fix(server): Add tool calling params

.coderabbit.yaml

@@ -46,6 +46,13 @@ reviews:
   # Default: true
   review_status: false # current: true
   path_instructions:
+    - path: "fern/docs.yml"
+      instructions: |
+        Redirect destinations for documentation pages must use the rendered Fern route from docs/index.yml, not the source file path.
+        In docs/index.yml, the rendered URL comes from the section/page `slug` hierarchy; the `path` field only points to the source MDX file.
+        For example, the source path docs/configure-rails/colang/colang-2/language-reference/introduction.mdx renders under /configure-guardrails/colang/colang-2/language-reference/introduction because the top-level Configure Guardrails section has slug `configure-guardrails`.
+        Do not suggest replacing valid rendered routes such as /configure-guardrails/... with source-path-derived routes such as /configure-rails/....
+        Before flagging a redirect destination as wrong, verify the route by tracing the relevant entries in docs/index.yml.
     - path: "docs/**/*.mdx"
       instructions: |
         Internal absolute documentation links in Fern MDX pages must use the rendered Fern route, not the source file path.
@@ -54,7 +61,7 @@ reviews:
         - docs/configure-rails/colang/index.mdx renders at /configure-guardrails/colang, not /configure-rails/colang.
         - docs/run-rails/index.mdx renders at /run-guardrailed-inference/run-rails, not /run-rails.
         - docs/getting-started/installation-guide.mdx renders at /get-started/installation-guide, not /getting-started/installation-guide.
-        Before flagging or suggesting fixes for internal docs links, verify them with scripts/check-docs-links.sh or docs/index.yml.
+        Before flagging or suggesting fixes for internal docs links, verify them with docs/index.yml.
         Do not suggest changing valid Fern routes back to source-path-style links.
     - path: "docs/**/*.ipynb"
       instructions: |
@@ -83,4 +90,9 @@ reviews:
     # Review draft PRs/MRs.
     # Default: false
     drafts: false
+    # Only auto-review PRs labeled `status: triaged` (auto-applied for maintainers
+    # / NVIDIA-NeMo org members; a maintainer adds it after triage for external
+    # contributors). Gates review noise on agent/external PRs.
+    labels:
+      - "status: triaged"
     # Base branches (other than the default branch) to review. Accepts regex patterns. Use '.*' to match all branches.

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/refactor_proposal.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+name: Refactor Proposal
+description: Propose a maintainer-led refactor for discussion
+title: "refactor: "
+labels: ["refactoring", "status: needs triage"]
+body:
+  - type: markdown
+    attributes:
+      value: |
+        Refactors are maintainer-led and are not accepted as unsolicited pull requests.
+
+        Use this form to explain the problem and proposed direction. Maintainers decide whether the refactor should happen, what plan is acceptable, and who, if anyone, should be assigned to implement it.
+  - type: checkboxes
+    attributes:
+      label: Required checks
+      description: Confirm before submitting this proposal.
+      options:
+        - label: I searched existing issues and pull requests for related refactor proposals.
+          required: true
+        - label: I understand that opening this issue does not mean a refactor PR will be accepted.
+          required: true
+        - label: I understand that a refactor PR should not be opened unless a maintainer approves the plan and assigns the work.
+          required: true
+  - type: textarea
+    attributes:
+      label: Problem
+      description: What is hard to maintain, unsafe, confusing, or blocking today?
+      placeholder: Describe the current design problem and why it matters.
+    validations:
+      required: true
+  - type: textarea
+    attributes:
+      label: Proposed direction
+      description: What structural direction do you think maintainers should consider?
+      placeholder: Keep this high level unless maintainers have asked for detailed design.
+    validations:
+      required: true
+  - type: textarea
+    attributes:
+      label: Migration and compatibility notes
+      description: What public APIs, config formats, docs, or user workflows could be affected?
+    validations:
+      required: true
+  - type: textarea
+    attributes:
+      label: Validation plan
+      description: What tests, docs checks, or compatibility checks would be needed?
+    validations:
+      required: true
+  - type: textarea
+    attributes:
+      label: Risks
+      description: List known risks, open questions, and possible alternatives.
+    validations:
+      required: true
+  - type: textarea
+    attributes:
+      label: Relevant branch or files
+      description: Optional. Share a WIP branch, affected files, or investigation notes if useful.
+    validations:
+      required: false
+  - type: dropdown
+    attributes:
+      label: Are you interested in helping after maintainer approval?
+      description: This does not assign you to the work. Maintainers decide ownership after triage.
+      options:
+        - I am only proposing this for maintainer consideration.
+        - I can help with investigation if maintainers ask.
+        - I can help implement after maintainers approve a plan and assign the work.
+    validations:
+      required: true

.github/PULL-REQUEST-TEMPLATE.md

@@ -1,18 +1,36 @@
 ## Description
 
 <!-- Describe the big picture of your changes to communicate to the maintainers
-  why we should accept this pull request. -->
+  why we should accept this pull request. Include any areas that need careful
+  review. -->
 
 ## Related Issue(s)
 
 <!--
-  If this PR fixes any issues, please link to the issue here.
+  Every PR must link to a triaged issue assigned to the PR author.
   - Fixes #<issue_number>
+  - Issue assignee: @<username>
 -->
 
+## Verification
+
+<!-- CI runs the automated test suite. Note any verification beyond CI (manual
+  checks, live/credentialed paths, docs build) and any relevant check you could
+  not run, with residual risk. -->
+
+## AI Assistance
+
+- [ ] No AI tools were used.
+- [ ] AI tools were used; a human reviewed and can explain every change (tool: ___).
+
 ## Checklist
 
 - [ ] I've read the [CONTRIBUTING](https://github.com/NVIDIA-NeMo/Guardrails/blob/develop/CONTRIBUTING.md) guidelines.
+- [ ] This PR links to a triaged issue assigned to me.
+- [ ] My PR title follows the project commit convention.
 - [ ] I've updated the documentation if applicable.
 - [ ] I've added tests if applicable.
+- [ ] I've noted any verification beyond CI and any checks I couldn't run.
+- [ ] I did not update generated changelog files manually.
+- [ ] I addressed all CodeRabbit, Greptile, and other review comments, or replied with why no change is needed.
 - [ ] @mentions of the person or team responsible for reviewing proposed changes.

.github/dependabot.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+version: 2
+updates:
+  - package-ecosystem: github-actions
+    directory: /
+    schedule:
+      interval: monthly
+    cooldown:
+      default-days: 7
+    groups:
+      github-actions:
+        patterns:
+          - "*"