Skip to content

Docs: scaffold plugin SDK reference phase 1#51700

Closed
dutifulbob wants to merge 0 commit intoopenclaw:mainfrom
osolmaz:main
Closed

Docs: scaffold plugin SDK reference phase 1#51700
dutifulbob wants to merge 0 commit intoopenclaw:mainfrom
osolmaz:main

Conversation

@dutifulbob
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@dutifulbob dutifulbob commented Mar 21, 2026

Summary

Describe the problem and fix in 2–5 bullets:

  • Problem: there was no repo-local plan or reference scaffold for Mintlify-native generated Plugin SDK docs.
  • Why it matters: the Plugin SDK surface is large and partly transitional, so the docs rollout needs stable navigation, stability policy, and a reviewed starting set before generator work begins.
  • What changed: synced main to current upstream/main, added experiments/plugin-sdk-docs-implementation-plan.md, added the Phase 1 docs/reference/plugin-sdk/ scaffold, added scripts/lib/plugin-sdk-doc-metadata.ts, added docs/docs.json nav entries, and linked the current plugin guides to the new reference area.
  • What did NOT change (scope boundary): this PR still does not add the generator, TypeDoc config, or generated per-module SDK pages.

Change Type (select all)

  • Bug fix
  • Feature
  • Refactor required for the fix
  • Docs
  • Security hardening
  • Chore/infra

Scope (select all touched areas)

  • Gateway / orchestration
  • Skills / tool execution
  • Auth / tokens
  • Memory / storage
  • Integrations
  • API / contracts
  • UI / DX
  • CI/CD / infra

Linked Issue/PR

  • Closes #
  • Related #

User-visible / Behavior Changes

  • Adds a new Phase 1 Plugin SDK reference section in the docs nav under Reference.
  • Adds a curated stability/category scaffold for the first reviewed Plugin SDK subpaths.
  • Existing plugin guide pages now point readers at the new reference area.

Security Impact (required)

  • New permissions/capabilities? (Yes/No) No
  • Secrets/tokens handling changed? (Yes/No) No
  • New/changed network calls? (Yes/No) No
  • Command/tool execution surface changed? (Yes/No) No
  • Data access scope changed? (Yes/No) No
  • If any Yes, explain risk + mitigation:

Repro + Verification

Environment

  • OS: Linux
  • Runtime/container: Node 22.22.0 for repo commands; git + gh CLI
  • Model/provider: N/A
  • Integration/channel (if any): N/A
  • Relevant config (redacted): N/A

Steps

  1. Sync local main to current upstream/main.
  2. Add the implementation plan under experiments/.
  3. Finish Phase 1 by adding the Plugin SDK reference scaffold, nav entries, metadata file, and guide links.
  4. Run docs-only validation.
  5. Push fork main and update the existing PR.

Expected

  • main is rebased to current upstream.
  • The repo contains a concrete staged plan for generated Plugin SDK docs.
  • The docs nav includes a new Plugin SDK reference group.
  • Phase 1 docs pages exist and docs-only validation passes.

Actual

  • Completed.
  • pnpm check:docs passed.
  • Note: latest synced upstream still fails later full pnpm check lint stages unrelated to this docs work (extensions/openai/media-understanding-provider.ts and extensions/openai/openai-codex-provider.ts import-boundary drift). I did not broaden this PR into that unrelated cleanup.

Evidence

Attach at least one:

  • Failing test/log before + passing after
  • Trace/log snippets
  • Screenshot/recording
  • Perf numbers (if relevant)

Human Verification (required)

What you personally verified (not just CI), and how:

  • Verified scenarios: synced main to upstream/main, created the plan file, created the Phase 1 reference scaffold, added nav entries and guide links, ran pnpm check:docs, pushed origin/main, and updated this PR.
  • Edge cases checked: validated docs/docs.json parses, kept the visible nav small, and kept generated module pages explicitly deferred to the next phase.
  • What you did not verify: I did not implement or run a Plugin SDK docs generator in this PR.

Review Conversations

  • I replied to or resolved every bot review conversation I addressed in this PR.
  • I left unresolved only the conversations that still need reviewer or maintainer judgment.

If a bot review conversation is addressed by this PR, resolve that conversation yourself. Do not leave bot review conversation cleanup for maintainers.

Compatibility / Migration

  • Backward compatible? (Yes/No) Yes
  • Config/env changes? (Yes/No) No
  • Migration needed? (Yes/No) No
  • If yes, exact upgrade steps:

Failure Recovery (if this breaks)

  • How to disable/revert this change quickly: revert commits f8b5d25192, 57ab43a31f, and 88e896e350
  • Files/config to restore: docs/reference/plugin-sdk/*, scripts/lib/plugin-sdk-doc-metadata.ts, docs/docs.json, docs/plugins/building-plugins.md, docs/plugins/sdk-migration.md, experiments/plugin-sdk-docs-implementation-plan.md, src/memory/embeddings-openai.ts, src/tts/tts.ts
  • Known bad symptoms reviewers should watch for: missing docs nav pages, broken internal docs links, or disagreement on the initial stability/category split

Risks and Mitigations

List only real risks for this PR. Add/remove entries as needed. If none, write None.

  • Risk: the Phase 1 scaffold could make the reviewed subset look more complete than it is.
    • Mitigation: every new reference page calls out that generated per-module pages land in the next phase.
  • Risk: the initial stability/category split might need adjustment before generator work.
    • Mitigation: the metadata file is explicit and reviewable before any generator consumes it.

@greptile-apps
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

greptile-apps bot commented Mar 21, 2026

Greptile Summary

This PR adds a repo-local implementation plan for Mintlify-native generated Plugin SDK reference docs (experiments/plugin-sdk-docs-implementation-plan.md) and includes two small upstream-unblock fixes needed for the synced branch to pass CI hooks.

Key points:

  • Plan doc: Well-structured phased rollout (Phases 1–5) covering IA scaffolding, generator MVP, TSDoc coverage improvements, coverage expansion, and optional API Extractor governance. The stability-tier classification approach (stable / advanced / legacy / hidden) is a sound guard against accidentally blessing transitional surfaces.
  • embeddings-openai.ts fix: Resolves a pre-existing naming mismatch where normalizeOpenAiModel was referencing DEFAULT_OPENAI_EMBEDDING_MODEL as a local binding while only OPENAI_DEFAULT_EMBEDDING_MODEL was imported. The PR switches internal usage to the canonical imported name and adds a re-export alias (DEFAULT_OPENAI_EMBEDDING_MODEL) to preserve the public contract consumed by manager-sync-ops.ts.
  • tts.ts fix: Import block reorder only (moves openai-defaults.js import to sorted position) to satisfy the oxfmt formatter check; no semantic change.

Confidence Score: 5/5

  • Safe to merge — a docs plan file and two mechanical unblock fixes with no behavior change.
  • The two code changes are minimal and correct: the embedding model rename fixes a genuine broken reference and adds a backward-compatible re-export alias, while the TTS import reorder is purely cosmetic. The plan doc is appropriately scoped to experiments/ and does not land any generated output or modify the public SDK surface.
  • No files require special attention.

Last reviewed commit: "Docs: add plugin SDK..."

@openclaw-barnacle openclaw-barnacle bot added docs Improvements or additions to documentation scripts Repository scripts labels Mar 21, 2026
@dutifulbob dutifulbob changed the title Docs: add plugin SDK docs implementation plan Docs: scaffold plugin SDK reference phase 1 Mar 21, 2026
@dutifulbob dutifulbob closed this Mar 21, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

docs Improvements or additions to documentation scripts Repository scripts size: XS

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant