Fix unbounded "idea to production in minutes" claim on IDP page - #21571
workprentice[bot] wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
The "Ship faster" card on /product/internal-developer-platforms/ claimed engineers go from idea to production "in minutes," an open-ended, unverifiable end-to-end time claim (idea to production has no fixed scope). Same defect class as the /contact/ fix in #21417/#21418. Replaced with a concrete capability statement consistent with the rest of the page, without introducing a number that would need customer attribution the card grid has no room for. Fixes #21568
github-actions
Bot
added
the
review:triaging
github-actions
Bot
added
domain:website
Reviewer's guide v1 — not for the authorTip This is the reviewer's guide. Work through the PR author: your to-do list is the other review comment, "Author action guide" — nothing on this card is yours. Note What this PR changes:
The wrongness that would matter here is a promise the page can't keep — a timing figure with no defined start or end point that a prospect could hold us to. The page's frontmatter and metadata were swept and the one changed sentence was assessed for factual content; it makes no measurable assertion, so there was nothing to fact-check. Review confidence:
|
Author action guide v1 — nothing blocks mergeNote Nothing here blocks merge — no open items need an answer from you. A human reviewer still approves the merge. This PR rewrites one "Ship faster" card on the internal developer platforms product page to drop the unbounded "idea to production in minutes" timing claim; the review checked the page's metadata and the replacement wording and found nothing that needs your attention. 🚨 Fix or disagreeNothing to fix — this section is empty. ❓ Questions for youNo open questions for you. 📎 Full evidence: verification trail, investigation log, review history. Review v1 · updated 2026-09-12T00:11:37Z · head commit f79fd50 How to answerEvery 🚨 and ❓ item above needs one of these before merge:
The Please don't edit, hide, or delete this comment — it is the review's record. Full mechanics: CONTRIBUTING.md §AI-assisted contributions. |
github-actions
Bot
added
review:no-blockers
|
Your site preview for commit f79fd50b is ready! 🎉 http://www-testing-pulumi-docs-origin-pr-21571-f79fd50b.s3-website.us-west-2.amazonaws.com Changed pages: |
checks_rollup counted every check run on the head commit. The API's default filter=latest is per check suite, and each workflow run is its own suite, so runs a concurrency group cancelled stayed in the list next to the run that replaced them. `cancelled` counts as failed, so #21598 showed red CI on the board, got no action, and would have failed the stamp preflight, with Sentinel green. #21569 and #21571 had the same false red. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018NheEZ1S5NJbV6FCHkHPgc
… runs don't turn CI red (#21682) * pr-review: keep resolved findings out of a send-back A judgment with no `ask` fell back to its `decision`, which is the approver's own question. On a --request-changes that meant a finding the approver had accepted or marked not-applicable went to the author as "Move the role section to its own page?", inviting a change the approver had decided against. ask_lines now skips a resolved judgment unless it carries an explicit `ask`, and no longer falls back to the card's open items once the judge step has run. --request-changes refuses a row with nothing left to ask. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018NheEZ1S5NJbV6FCHkHPgc * pr-review: count only the newest run of each check checks_rollup counted every check run on the head commit. The API's default filter=latest is per check suite, and each workflow run is its own suite, so runs a concurrency group cancelled stayed in the list next to the run that replaced them. `cancelled` counts as failed, so #21598 showed red CI on the board, got no action, and would have failed the stamp preflight, with Sentinel green. #21569 and #21571 had the same false red. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018NheEZ1S5NJbV6FCHkHPgc * pr-review: dedupe check runs per workflow, not per name The previous commit kept the newest run of each check name. Job names repeat across workflows: pull-request.yml and testing-build-and-deploy.yml both run "Install deps and build site", master's required check. A failed PR build followed by a passing --deploy run read as green, so the stamp preflight could pass and an admin merge go through. The rollup now keys on (workflow, name), mapping each run's check suite to its workflow through the Actions runs for the head SHA. A suite it can't map keys on the suite itself, which errs red. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018NheEZ1S5NJbV6FCHkHPgc --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2 participants
What
Fixes #21568
The "Ship faster" card on
/product/internal-developer-platforms/claimed engineers go from idea to production "in minutes." "Idea to production" has no fixed scope (it spans requirements, design, review, and rollout), so the claim is unverifiable — the same defect class fixed on/contact/in #21417/#21418.Change
One line, one file. Keeps a concrete capability statement consistent with the rest of the page (Components, Self-Service, Policies sections) without introducing a number that would need customer attribution — the three-card grid has no room for that. See the linked issue for the survey of existing case-study stats considered and why none fit here.
Verification
git diff --check: clean, no whitespace issuesdescriptionfield reads as intendedgit grepthis is the only occurrence of the defective phrasing left in the repo (other "idea to production" hits in blog/what-is content carry no time bound and are out of scope)🧠 This PR was created by workprentice.