as we cannot detect box reliably, we should change wording of violation to something like (wording can be improved)
Comment should not be repetitive usage of '*' , '=', '#' that usually used in box like comments.

Did try this violation message, but such errors were there..

examples\resources\com\puppycrawl\tools\checkstyle\checks\todocomment\Example3.java:8: Line is longer than 85 characters (found 88). [LineLength]
[ERROR] [checkstyle] [ERROR] C:\Users\Smita Prajapati\checkstyle\src\xdocs-examples\resources\com\puppycrawl\tools\checkstyle\checks\todocomment\Example3.java:17: Discouraged usage of escaped special regex symbols. 

Have changed it to Comment uses box-like repetitive character pattern. to better fit the use-case

I have some incomplete idea.
What if we have two sections for examples. One section will be to show all properties in action and all code can be same. And another section to random useful use cases that we just share and code for it can be any, do not need to same as others.

This way:

// xdoc section -- start
// Section 1: property showcase (consistent structure)
class ExampleN {
  // same fields, same methods across all examples
}
// xdoc section -- end

// xdoc section (use-case) -- start  
// Section 2: real-world use case 
class UseCaseN {
  // whatever makes sense for this specific config
}
// xdoc section (use-case) -- end

we can have this structure as I feel it would make examples to be more readable and complex unification wont be required much. but need to discuss for below :
will both sections appear in the generated xml?
will violation test run against both?

I actually through on section in xdoc/html, that reuse the same macroses, but fully excluded from validation on same non comment AST..

https://checkstyle.org/checks/misc/todocomment.html#Examples is for same non comment AST .

And under it new section. "Use cases".
With examples of any description and config and java codes. In our case it will be https://checkstyle-diff-reports.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/7e11c64_20260222171827/checks/misc/todocomment.html#Example3-config

If I am not wrong is this what you are suggesting:

Section 1 — "Examples" (existing, same as now):
Same xdoc markers, same macros
All examples MUST have identical non-comment AST
XdocsExamplesAstConsistencyTest validates this section
Example: https://checkstyle.org/checks/misc/todocomment.html#Examples

Section 2 — "Use Cases" (new):
New section in the HTML page, below Examples
Uses same macros/rendering pipeline , just a new heading
BUT fully excluded from XdocsExamplesAstConsistencyTest
Any code structure, any config, no consistency requirement
Example: https://checkstyle-diff-reports.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/7e11c64_20260222171827/checks/misc/todocomment.html#Example3-config

So from implementation perspective:
No new xdoc markers needed in Java files
New section heading in the .xml doc file
XdocsExamplesAstConsistencyTest gets a new set like USE_CASE_EXAMPLES that are excluded from validation
Same rendering, just organized differently on the page

Yes, you got it.
Just new title of section, below it examples from real life.

If you agree and no problems you see, we can create separate issue and do it later.

This PR we will merge as is for now

Yes, we can create a separate issue for this.

My only concern is whether we should first finish the long-running suppression issue #18435 and then introduce this new "Use Cases" section approach, or handle both in parallel since this would also reduce the need for many suppressions and AST consistency workarounds.

Please create new issue, as agreement point.
We will finish suppression list first, and we will keep in mind that some examples just need to be moved to "Use cases", so should not be forced on same AST

For example this example will be in that group for sure.
So as we proceed on examples we will move what we noticed to to new group of suppression under comment " until ((new issue))"

#18435
Done

Please put here search link as others have

I tried adding the search link but it causes XdocsPagesTest to fail with "too many config links" for the 4.8.6.1 row. The test only allows one config link per module entry

[ERROR] Failures: 
[ERROR]   XdocsPagesTest.testAllStyleRules:1962->validateStyleModules:2094->validateChapterWiseTesting:2198 google_style.xml rule '4.8.6.1 Block comment style' module 'BoxComments' has too many config links
[INFO] 
[ERROR] Tests run: 6000, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 2
[IN. 

Ok, please revert back and create new issue on this nuance, to let us improve separately.