Repository navigation
Conversation
A created repo should not ship a README about being a template, so the file is now the skeleton that new repos start from: what the repo is, a Getting started section linking the contributing site, a Structure map for monorepos, and Related repositories. Commenting decisions were made based on what is true of an initialized repository. Git hooks remain rendered, but instructions on updating linters do not
🤖 Bitwarden Claude Code ReviewOverall Assessment: APPROVE This PR rewrites |
![claude[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1236702?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
withinfocus
left a comment
withinfocus
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You have a bold set of expectations for the Claude instructions but the init plugin should cover us.
|
What's the latest here? |
|
Those expectations were pulled from the linked confluence doc. Doing it this way allows us to remove confluence read requirements from automated initial documentation. I don't see anything in here I'd like to change, this was draft waiting on plugins to update and those are now moving again. I'm comfortable moving this forward again, now. |
Claude Code validationResult: Pass Reviewed the one changed Claude file, Not covered: The external link on line 8 ( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💭 Some of these sections don't look like they'd meet the "information Claude always needs in every session" bar. We intentionally ask that CLAUDE.md be lean so that we don't introduce unnecessary context into every session. They're asking for details that are better suited as Skills or Rules.
Where documentation lives contradicts what the template is requiring, primarily because it "gives a second home" to much of what it's asking for. Some explicitly called out in the contributing docs.
A quick scan of bitwarden-init does not route anything to Rules or Skills, so everything gets dumped here. It doesn't appear to look for or respect README or any other docs/ that may exist and no instructions to not duplicate them in CLAUDE.md. I've not personally run bitwarden-init on any repos, and none of our existing ones appear to have used it either. If it's not updated to align with our documentation standards, I'm hesitant to suggest using this. It's just going to create tech-debt that someone has to cleanup.
In a new repo, would bitwarden-init even produce anything of value until a meaningful amount of source code is present. Someone using this template has no guidance on when to run bitwarden-init to get value from it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was able to find a few repos that used the template, and they mostly validate my concerns. Repeating documentation that has drifted, instructions that are clearly task-specific, and rules that only apply to specific files/paths. Several are pretty long too, ranging from 700 to 1500 lines, and were never reviewed by the AI team.
3 participants
📔 Objective
Ensure compliance with new README requirements from the get-go. (see documentation standards PR)
This repository is only responsible for initializing repositories in a good state, so the actual long-term requirements of READMEs are kept in contributing-docs