docs: see PR review guidelines

[dante4rt]

Description:
Contributors and reviewers now see clear guidance on when to reject a PR versus when to leave a comment.

Close: https://github.com/holdex/pr-time-tracker-webhooks/issues/451
Preview: https://github.com/dante4rt/developers/blob/59b09b57833c7f0582a67a329775574865264b1a/docs/CONTRIBUTING.md#reviewing-prs

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Added guidelines for reviewing pull requests, distinguishing between formal change requests and optional suggestions.
  • Enhanced contribution guidance to emphasize proactive code review and taking ownership of the review process.

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

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

Documentation updated to clarify PR review feedback practices. Adds guidance on when to use "Request Changes" versus "Comment" for code reviews, and refines wording around the Scout approach to emphasize proactive ownership and timely feedback.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Documentation: PR Review Guidance docs/CONTRIBUTING.md	Adds new "Reviewing PRs" section clarifying when to use Request Changes (objective problems) versus Comment (optional improvements). Updates Scout approach wording in two locations to emphasize taking ownership and providing timely feedback.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~5 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• ci: run Markdown linter #68: Modifies docs/CONTRIBUTING.md with reflows and edits to the same file being updated in this PR.
• docs: view scout approach in contribution guidelines #65: Updates Scout approach and proactive review guidance in CONTRIBUTING.md, overlapping with the guidance areas modified here.

Suggested reviewers

• markholdex
• zolotokrylin
• angelicawill

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Title check	❓ Inconclusive	The title 'docs: see PR review guidelines' is somewhat vague and generic, using the directive 'see' without clearly conveying the specific change made to the documentation.	Consider a more descriptive title like 'docs: add PR review guidelines for rejection vs comments' to clarify what guidance was added.

✅ Passed checks (4 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	The pull request directly addresses the core question from issue #451 by documenting when to use Request Changes versus when to use Comment, clarifying the previously unclear PR rejection guidelines.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	All changes are in scope: the PR only modifies CONTRIBUTING.md to add review guidance and update Scout approach wording, directly addressing the linked issue.
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

---

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: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

docs/CONTRIBUTING.md (1)

299-299: Minor: Clarify what "Code style is inconsistent" means in context.

"Code style is inconsistent" as an objective problem could be ambiguous if your team uses automated linting/formatting tools. If style violations are auto-fixable or auto-enforced, contributors might perceive this as an optional concern rather than a blocker.

Consider clarifying whether this refers to violations of documented style guidelines that aren't caught by automation, to set clearer expectations.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 21ccbd3 and 59b09b5.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• docs/CONTRIBUTING.md (1 hunks)

🔇 Additional comments (1)

docs/CONTRIBUTING.md (1)

293-308: Strong clarification of PR review expectations.

The new "Reviewing PRs" section directly addresses the issue raised in #451 by providing concrete guidance on when to use "Request Changes" versus "Comment". The distinction between objective problems (reject) and optional improvements (comment) is clear, and the examples are practical.

The updated Scout approach wording is also more action-oriented and emphasizes proactive ownership—improvements over the original phrasing.

[holdex]

Time Submission Status

Member	Status	Time	Action	Last Update
dante4rt	✅ Submitted	15min	Update time	Dec 15, 2025, 9:19 PM
markholdex	✅ Submitted	5min	Update time	Dec 15, 2025, 9:20 PM

[dante4rt]

@zolotokrylin, I am unable to assign a reviewer manually. This PR is ready for review, thanks!