to maintenance issues if one section gets updated but not the other. While DRY is important, strategic repetition in documentation can improve user experience by making information easier to find. The FAQ section adds value by providing a concrete example. The comment should be deleted as the repetition appears intentional and beneficial to the documentation structure.
2. docs/mint.json:24
- Draft comment:
The mint configuration looks generally correct. Please verify that the empty 'tabs' array and the limited navigation entries (only 'Docs' with the 'introduction' page) are intentional. Also, check that the footer social key 'x' is used appropriately for Twitter. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:50%<= threshold50%None
3. docs/introduction.mdx:94
- Draft comment:
Typographical suggestion: The header "How do I manage all the markdown docs" appears to be phrased as a question but is missing a question mark at the end. Consider adding a '?' for consistency with the other FAQ entries. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% While the suggestion would make the headers more consistent, this is a very minor stylistic change. The rules state not to make purely informative comments or obvious/unimportant suggestions. This seems like a trivial change that doesn't impact functionality or readability significantly. The inconsistency in punctuation could make the documentation look less professional. Having consistent styling across headers is a good practice. While consistency is good, this is too minor of an issue to warrant a PR comment. The meaning is clear either way, and this kind of minor style fix can be handled in future documentation cleanup if needed. Delete the comment as it's too minor of a stylistic suggestion to warrant a PR comment.
4. docs/introduction.mdx:102
- Draft comment:
Lexical note: In the header "Can I use CodeLayer from my Phone? Can I run claude sessions in the cloud?", the word "Phone" is capitalized. For consistency and typical usage, consider using lowercase "phone" unless there’s a specific reason for the capitalization. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%This comment is purely informative and suggests a stylistic change regarding capitalization. It doesn't address any functional or technical aspect of the code, nor does it suggest a specific code improvement or test. Therefore, it violates the rule against making purely informative comments.
Workflow ID: wflow_ltMhEXJlrWaVbl6R
You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What problem(s) was I solving?
The Mintlify documentation platform has been deprecated in favor of other documentation solutions. The docs/ directory contained 34 Mintlify-specific documentation files (.mdx format) that are no longer needed. Maintaining unused documentation creates confusion and increases maintenance burden.
What user-facing changes did I ship?
How I implemented it
Deleted the docs/ directory and all its contents, including:
How to verify it
Manual Testing
make check test- All checks and tests pass successfullyDescription for the changelog
Removed deprecated Mintlify documentation from the repository