docs: refresh v0.0.63 release docs#5244
Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThis PR is a documentation-only update for NemoClaw v0.0.63, covering managed vLLM interactive model selection, the new gateway authentication security layer, build-fingerprint-based upgrade detection, snapshot configuration preservation, Slack validation and Socket Mode semantics, expanded troubleshooting guidance, contributor docs skill updates, and v0.0.63 release highlights. ChangesDocumentation Updates for NemoClaw v0.0.63
Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~12 minutes Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
|
🌿 Preview your docs: https://nvidia-preview-pr-5244.docs.buildwithfern.com/nemoclaw |
E2E Advisor RecommendationRequired E2E: None Full advisor summaryE2E Recommendation AdvisorBase: Required E2E
Optional E2E
New E2E recommendations
|
Vitest E2E Scenario RecommendationRequired Vitest E2E scenarios: None Full Vitest E2E advisor summaryVitest E2E Scenario AdvisorBase: Required Vitest E2E scenarios
Optional Vitest E2E scenarios
Relevant changed files
|
|
Auto-sync is disabled for draft pull requests in this repository. Workflows must be run manually. Contributors can view more details about this message here. |
PR Review AdvisorFindings: 0 needs attention, 2 worth checking, 0 nice ideas Review findings🛠️ Needs attention
🔎 Worth checking
🌱 Nice ideas
Consider writing more tests for
Since last review detailsCurrent findings:
This is an automated advisory review. A human maintainer must make the final merge decision. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 5
Caution
Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.
⚠️ Outside diff range comments (4)
.agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-configure-security/references/best-practices.md (1)
1-1:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick winAdd the required SPDX header at the top of the Markdown file.
The file is missing the required SPDX copyright and license header comments.
As per coding guidelines: "All source files must include an SPDX license header ... (use HTML comments for Markdown)."Suggested header block
+<!-- SPDX-FileCopyrightText: Copyright (c) 2026 NVIDIA CORPORATION & AFFILIATES. All rights reserved. --> +<!-- SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 --> + # NemoClaw Security Best Practices: Controls, Risks, and Posture Profiles🤖 Prompt for 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. In @.agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-configure-security/references/best-practices.md at line 1, Add the required SPDX copyright and license header as HTML comments at the very top of the Markdown file (before the title line "# NemoClaw Security Best Practices: Controls, Risks, and Posture Profiles"); include the SPDX short identifier (e.g., "SPDX-FileCopyrightText" and "SPDX-License-Identifier") per the coding guidelines so the file contains the standard SPDX header block in HTML comment form.Source: Coding guidelines
.agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-reference/references/commands.md (1)
1-1:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick winMissing SPDX header in Markdown source.
Add the required SPDX copyright and license HTML comments at the top of the file.
As per coding guidelines: "All source files must include an SPDX license header ... (use HTML comments for Markdown)."
🤖 Prompt for 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. In @.agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-reference/references/commands.md at line 1, Add the required SPDX header HTML comments to the top of the Markdown file by inserting an SPDX copyright comment and an SPDX license identifier comment as HTML comments before the existing content in .agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-reference/references/commands.md (e.g., add an <!-- SPDX-FileCopyrightText: ... --> line and an <!-- SPDX-License-Identifier: ... --> line immediately above the "# NemoClaw CLI Commands Reference" heading).Source: Coding guidelines
.agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-reference/references/troubleshooting.md (1)
1-1:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick winSPDX header is required and currently missing.
Please prepend the mandated SPDX HTML comments to this Markdown file.
As per coding guidelines: "All source files must include an SPDX license header ... (use HTML comments for Markdown)."
🤖 Prompt for 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. In @.agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-reference/references/troubleshooting.md at line 1, Prepend the required SPDX HTML comment header to the top of the Markdown file by adding a single HTML comment that includes the SPDX-License-Identifier (e.g., "SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT") and the copyright/ownership line as required by our guidelines; ensure this comment is the very first content in troubleshooting.md so the file complies with the "All source files must include an SPDX license header" rule.Source: Coding guidelines
.agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-overview/references/release-notes.md (1)
1-1:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick winMissing SPDX license header.
This file is missing the required SPDX license header. As per coding guidelines, all Markdown files must include an SPDX license header. For Markdown files, use HTML comments:
<!-- SPDX-FileCopyrightText: Copyright (c) 2026 NVIDIA CORPORATION & AFFILIATES. All rights reserved. --> <!-- SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 -->Since this is an autogenerated file, update the generation script (
scripts/docs-to-skills.py) to include this header.🤖 Prompt for 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. In @.agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-overview/references/release-notes.md at line 1, Add the required SPDX HTML comment header to autogenerated Markdown by updating the generator in scripts/docs-to-skills.py so it prepends the two lines <!-- SPDX-FileCopyrightText: Copyright (c) 2026 NVIDIA CORPORATION & AFFILIATES. All rights reserved. --> and <!-- SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 --> to output files (e.g., the generated release-notes.md in .agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-overview/references/); modify the markdown-emitting function (the routine that writes or returns the release notes content) to insert these lines at the top before writing the file so all generated .md files include the SPDX header.Source: Coding guidelines
🧹 Nitpick comments (4)
docs/manage-sandboxes/backup-restore.mdx (2)
84-84: ⚡ Quick winConsider active voice.
The phrase "cannot be parsed or applied safely" uses passive voice. Per the style guide, active voice is required. Consider revising:
-If the restored config cannot be parsed or applied safely, NemoClaw stops the restore instead of replacing the generated config with an unsafe fallback. +If NemoClaw cannot parse or safely apply the restored config, it stops the restore instead of replacing the generated config with an unsafe fallback.🤖 Prompt for 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. In `@docs/manage-sandboxes/backup-restore.mdx` at line 84, Rewrite the sentence in active voice so NemoClaw is the subject; e.g., change "If the restored config cannot be parsed or applied safely, NemoClaw stops the restore..." to "If NemoClaw cannot safely parse or apply the restored config, it stops the restore instead of replacing the generated config with an unsafe fallback." Update the sentence in the docs/manage-sandboxes/backup-restore.mdx where the current line about the restored config and NemoClaw's behavior appears.Source: Coding guidelines
83-83: ⚡ Quick winConsider splitting this sentence and using more precise language.
The sentence is long and uses the informal phrase "win over." Consider splitting it into two sentences and using more precise language:
-During rebuild or restore, NemoClaw merges those restored settings with the freshly generated runtime config so current provider placeholders, messaging enablement, and gateway state win over stale snapshot values. +During rebuild or restore, NemoClaw merges those restored settings with the freshly generated runtime config. +Current provider placeholders, messaging enablement, and gateway state take precedence over stale snapshot values.This improves readability and aligns with the one-sentence-per-line guideline.
🤖 Prompt for 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. In `@docs/manage-sandboxes/backup-restore.mdx` at line 83, The sentence beginning "During rebuild or restore, NemoClaw merges those restored settings with the freshly generated runtime config..." is long and uses the informal phrase "win over"; split it into two clearer sentences and replace "win over" with a precise term like "take precedence over" or "override" so it reads e.g. "During rebuild or restore, NemoClaw merges restored settings with the freshly generated runtime config. Current provider placeholders, messaging enablement, and gateway state take precedence over stale snapshot values." Ensure punctuation and flow match surrounding documentation.Source: Coding guidelines
docs/manage-sandboxes/lifecycle.mdx (1)
240-240: ⚡ Quick winConsider active voice.
The sentence uses passive voice ("are not marked stale"). Per the style guide, active voice is required:
-Custom-image sandboxes created with `--from <Dockerfile>` are not marked stale solely by image fingerprint, so an upgrade check does not accidentally replace them with the default image. +Custom-image sandboxes created with `--from <Dockerfile>` do not become stale solely due to image fingerprint differences, so upgrade checks preserve the custom image.🤖 Prompt for 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. In `@docs/manage-sandboxes/lifecycle.mdx` at line 240, Rewrite the passive sentence into active voice: change "Custom-image sandboxes created with `--from <Dockerfile>` are not marked stale solely by image fingerprint, so an upgrade check does not accidentally replace them with the default image." to an active construction that clearly states who/what performs the action (e.g., "The system does not mark custom-image sandboxes created with `--from <Dockerfile>` as stale solely by image fingerprint, so an upgrade check does not accidentally replace them with the default image."). Ensure the meaning and flags (`--from <Dockerfile>`) remain unchanged.Source: Coding guidelines
docs/reference/commands-nemohermes.mdx (1)
1091-1091: ⚡ Quick winConsider active voice.
The sentence uses passive voice ("are not classified"). Per the style guide, active voice is required:
-Custom-image sandboxes created with `--from <Dockerfile>` are not classified by image drift because rebuilding them onto the default image would drop the custom image. +Custom-image sandboxes created with `--from <Dockerfile>` exclude image drift from upgrade checks because rebuild replaces the custom image with the managed default.🤖 Prompt for 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. In `@docs/reference/commands-nemohermes.mdx` at line 1091, The sentence "Custom-image sandboxes created with `--from <Dockerfile>` are not classified by image drift because rebuilding them onto the default image would drop the custom image." uses passive voice; rewrite it in active voice in docs/reference/commands-nemohermes.mdx by making the subject perform the action (e.g., "Nemo Hermes does not classify custom-image sandboxes created with `--from <Dockerfile>` for image drift because rebuilding them onto the default image would drop the custom image.") — update the sentence to this active-voice form or a similar active construction while keeping the meaning unchanged.Source: Coding guidelines
🤖 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
@.agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-configure-security/references/best-practices.md:
- Line 5: The change was made directly in the generated skill artifact
(.agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-configure-security/references/best-practices.md);
revert any manual edits to that generated file, update the canonical source
documentation instead, then run the documented docs-to-skills regeneration step
to rebuild the nemoclaw-user-configure-security skill so the deny-by-default
security wording is produced from source and the generated artifact remains
reproducible and consistent.
In @.agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-overview/references/release-notes.md:
- Line 47: Update the autogenerated release notes entry that currently has
multiple sentence-like clauses on one line: break the long bullet "Release
validation now runs real shell-boundary assertions through Vitest E2E support,
includes an opt-in live scenario project, shards CLI coverage, adds a docs-only
PR fast path, and trims slow CLI subprocess coverage." into separate lines so
each sentence/clause is on its own line in release-notes.md, and then modify the
generation script that produces this content to emit one sentence per line
(preserve punctuation and ordering).
- Around line 13-16: Split each bullet into one sentence per line by breaking
the multi-sentence lines into separate lines: for the bullet starting "Sandbox
lifecycle commands preserve and recover more state." put each sentence on its
own line, do the same for the bullets beginning "Snapshot-backed rebuilds
preserve OpenClaw configuration more safely.", "Onboarding diagnoses host setup
and local inference issues earlier.", and "Messaging and Hermes startup paths
enforce clearer runtime boundaries."; update the generator that emits
release-notes.md so it joins individual sentences with newline separators
(ensuring punctuation-aware sentence splitting) instead of emitting multiple
sentences on a single line, and regenerate the file so each sentence appears on
its own line.
In @.agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-reference/references/troubleshooting.md:
- Around line 91-104: This file
(.agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-reference/references/troubleshooting.md) contains
edits to autogenerated skill content that must not be modified manually; revert
these manual changes and regenerate the skill from the canonical docs generation
workflow so the content is rebuilt from source (i.e., run the
documentation/skill generation script or pipeline that produces the
nemoclaw-user-* skills), ensuring all related places (the other autogenerated
ranges mentioned) are updated consistently rather than editing
troubleshooting.md by hand.
In `@docs/about/release-notes.mdx`:
- Around line 22-25: Split each bullet into one sentence per line for
readability: break the first bullet that starts "Sandbox lifecycle commands
preserve and recover more state." into three separate lines (one for the
`rebuild --yes` sentence, one for the Docker-driver sandboxes sentence, and one
for the `upgrade-sandboxes` sentence), break the second bullet that starts
"Snapshot-backed rebuilds preserve OpenClaw configuration more safely." into
three lines (one for carrying forward `openclaw.json`, one for merging restored
config, and one for failing when config cannot be applied), break the third
bullet that starts "Onboarding diagnoses host setup and local inference issues
earlier." into four lines (one per clause about Docker group, host DNS, Ollama
auth-proxy port conflicts, and managed vLLM model picker), and break the fourth
bullet that starts "Messaging and Hermes startup paths enforce clearer runtime
boundaries." into two lines (one for Slack setup validation and one for Hermes
direct gateway launch) so each sentence sits on its own line.
---
Outside diff comments:
In
@.agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-configure-security/references/best-practices.md:
- Line 1: Add the required SPDX copyright and license header as HTML comments at
the very top of the Markdown file (before the title line "# NemoClaw Security
Best Practices: Controls, Risks, and Posture Profiles"); include the SPDX short
identifier (e.g., "SPDX-FileCopyrightText" and "SPDX-License-Identifier") per
the coding guidelines so the file contains the standard SPDX header block in
HTML comment form.
In @.agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-overview/references/release-notes.md:
- Line 1: Add the required SPDX HTML comment header to autogenerated Markdown by
updating the generator in scripts/docs-to-skills.py so it prepends the two lines
<!-- SPDX-FileCopyrightText: Copyright (c) 2026 NVIDIA CORPORATION & AFFILIATES.
All rights reserved. --> and <!-- SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 --> to
output files (e.g., the generated release-notes.md in
.agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-overview/references/); modify the markdown-emitting
function (the routine that writes or returns the release notes content) to
insert these lines at the top before writing the file so all generated .md files
include the SPDX header.
In @.agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-reference/references/commands.md:
- Line 1: Add the required SPDX header HTML comments to the top of the Markdown
file by inserting an SPDX copyright comment and an SPDX license identifier
comment as HTML comments before the existing content in
.agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-reference/references/commands.md (e.g., add an <!--
SPDX-FileCopyrightText: ... --> line and an <!-- SPDX-License-Identifier: ...
--> line immediately above the "# NemoClaw CLI Commands Reference" heading).
In @.agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-reference/references/troubleshooting.md:
- Line 1: Prepend the required SPDX HTML comment header to the top of the
Markdown file by adding a single HTML comment that includes the
SPDX-License-Identifier (e.g., "SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT") and the
copyright/ownership line as required by our guidelines; ensure this comment is
the very first content in troubleshooting.md so the file complies with the "All
source files must include an SPDX license header" rule.
---
Nitpick comments:
In `@docs/manage-sandboxes/backup-restore.mdx`:
- Line 84: Rewrite the sentence in active voice so NemoClaw is the subject;
e.g., change "If the restored config cannot be parsed or applied safely,
NemoClaw stops the restore..." to "If NemoClaw cannot safely parse or apply the
restored config, it stops the restore instead of replacing the generated config
with an unsafe fallback." Update the sentence in the
docs/manage-sandboxes/backup-restore.mdx where the current line about the
restored config and NemoClaw's behavior appears.
- Line 83: The sentence beginning "During rebuild or restore, NemoClaw merges
those restored settings with the freshly generated runtime config..." is long
and uses the informal phrase "win over"; split it into two clearer sentences and
replace "win over" with a precise term like "take precedence over" or "override"
so it reads e.g. "During rebuild or restore, NemoClaw merges restored settings
with the freshly generated runtime config. Current provider placeholders,
messaging enablement, and gateway state take precedence over stale snapshot
values." Ensure punctuation and flow match surrounding documentation.
In `@docs/manage-sandboxes/lifecycle.mdx`:
- Line 240: Rewrite the passive sentence into active voice: change "Custom-image
sandboxes created with `--from <Dockerfile>` are not marked stale solely by
image fingerprint, so an upgrade check does not accidentally replace them with
the default image." to an active construction that clearly states who/what
performs the action (e.g., "The system does not mark custom-image sandboxes
created with `--from <Dockerfile>` as stale solely by image fingerprint, so an
upgrade check does not accidentally replace them with the default image.").
Ensure the meaning and flags (`--from <Dockerfile>`) remain unchanged.
In `@docs/reference/commands-nemohermes.mdx`:
- Line 1091: The sentence "Custom-image sandboxes created with `--from
<Dockerfile>` are not classified by image drift because rebuilding them onto the
default image would drop the custom image." uses passive voice; rewrite it in
active voice in docs/reference/commands-nemohermes.mdx by making the subject
perform the action (e.g., "Nemo Hermes does not classify custom-image sandboxes
created with `--from <Dockerfile>` for image drift because rebuilding them onto
the default image would drop the custom image.") — update the sentence to this
active-voice form or a similar active construction while keeping the meaning
unchanged.
🪄 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: CHILL
Plan: Enterprise
Run ID: ab333f07-7367-49b3-8bab-fbdf3599b69f
📒 Files selected for processing (18)
.agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-configure-inference/SKILL.md.agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-configure-inference/references/inference-options.md.agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-configure-security/references/best-practices.md.agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-manage-sandboxes/SKILL.md.agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-manage-sandboxes/references/backup-restore.md.agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-manage-sandboxes/references/messaging-channels.md.agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-overview/references/release-notes.md.agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-reference/references/commands.md.agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-reference/references/troubleshooting.mddocs/about/release-notes.mdxdocs/inference/inference-options.mdxdocs/inference/use-local-inference.mdxdocs/manage-sandboxes/backup-restore.mdxdocs/manage-sandboxes/lifecycle.mdxdocs/manage-sandboxes/messaging-channels.mdxdocs/reference/commands-nemohermes.mdxdocs/reference/commands.mdxdocs/reference/troubleshooting.mdx
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
Caution
Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.
⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)
.agents/skills/nemoclaw-contributor-update-docs/SKILL.md (1)
216-216:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor | ⚡ Quick winStep numbering skips from Step 7 to Step 9.
The section numbering jumps from "Step 7: Apply Release Prep Updates" (line 199) to "Step 9: Build and Verify" (line 216), skipping Step 8. Renumber Step 9 as Step 8 for consistency.
Proposed fix
-## Step 9: Build and Verify +## Step 8: Build and VerifyAnd update the following section accordingly:
-## Step 10: Open the Docs PR +## Step 9: Open the Docs PR🤖 Prompt for 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. In @.agents/skills/nemoclaw-contributor-update-docs/SKILL.md at line 216, The heading "Step 9: Build and Verify" should be renumbered to "Step 8: Build and Verify" to fix the skipped step; update the markdown heading text and any nearby references or anchors that mention "Step 9" (search for the literal "Step 9: Build and Verify" and change to "Step 8: Build and Verify") so it follows "Step 7: Apply Release Prep Updates" consistently and ensure any cross-references or table of contents entries are adjusted accordingly.
🤖 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 @.agents/skills/nemoclaw-contributor-update-docs/SKILL.md:
- Line 205: The sentence "For post-release documentation refreshes, label the PR
with the next patch release label" is ambiguous relative to the other references
to "next-patch release label" later in the doc; update the phrasing so the
policy is consistent: either (A) state explicitly that the "next-patch" label
rule applies to all release-prep work (replace the conditional "For
post-release..." in the sentence with an unconditional rule) or (B) state that
the "next-patch" label applies only to post-release refreshes and update the
other occurrences that refer to "next-patch release label" (the paragraphs that
currently read "next-patch release label") to instead instruct using the
documented version label for pre-release work; ensure you keep the example about
0.0.63→v0.0.64 and add a brief note to ask when the version is not provided or
is nonstandard.
---
Outside diff comments:
In @.agents/skills/nemoclaw-contributor-update-docs/SKILL.md:
- Line 216: The heading "Step 9: Build and Verify" should be renumbered to "Step
8: Build and Verify" to fix the skipped step; update the markdown heading text
and any nearby references or anchors that mention "Step 9" (search for the
literal "Step 9: Build and Verify" and change to "Step 8: Build and Verify") so
it follows "Step 7: Apply Release Prep Updates" consistently and ensure any
cross-references or table of contents entries are adjusted accordingly.
🪄 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: CHILL
Plan: Enterprise
Run ID: b9275dbe-99c8-4771-975e-92f702c0ca90
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
.agents/skills/nemoclaw-contributor-update-docs/SKILL.md.agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-overview/references/release-notes.md.agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-reference/references/commands.mddocs/reference/commands-nemohermes.mdxdocs/reference/commands.mdx
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- .agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-overview/references/release-notes.md
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (2)
- docs/reference/commands.mdx
- .agents/skills/nemoclaw-user-reference/references/commands.md
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- docs/reference/commands-nemohermes.mdx
| If the user invoked this skill for release prep, finish the release-specific doc work before verification: | ||
|
|
||
| 1. Determine the release label from the release version requested by the user. Release labels use `vX.Y.Z` format. For example, release `0.0.37` uses label `v0.0.37`. If the user did not provide a release version, ask for it before opening the release-prep PR. | ||
| 1. Determine the documented release version `n` from the user's request. For post-release documentation refreshes, label the PR with the next patch release label, not the documented release label. Release labels use `vX.Y.Z` format. For example, a docs refresh for release `0.0.63` uses label `v0.0.64`. Increment only the patch component; if the version is nonstandard or pre-release, ask before choosing a label. If the user did not provide a release version, ask for it before opening the release-prep PR. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Clarify whether next-patch labeling applies only to post-release refreshes or to all release prep.
Line 205 says "For post-release documentation refreshes, label the PR with the next patch release label" (conditional), but lines 239 and 261 describe "next-patch release label" unconditionally. This creates ambiguity: does the next-patch labeling rule apply to all release-prep docs work, or only to post-release refreshes?
If pre-release docs prep (documenting version n before n ships) should use label vn instead of v(n+1), make that explicit. Otherwise, rephrase line 205 to clarify scope.
Suggested clarification
Option 1 (if next-patch applies to all release prep):
-1. Determine the documented release version `n` from the user's request. For post-release documentation refreshes, label the PR with the next patch release label, not the documented release label. Release labels use `vX.Y.Z` format. For example, a docs refresh for release `0.0.63` uses label `v0.0.64`. Increment only the patch component; if the version is nonstandard or pre-release, ask before choosing a label. If the user did not provide a release version, ask for it before opening the release-prep PR.
+1. Determine the documented release version `n` from the user's request. Label the PR with the next patch release label, not the documented release label. Release labels use `vX.Y.Z` format. For example, a docs refresh for release `0.0.63` uses label `v0.0.64`. Increment only the patch component; if the version is nonstandard or pre-release, ask before choosing a label. If the user did not provide a release version, ask for it before opening the release-prep PR.Option 2 (if next-patch applies only to post-release):
-1. Determine the documented release version `n` from the user's request. For post-release documentation refreshes, label the PR with the next patch release label, not the documented release label. Release labels use `vX.Y.Z` format. For example, a docs refresh for release `0.0.63` uses label `v0.0.64`. Increment only the patch component; if the version is nonstandard or pre-release, ask before choosing a label. If the user did not provide a release version, ask for it before opening the release-prep PR.
+1. Determine the documented release version `n` from the user's request. For post-release documentation refreshes, label the PR with the next patch release label (increment only the patch component), not the documented release label. For example, a post-release docs refresh for `0.0.63` uses label `v0.0.64`. For pre-release docs prep (documenting `n` before `n` ships), use label `vn`. Release labels use `vX.Y.Z` format. If the version is nonstandard or pre-release, ask before choosing a label. If the user did not provide a release version, ask for it before opening the release-prep PR.📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| 1. Determine the documented release version `n` from the user's request. For post-release documentation refreshes, label the PR with the next patch release label, not the documented release label. Release labels use `vX.Y.Z` format. For example, a docs refresh for release `0.0.63` uses label `v0.0.64`. Increment only the patch component; if the version is nonstandard or pre-release, ask before choosing a label. If the user did not provide a release version, ask for it before opening the release-prep PR. | |
| 1. Determine the documented release version `n` from the user's request. Label the PR with the next patch release label, not the documented release label. Release labels use `vX.Y.Z` format. For example, a docs refresh for release `0.0.63` uses label `v0.0.64`. Increment only the patch component; if the version is nonstandard or pre-release, ask before choosing a label. If the user did not provide a release version, ask for it before opening the release-prep PR. |
| 1. Determine the documented release version `n` from the user's request. For post-release documentation refreshes, label the PR with the next patch release label, not the documented release label. Release labels use `vX.Y.Z` format. For example, a docs refresh for release `0.0.63` uses label `v0.0.64`. Increment only the patch component; if the version is nonstandard or pre-release, ask before choosing a label. If the user did not provide a release version, ask for it before opening the release-prep PR. | |
| 1. Determine the documented release version `n` from the user's request. For post-release documentation refreshes, label the PR with the next patch release label (increment only the patch component), not the documented release label. For example, a post-release docs refresh for `0.0.63` uses label `v0.0.64`. For pre-release docs prep (documenting `n` before `n` ships), use label `vn`. Release labels use `vX.Y.Z` format. If the version is nonstandard or pre-release, ask before choosing a label. If the user did not provide a release version, ask for it before opening the release-prep PR. |
🤖 Prompt for 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.
In @.agents/skills/nemoclaw-contributor-update-docs/SKILL.md at line 205, The
sentence "For post-release documentation refreshes, label the PR with the next
patch release label" is ambiguous relative to the other references to
"next-patch release label" later in the doc; update the phrasing so the policy
is consistent: either (A) state explicitly that the "next-patch" label rule
applies to all release-prep work (replace the conditional "For post-release..."
in the sentence with an unconditional rule) or (B) state that the "next-patch"
label applies only to post-release refreshes and update the other occurrences
that refer to "next-patch release label" (the paragraphs that currently read
"next-patch release label") to instead instruct using the documented version
label for pre-release work; ensure you keep the example about 0.0.63→v0.0.64 and
add a brief note to ask when the version is not provided or is nonstandard.
Summary
nemoclaw-user-*skills from the updated Fern MDX docs.nlook up the matching announcement discussion and use then+1patch release label.--from <Dockerfile>flag mention inside theupgrade-sandboxescommand section.Source summary
docs/reference/troubleshooting.mdx,docs/about/release-notes.mdx: Document safer stale-sandbox recovery throughrebuild --yesbefore recreating from scratch.docs/reference/troubleshooting.mdx,docs/about/release-notes.mdx: Document Docker-driver post-reboot recovery from OpenShell container labels.docs/manage-sandboxes/backup-restore.mdx,docs/about/release-notes.mdx: Document OpenClawopenclaw.jsonpreservation, merge behavior, and fail-safe restore handling.docs/reference/commands.mdx,docs/reference/commands-nemohermes.mdx,docs/manage-sandboxes/lifecycle.mdx,docs/about/release-notes.mdx: Documentupgrade-sandboxesimage-fingerprint drift detection.docs/reference/troubleshooting.mdx,docs/about/release-notes.mdx: Document the installer diagnostic for unexpected Docker daemon access outside thedockergroup.docs/inference/inference-options.mdx,docs/inference/use-local-inference.mdx,docs/about/release-notes.mdx: Document the interactive managed-vLLM model picker and non-interactive override behavior.docs/reference/troubleshooting.mdx,docs/about/release-notes.mdx: Document Ollama auth-proxy recovery and host DNS preflight diagnostics.docs/manage-sandboxes/messaging-channels.mdx,docs/about/release-notes.mdx: Document Slack validation and duplicate Slack Socket Mode sandbox handling.hermes gateway(#4975) #4981, fix(hermes): detect wrapped gateway argv #5168 ->docs/about/release-notes.mdx: Capture Hermes gateway secret-guard and wrapped-argv startup hardening in the release surface..agents/skills/nemoclaw-contributor-update-docs/SKILL.md: Record the post-release docs workflow, discussion-announcement lookup, and next-patch release label rule.docs/reference/commands.mdx,docs/reference/commands-nemohermes.mdx: Reword custom Dockerfile sandbox text so CLI parity does not treat--fromas anupgrade-sandboxesflag.Verification
python3 scripts/docs-to-skills.py docs/ .agents/skills/ --prefix nemoclaw-user --doc-platform fern-mdxnpm run docsnpm run build:clibash test/e2e/e2e-cloud-experimental/check-docs.sh --only-clidocs/.docs-skipblocked terms across generated user skillsSummary by CodeRabbit