Remove duplicate TypeScript version guidance on JS SDK page

[workprentice]

Fixes #21595

What's wrong

The JavaScript language SDK page (content/docs/iac/languages-sdks/javascript/_index.md) explained the same fact -- that Pulumi bundles TypeScript 3.8.3 for backward compatibility but a project's own package.json version (3.8 through TypeScript 6) takes precedence -- twice, in near-identical wording:

• Under ### Languages, early in "Installation requirements": a full paragraph restating the bundled-version/compatibility-range facts.
• Under ### TypeScript versions, further down: the same explanation repeated in more detail, including the fallback-loading mechanics and the TypeScript 6/7 boundary.

The sibling Python and Go SDK pages keep their "Installation requirements" sections lean (a runtime note plus a link) and defer language-specific mechanics to their own dedicated sections -- neither has this front-loaded duplication.

Fix

Trimmed the early ### Languages copy to a single forward-pointing sentence that links to #typescript-versions (which already covers the full explanation, including TypeScript 7 guidance), while preserving the link to the SDK reference guide. No content was removed -- only the redundant restatement, which now points to the single source of truth further down the same page.

Validation

• node ./scripts/lint/lint-markdown.js content/docs/iac/languages-sdks/javascript/_index.md -- 0 errors
• ./scripts/prettier.sh --check content/docs/iac/languages-sdks/javascript/_index.md --ignore-path .prettierignore.union -- all matched files use Prettier code style
• Confirmed the #typescript-versions anchor exists on the page (the ### TypeScript versions heading), so the new forward link resolves correctly.
• No other content changed; this is a single-paragraph trim.

---

🧠 This PR was created by workprentice.

[github-actions]

Reviewer's guide v1 — not for the author

Tip

This is the reviewer's guide. Work through the ⚠️ checklist below, then approve — approving asserts only that the ⚠️ items looked right to you. Machine-verified this run: links, shortcodes, page metadata, and every claim marked verified (receipts on the evidence page). Code samples are read, not compiled.

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:

• Node.js/JavaScript SDK page: the "Languages" section no longer restates the bundled TypeScript 3.8.3 version and the 3.8–6 supported range.
• Same paragraph now points readers to the page's own "TypeScript versions" section, plus its "Using TypeScript 7" subsection, for the version details.

The risk here is a pointer that goes nowhere or a version fact that only existed in the deleted sentence — either would leave a reader unable to find which TypeScript versions Pulumi supports. Both anchor targets and the retained version detail were read on the head commit, and the page's factual claims were re-checked.

Review confidence:

Dimension	Level	Notes
mechanics	HIGH
facts	HIGH

⚠️ Check these before approving

No findings to check — but the editorial stances below still need a human eye.

Editorial stances introduced by this PR

Superlative, ranking, or comparative language the diff adds. No verdict — a page's own framing isn't fact-checkable — but confirm each is a stance the docs should take, and that no agent-written rewrite introduced it unasked.

• L83 content/docs/iac/languages-sdks/javascript/_index.md — "Pulumi recommends using TypeScript for the most consistent experience and up-to-date examples." — positioning (found by llm-holistic)

✅ What you can rubber-stamp

• Facts: 4 factual claims checked — 4 verified clean.
• Mechanics: frontmatter sweep ran; no internal links added.
• Style: 0 advisory suggestion(s) left with the author; never blocking.

💡 Pre-existing issues in touched files: 0 — details on the evidence page.

📎 Full evidence: verification trail, investigation log, review history.

_{Review v1 · updated 2026-09-14T14:19:11Z · head commit 2eac83a}

---

For the reviewer: the ⚠️ items above are the minutes that matter — the receipts for everything machine-verified are on the evidence page. The author's open items live on their own card (the comment headed "Author action guide"); while any are open, a Waiting on the author list above tracks them, and merge stays blocked until they're answered. If something here seems off, comment on the PR — @claude <your point> #update-review re-adjudicates with your input.

[github-actions]

Author action guide v1 — nothing blocks merge

Note

Nothing here blocks merge — no open items need an answer from you. A human reviewer still approves the merge.

This PR replaces a duplicated TypeScript version paragraph in the JavaScript SDK page's "Languages" section with a pointer to the "TypeScript versions" section below; the review confirmed both anchor targets exist, that no version detail was lost, and that all four factual claims on the page check out.

🚨 Fix or disagree

Nothing to fix — this section is empty.

❓ Questions for you

No open questions for you.

📎 Full evidence: verification trail, investigation log, review history.

_{Review v1 · updated 2026-09-14T14:19:11Z · head commit 2eac83a}

---

How to answer

Every 🚨 and ❓ item above needs one of these before merge:

1. Fix it — push the change. If your push lines up with the flagged lines, this card shows a 🔄 banner within a minute and then refreshes itself. No banner? Comment:

   @claude I pushed a fix for F1 #update-review
   

2. Disagree with it — say which item and why; the review re-checks with your input:

   @claude F2: <your reasoning — e.g. where the figure comes from> #update-review
   

   Either way your answer counts: the review marks the item resolved, or keeps it with a 🛡️ note for your human reviewer to weigh — it stops blocking merge in both cases.

3. Accept it as-is — you own the PR; a one-line reason is a valid answer, and your reviewer sees it beside the finding:

   @claude F2: accepting as-is — <your reason> #update-review
   

   To accept every open item at once: @claude accepting all open items — <reason> #update-review.

The #update-review hashtag matters — it routes your reply to this review, and (besides pushing a fix) it is the only reply that unblocks merge. A bare @claude gets you ad-hoc help and leaves this card — and the merge block — untouched.

Please don't edit, hide, or delete this comment — it is the review's record. Full mechanics: CONTRIBUTING.md §AI-assisted contributions.

[pulumi-bot]

Your site preview for commit 2eac83a is ready! 🎉

http://www-testing-pulumi-docs-origin-pr-21596-2eac83a8.s3-website.us-west-2.amazonaws.com

Changed pages:

• /docs/iac/languages-sdks/javascript/

[CamSoper]

Closing this as superseded by #21552.

Both PRs rewrite the same paragraph at content/docs/iac/languages-sdks/javascript/_index.md L86, with different replacement text, and neither review mentions the other -- the pre-merge pipeline reviews one PR against master and has no view of the rest of the queue, so both landed on review:no-blockers in isolation. Whichever merged second would have conflicted.

#21552 does the same job (drops the duplicated version detail, points at the page's own "TypeScript versions" section) and carries ~25 other copy edits to the same page, so it's the one with more in it. That also resolves #21595.

One thing worth carrying over rather than losing: this PR's sentence keeps the fact that a template's pinned TypeScript version takes precedence over Pulumi's bundled compiler. #21552's replacement drops it. I've flagged that on #21552.

If the glow-up gets rejected, reopen this -- it's the surgical version and it stands on its own.

---

Generated by Claude Code