3.11.13

[hannesrudolph]

Important

This PR updates documentation with new release notes, renames files for consistency, and restructures content for better organization.

• Release Notes:
  • Added release notes for versions v3.11.11, v3.11.12, and v3.11.13.
• File Renames:
  • Renamed cline_custom_modes.json to custom_modes.json in community.md and advanced-orchestrator.
  • Renamed troubleshooting/shell-integration.md to features/shell-integration.md.
• Documentation Updates:
  • Updated index.md to include new version links.
  • Updated sidebars.ts to reflect new documentation structure.
  • Updated docusaurus.config.ts for redirect paths.

^{This description was created by for df9c568. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
roo-code-docs	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Apr 12, 2025 0:32am

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Reviewed everything up to e1a8ba8 in 1 minute and 47 seconds

More details

• Looked at 925 lines of code in 13 files
• Skipped 10 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 9 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. docs/update-notes/v3.11.13.md:36

• Draft comment:
  Consider ensuring the file ends with a newline for POSIX compliance.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  While having a trailing newline is generally good practice and part of POSIX standards, this is a documentation file rather than source code. The comment is technically correct but very minor. This would typically be handled automatically by editor settings or prettier/linting rules rather than manual review comments.
  The comment points out a real standards compliance issue. Not having trailing newlines can cause issues with some tools and git diffs.
  However, this is exactly the kind of thing that should be handled by automated tooling rather than manual review comments. It's too minor to warrant human attention.
  While technically correct, this comment is too minor and should be handled by automated tooling instead of manual review.

2. docusaurus.config.ts:156

• Draft comment:
  Verify that the new redirect from '/troubleshooting/shell-integration' to '/features/shell-integration' is consistent with the updated documentation structure. This helps ensure links remain accurate.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to verify the consistency of a redirect with the updated documentation structure. This falls under asking the author to double-check things, which is against the rules. The comment does not provide a specific suggestion or point out a clear issue with the code.

3. sidebars.ts:138

• Draft comment:
  The update notes sidebar section appears well organized. Consider periodically reviewing the ordering as more release notes are added to maintain usability.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 30% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. docs/update-notes/v3.11.13.md:1

• Draft comment:
  Great clear release notes! Consider adding a note that the new terminal settings marked as experimental are subject to further refinement.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. docusaurus.config.ts:155

• Draft comment:
  The redirect change from '/troubleshooting/shell-integration' to '/features/shell-integration' looks good. Verify that the new route covers all relevant troubleshooting info.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

6. sidebars.ts:39

• Draft comment:
  The sidebar now includes 'features/shell-integration' under the Features category – this provides a logical location. Consider whether a separate Troubleshooting category is needed as the documentation evolves.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 20% <= threshold 50%
  None

7. docs/faq.md:102

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error: change 'model that support web browsing' to 'model that supports web browsing' for subject-verb agreement.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

8. docs/update-notes/v3.11.11.md:21

• Draft comment:
  There's no newline at the end of the file. Please add a newline at the end to follow standard formatting conventions.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 20% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking for a newline at the end of the file, which is a standard formatting convention. However, it doesn't provide any specific guidance or suggestion related to the code's functionality or logic. It seems to be more of a stylistic preference, which might be covered by automated tools like ESLint or Prettier.

9. docs/update-notes/v3.11.12.md:3

• Draft comment:
  Consider hyphenating 'OpenAI Compatible' to 'OpenAI-compatible' on line 3 for improved readability and consistency with common compound adjective usage.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  The rules state not to make purely informative comments and to focus on code logic rather than style. This is a documentation file, and while the hyphenation suggestion might be technically correct English, it's not a critical issue that requires a code change. The meaning is clear either way. The rules emphasize focusing on substantial issues rather than minor stylistic preferences.
  The hyphenation rule for compound adjectives is a standard English grammar rule, and maintaining consistent documentation style could be considered important for professionalism.
  While correct grammar is valuable, this level of nitpicking on release notes doesn't align with our review priorities. The rules explicitly state not to make purely informative comments or obvious/unimportant changes.
  Delete this comment as it's a minor stylistic suggestion that doesn't impact functionality or code quality, and our rules emphasize focusing on substantial issues rather than minor documentation style preferences.

Workflow ID: wflow_3vseHBU7abarId89

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 0c378a8 in 1 minute and 7 seconds

More details

• Looked at 42 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 4 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. docs/update-notes/v3.11.13.md:9

• Draft comment:
  The updated description for the Terminal command delay setting improves clarity. Ensure that the language remains consistent with other release notes.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. docs/update-notes/v3.11.13.md:29

• Draft comment:
  The improvements and bug fixes sections now have more descriptive language, which is great. Verify consistency across sections and align with the official naming/branding if applicable.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. docs/update-notes/v3.11.13.md:9

• Draft comment:
  The updated descriptions for terminal settings are clear and user-friendly. Nice work refining the language. Just ensure that the technical details remain precise for troubleshooting purposes.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. docs/update-notes/v3.11.13.md:36

• Draft comment:
  Consider adding a trailing newline at the end of the file for better POSIX compliance.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 30% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is suggesting a change for better POSIX compliance, which is a valid code style suggestion. However, it doesn't align with the specific rules provided, as it doesn't relate to the specific coding standards or practices outlined in the additional rules. It is more of a general code style suggestion, which might not be necessary to enforce unless it's part of a specific style guide being followed.

Workflow ID: wflow_cKuWEOzTCsy0wbEO

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 296ab11 in 1 minute and 15 seconds

More details

• Looked at 118 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 6 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. docs/features/shell-integration.md:22

• Draft comment:
  Consider revising the term "Update VSCode/Cursor" for consistent naming. Prefer using "Update VS Code" throughout to avoid confusion.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

2. docs/features/shell-integration.md:180

• Draft comment:
  Consider reorganizing or splitting the later troubleshooting sections into clearly defined subsections for improved readability.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. docs/features/shell-integration.md:22

• Draft comment:
  Clarify the term “VSCode/Cursor” here. It might be a leftover or misprint—consider using just ‘VS Code’ for consistency.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. docs/features/shell-integration.md:79

• Draft comment:
  Clarify the relationship between Roo Code and VS Code. The text on line 79 states that VS Code establishes the terminal connection—consider a brief note to indicate that Roo Code runs as a VS Code extension.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. docs/features/shell-integration.md:92

• Draft comment:
  Avoid having two separate ‘Troubleshooting Shell Integration’ sections. Consider merging or renaming one of them (e.g. ‘Troubleshooting Common Issues’) to prevent potential confusion.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

6. docs/features/shell-integration.md:22

• Draft comment:
  Typo detected: In the troubleshooting steps, 'Update VSCode/Cursor' appears to be incorrect or unclear. Please verify if this should be 'Update VS Code' or another intended term.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_BbB53Ruh3OcB6I3J

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 03d3dc6 in 1 minute and 3 seconds

More details

• Looked at 22 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 3 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. docs/features/shell-integration.md:50

• Draft comment:
  Good addition of the restart instructions under Advanced Settings. Ensure that the markdown admonition syntax (:::+info) is supported by our documentation toolchain (e.g., Docusaurus, MkDocs, etc.) to maintain consistent formatting. This is in line with our Development Standards.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. docs/features/shell-integration.md:50

• Draft comment:
  The new admonition block for advanced terminal settings is clear and well-formatted. Please ensure our markdown renderer fully supports the ':::info' syntax; if not, consider providing fallback styling.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. docs/features/shell-integration.md:58

• Draft comment:
  Consider rephrasing the final reminder for clarity, for example: 'Restart all terminal windows to apply changes completely.'
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

Workflow ID: wflow_AWvXpubFcbN7Qo4i

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Incremental review on df9c568 in 1 minute and 41 seconds

More details

• Looked at 12 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 4 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. docs/update-notes/v3.11.13.md:35

• Draft comment:
  Consider removing the extra hyphen in this bullet to maintain consistent formatting. The other bullet uses a direct message without a hyphen.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  While the comment is technically correct about the inconsistency, our rules state not to make purely informative comments or comments about obvious things. This is a very minor formatting issue in a changelog file. The meaning is clear either way, and this kind of nitpick doesn't improve code quality or functionality.
  The inconsistent formatting could make the changelog look unprofessional, and consistency in documentation is important for readability.
  While consistency is good, this is too minor of an issue to warrant a PR comment. It's the kind of thing that could be fixed directly or mentioned in passing, not formally tracked in PR comments.
  Delete this comment as it's too minor and purely stylistic, not affecting functionality or code quality in any meaningful way.

2. docs/update-notes/v3.11.13.md:36

• Draft comment:
  Add a newline at the end of the file to follow standard formatting practices.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was on unchanged code.

3. docs/update-notes/v3.11.13.md:35

• Draft comment:
  The bug fix item has an extra '-' inside the bullet point. Consider removing the redundant dash to maintain consistent markdown formatting.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. docs/update-notes/v3.11.13.md:36

• Draft comment:
  The file does not end with a newline. Please add a newline at the end of the file to follow standard Unix conventions and avoid potential issues with tooling.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

Workflow ID: wflow_xduq8oSyPxV7l5I5

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.