README.md link to main site repo

[mrienstra]

Make it easy to find https://activitywatch.net/ repo from this one

Same idea as ActivityWatch/activitywatch.github.io#41

Alternatively, could look more like:

The activitywatch.net repository can be found at ActivityWatch/activitywatch.github.io.

---

Important

Add direct links to main site and documentation repositories in README.md.

• Documentation:
  • Adds direct link to main site repository ActivityWatch/activitywatch.github.io in README.md.
  • Clarifies that https://docs.activitywatch.net/ corresponds to the current repository in README.md.

^{This description was created by for 19d71f0. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed everything up to 19d71f0 in 7 minutes and 4 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 16 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. README.md:11

• Draft comment:
  For improved clarity, consider formatting these repository links as a bullet list or separate section. This makes it easier to distinguish between the website repo and the docs repo.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% This comment is about the newly added lines 11-12. However, it's purely a subjective style/formatting suggestion - the current format is perfectly readable and functional. The comment doesn't point out any actual problem or bug. It's asking for a cosmetic change based on personal preference ("consider formatting...for improved clarity"). The rules explicitly state to avoid comments that are "obvious or unimportant" and to only comment when "there is clearly a code change required." This is a markdown README file, and the current format is clear enough. The suggestion is not addressing any functional issue or significant readability problem. The current format might actually be less clear than what's suggested - having a bullet list could indeed improve scannability. The comment is actionable and specific about what to change. Perhaps this rises to the level of a useful code quality suggestion. While bullet lists might be marginally better, the current format is already clear and functional. This is a minor stylistic preference, not a clear improvement that warrants a review comment. The rules emphasize only commenting when there's clearly a code change required, and this doesn't meet that bar - it's just one valid formatting choice versus another. This comment should be deleted. It's a subjective formatting suggestion that doesn't identify any actual problem with the code. The current format is clear and functional, and the suggestion doesn't meet the threshold of "clearly a code change required."

2. README.md:11

• Draft comment:
  Consider adding a brief descriptor for the 'ActivityWatch/activitywatch.github.io' link (e.g. indicating that it’s the main website repository) to reduce ambiguity for newcomers.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% This comment is suggesting a minor clarification to documentation. The mapping is already fairly clear from context - activitywatch.net clearly points to the main website, and the arrow notation makes the relationship obvious. The comment is not pointing out a bug or critical issue, but rather a minor stylistic improvement. According to the rules, comments should not be "obvious or unimportant" and should only be made if "there is clearly a code change required." This seems like a nice-to-have rather than a must-have. The existing text is already reasonably clear, especially given that line 12 provides parallel structure showing "this repo" for the docs site. The comment could be considered helpful for newcomers who might not immediately understand the relationship between the URLs and repositories. Adding descriptive text could improve clarity and follows good documentation practices. While the suggestion might marginally improve clarity, the existing structure with the arrow notation and parallel lines already makes the relationship reasonably clear. The comment falls into the category of "obvious or unimportant" improvements that don't clearly require a code change. It's a minor stylistic preference rather than a necessary fix. This comment should be deleted. It suggests a minor, optional clarification that doesn't meet the threshold of "clearly a code change required." The existing text is already sufficiently clear with its arrow notation and parallel structure.

Workflow ID: wflow_Q6xU7YSOPfuuF3v7

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}