[claudiacodacy]

Weekly docs update for what team Odin shipped to production between 2026-10-30 and 2026-11-06 (Linear status Done only).

Changes

OD-487 — Codacy Analysis CLI GitHub Action

• Code read: codacy/analysis-cli-action PR Add Codacy and GitHub Pages badges to README.md #1, merge commit b4ba4faf; release v1.0.0 (2026-11-03), README at master.
• Edited: docs/repositories-configure/local-analysis/running-eslint.md, GitHub Action section. It now uses codacy/analysis-cli-action@v1 instead of codacy/codacy-cli-v2-action@main, with the action's input names (project-token, api-token, tool: ESLint9, upload) and the ref: checkout the action's README asks for on pull_request events. The .codacy/codacy.yaml block is gone: the new action doesn't read it.
• Headings unchanged, so #using-a-project-token and #using-an-account-api-token still resolve.

TODO markers

None.

Checks

• mkdocs build --strict: passed. The rendered page shows ${{ secrets.… }} literally (wrapped in {% raw %}, as on codacy-analysis-cli/index.md).
• vale on the changed file: 2 errors, both Vale.Spelling on endraw. Same false positive the precedent page already has at codacy-analysis-cli/index.md:313. Not suppressed; the Vale CI check may go red on these lines.
• Investigation checks: no lockstep <!--NOTE list on the page; the include it uses (client-side-tool-instructions.md) doesn't mention the action; no inbound links to the changed headings.

Left alone

• running-dartanalyzer.md is still entirely on Codacy CLI v2 (manual and GitHub Action sections). Converting only the action section would leave a half-converted page; it needs one pass once the dartanalyzer tool ID in the Analysis CLI is confirmed (OD-428).
• client-side-tools.md:31 still recommends the legacy codacy-analysis-cli-action for containerized tools. That's still right for the cases the new action's README lists (gosec, staticcheck, clang-tidy, Faux Pas), so not changed.
• organizations/ai-risk-hub.md: the ai-risk-checklist.png screenshot still shows an "AI BOM" item, which OD-1051 removed from the checklist. Needs a new screenshot.

[github-actions]

Overall readability score: 54.47 (🔴 -0.01)

File	Readability
running-eslint.md	65.33 (🔴 -2.6)

View detailed metrics

🟢 - Shows an increase in readability
🔴 - Shows a decrease in readability

File	Readability	FRE	GF	ARI	CLI	DCRS
running-eslint.md	65.33	46.27	8.83	10.8	10.73	7.17
	🔴 -2.6	🔴 -7.54	🟢 +0.17	🔴 -0.4	🔴 -1.1	🟢 +0.15

Averages:

	Readability	FRE	GF	ARI	CLI	DCRS
Average	54.47	42.95	10.81	12.29	12.32	7.95
	🔴 -0.01	🔴 -0.02	🟢 +0	🟢 +0	🟢 +0	🟢 +0

View metric targets

Metric	Range	Ideal score
Flesch Reading Ease	100 (very easy read) to 0 (extremely difficult read)	60
Gunning Fog	6 (very easy read) to 17 (extremely difficult read)	8 or less
Auto. Read. Index	6 (very easy read) to 14 (extremely difficult read)	8 or less
Coleman Liau Index	6 (very easy read) to 17 (extremely difficult read)	8 or less
Dale-Chall Readability	4.9 (very easy read) to 9.9 (extremely difficult read)	6.9 or less

[codacy-production]

Up to standards ✅

🟢 Issues 0 issues

Results:
0 new issues

View in Codacy

AI Reviewer: first review requested successfully. AI can make mistakes. Always validate suggestions.

_{TIP This summary will be updated as you push new changes.}

[codacy-production]

Pull Request Overview

⚠️ Resolve issues before merging

The token-based workflow examples do not explain the authentication limitation for pull requests originating from forks, which can prevent uploads from working as documented. This should be addressed in the documentation.

No additional Codacy findings were reported.

Test suggestions

• Verify the project-token workflow example renders with the correct action, inputs, and pull-request ref
• Verify the account API token workflow example renders with the correct action, inputs, and pull-request ref
• Verify the legacy CLI v2 configuration and action references are absent while the existing section anchors remain available

Prompt proposal for missing tests

Consider implementing these tests if applicable:
1. Verify the project-token workflow example renders with the correct action, inputs, and pull-request ref
2. Verify the account API token workflow example renders with the correct action, inputs, and pull-request ref
3. Verify the legacy CLI v2 configuration and action references are absent while the existing section anchors remain available

_{TIP How was this review? Give us feedback}