Skip to content

docs: bring DE brownfield workflow to parity with EN (#471)#477

Merged
rdmueller merged 1 commit into
LLM-Coding:mainfrom
raifdmueller:feat/brownfield-de-parity-471
May 13, 2026
Merged

docs: bring DE brownfield workflow to parity with EN (#471)#477
rdmueller merged 1 commit into
LLM-Coding:mainfrom
raifdmueller:feat/brownfield-de-parity-471

Conversation

@raifdmueller
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Closes #471

Summary

Brings `docs/brownfield-workflow.de.adoc` to full content parity with the English version. The DE file had only a stub "Sicherheitsnetz aufbauen" section where EN has the complete Socratic Code-Theory Recovery methodology — this PR ports the missing content.

What's translated

Phase 0.5 — Socratic Code-Theory Recovery:

  • Methodology explanation (Naur 1985 reference)
  • Phase 1: Question Tree aufbauen (with the same copy-paste prompt block as EN; the prompt body stays in English so LLM activation is consistent across UI languages)
  • Zwischen den Phasen: Team beantwortet die offenen Fragen (with the typical-categories table)
  • Phase 2: Dokumentation synthetisieren
  • Basis-Tests aufbauen (moved after Phase 2 to match EN order)
  • Was das LLM rekonstruieren kann — und was nicht
  • Spec-Drift und Abgleich

Prompt Cheat Sheet extended with the four missing rows: `Theory Recovery (Phase 1)`, `Team Answers`, `Theory Recovery (Phase 2)`, `Reconciliation`.

Weiterführende Literatur extended with Naur, Brownfield Experiment Report, Fair Comparison Report.

Naming

The methodology name "Socratic Code-Theory Recovery" stays in English as it's a proper-noun contract name; prose around it is German.

Test plan

  • DE file now 288 lines vs EN 290 (was 170 vs 238)
  • Section count matches: 17 vs 17
  • `scripts/render-docs.js` produces valid HTML
  • `npm run build` succeeds
  • DE-rendered HTML contains 4× "Socratic Code-Theory Recovery" (matching EN)
  • DE-rendered HTML contains the full Phase 1 prompt block
  • No remaining "Socratic Code Theory" (without hyphen) anywhere in the file

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

The German brownfield workflow had only a stub "Sicherheitsnetz aufbauen"
section where the EN version has the full Socratic Code-Theory Recovery
methodology. Translate the missing content:

- Replace stub Phase 0.5 with Socratic Code-Theory Recovery (Naur 1985)
  explanation
- Add Phase 1: Question Tree (with the same copy-paste prompt in English so
  LLM activation is consistent across UI languages)
- Add Between Phases: Team Answers the Open Questions (with category table)
- Add Phase 2: Synthesize Documentation
- Keep Establish Baseline Tests (renamed sub-section, now after Phase 2)
- Add What the LLM Can and Cannot Recover
- Add Spec Drift and Reconciliation
- Extend Prompt Cheat Sheet with Theory Recovery (Phase 1), Team Answers,
  Theory Recovery (Phase 2), and Reconciliation rows
- Add Naur, Brownfield Experiment Report, Fair Comparison Report to
  Weiterführende Literatur

The methodology name "Socratic Code-Theory Recovery" stays in English as
it's a proper noun / contract name. Prose is translated.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
@coderabbitai
Copy link
Copy Markdown

coderabbitai Bot commented May 13, 2026

Warning

Rate limit exceeded

@raifdmueller has exceeded the limit for the number of commits that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 14 minutes and 41 seconds before requesting another review.

You’ve run out of usage credits. Purchase more in the billing tab.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit.

🚦 How do rate limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization.

Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout.

Please see our FAQ for further information.

ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 7fb48256-a4ee-4594-b7ae-ee30ea61ffc3

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between e893dcb and 801eec0.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • docs/brownfield-workflow.de.adoc
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

@rdmueller rdmueller merged commit cb9abbe into LLM-Coding:main May 13, 2026
7 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Content parity: DE and EN versions of workflow pages diverge

2 participants