kevinveenbirkenbachandClaude Opus 5
d552624d4c
myst reports a document whose first heading skips a level. Six pull request templates and two skill files start their body at H2, because their title lives in the frontmatter or in the filename, where myst does not see it. All 73 of the build's heading warnings sit in these eight files. Every pull request description created from a template now opens with this heading, since GitHub copies the template body verbatim. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
3.0 KiB
System Pull Request
Summary
Briefly describe the system-level change.
Examples:
- Add a new
sys-*,svc-*,dev-*,drv-*,pkgmgr,update-*, oruser-*capability - Fix broken shared infrastructure, package, service, or automation behavior
- Extend a shared service, package, timer, or maintenance workflow
- Introduce a new infrastructure, shared abstraction, or automation building block
Template Type
Select the primary intent of this PR:
- Feature - Adds or extends shared system functionality
- Fix - Repairs broken or incorrect shared system behavior
Affected Components
List the impacted roles and shared components.
- Primary role(s) or module(s):
- Related services, timers, packages, inventories, or workflows:
- Distro(s) tested:
Roles (optional 🧩 Subset CI scope)
Optional. Ignored unless a maintainer applies the 🧩 Subset label; without the label CI uses the diff-derived role set as usual. When the label is set, CI deploys only the roles listed here — each must be an existing roles/<id> directory, or the run fails. See pipeline.md.
roles:
# - sys-version
# - svc-db-postgres
Change Type
Select the semantic version impact of this change:
- Major - Breaking change
- Minor - New backwards-compatible feature
- Patch - Small improvement or compatible adjustment
Change Details
Explain what changed and why.
Key points:
- What capability was introduced?
- How does this integrate with the existing stack?
- Were variables, defaults, and shared logic kept DRY?
- Are there architecture, migration, or compatibility implications?
- Which alternatives were considered?
Local Validation
Describe how the change was validated locally.
- Fresh deploy or targeted rerun tested
- Idempotency verified
- Service health, timers, or package behavior verified
- Cross-distro notes documented
Security Impact
Indicate whether this change has security implications.
- No relevant security impact
- Security impact present
If security impact is present, explain:
- Affected auth, TLS, permissions, secrets, services, or exposed surfaces:
- Risk reduction, new exposure, migration, or compatibility considerations:
- Security-specific validation performed:
Review Focus
Help reviewers focus on the riskiest parts of this PR. For repository-wide contribution and review expectations, see CONTRIBUTING.md.
- Highest-risk files, roles, or flows:
- Idempotency, compatibility, or rollout concerns:
- Specific feedback requested from reviewers:
Definition of Done (DoD)
- The implementation follows the Definition of Done, and the contribution guidelines in CONTRIBUTING.md were considered and applied during implementation.
Additional Notes
Add any reviewer context for rollout, compatibility, or operational follow-up.