On Updating contribution guidelines

[john-walter-munene]

This commit:

• Updates the contribution guidelines with a better example of index JSON file edits.
• The sample code is now available as a full code block rather than in-line.
• The format explains the possible pitfalls by guiding on exact format,

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Clarified README examples by improving JSON example formatting and spacing for readability.
  • Expanded the sample JSON with field-level notes and inline comments (slug, date, excerpt, featured, SEO) plus brief guidance on slug usage.
  • Minor narrative tweaks around the example to better explain expectations.

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

README.md: adjusted the JSON example's code-fence formatting and expanded the sample JSON with inline comments, a new slug note, slight excerpt wording changes, and spacing/indentation updates; no code or exported declarations changed.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Change Summary
Documentation & Example Updates README.md	Modified JSON code-fence formatting (added a space after the opening fence, removed the language spec from the closing fence); expanded and interleaved the sample JSON with inline comments for slug, date, excerpt, and featured; adjusted excerpt wording, spacing, and alignment.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

• Documentation-only edits; no functional/code changes
• Review focus: verify example readability and comment clarity in README.md

Poem

🐰 I hopped inside the README tonight,
Tweaked fences and notes till the JSON looked right,
A slug softly whispered where filenames belong,
Comments snugged in—brief, clear, and strong,
Hooray for tidy docs and a rabbit's small song! 🎩✨

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Title check	❓ Inconclusive	The PR title 'On Updating contribution guidelines' is vague and generic. It uses non-descriptive phrasing that doesn't convey the specific nature of the changes (adding code block example with inline comments to README).	Use a more specific title that captures the main change, such as 'Add formatted JSON code block example with inline comments to README' or 'Improve README contribution guidelines with annotated JSON example'.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between e474435 and d12e288.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• README.md (1 hunks)

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)

• README.md

---

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

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

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

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 55a58fc and e474435.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• README.md (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

🧠 Learnings (1)

📓 Common learnings

Learnt from: Zahnentferner
Repo: StabilityNexus/StableViewpoints PR: 18
File: public/articles/bug-bounty-program.md:5-6
Timestamp: 2025-11-13T06:27:50.395Z
Learning: In the StabilityNexus/StableViewpoints repository, contributors should always check and address automated reviews by CodeRabbit as per maintainer Zahnentferner's workflow guidelines.