[No QA] Docs updates for E/A#96981 Document RuleBot removal guard for Agent rules

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Follow-up to #96981, which prevents removing, demoting, or deleting RuleBot while a workspace still has Agent rules. This documents that new user-facing behavior in the help site.

What changed

Updated docs/articles/new-expensify/ai-agents/Create-Agent-Rules.md:

• Added a How to remove RuleBot from a workspace section explaining that RuleBot can't be removed, have its role changed, or be deleted while Agent rules exist, listing the blocked actions (Remove from workspace, changing role to Member/Auditor, Delete agent, closing the account), and giving the steps to remove RuleBot after deleting all Agent rules.
• Added a FAQ entry Why can't I remove RuleBot from the workspace?

Why

The article previously stated RuleBot is "managed by Expensify" but did not explain that admins are now blocked from removing/demoting/deleting RuleBot while Agent rules exist, or how to resolve it (delete all Agent rules first). This closes that gap.

Related

• Source PR: [Payment due @linhvovan29546] Prevent removing or demoting RuleBot while Agent rules exist #96981

@NicolasBonet, please review the files changed and confirm they reflect the current behavior. Then post a new comment saying @MelvinBot mark this PR as ready for review.

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR adds documentation for the RuleBot removal guard (follow-up to E/A 96981). The changes add one How to remove RuleBot from a workspace section and one FAQ entry to Create-Agent-Rules.md, explaining that RuleBot cannot be removed, demoted, or deleted while a workspace still has Agent rules, and how to resolve it. The additions are focused, accurate, and well-aligned with the existing article single-workflow scope.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - Clear, concise prose. The blocked-actions bulleted list and the numbered resolution steps are easy to scan and action-oriented.
• AI Readiness: 9/10 - The new How to remove RuleBot from a workspace heading is task-based and searchable; the FAQ entry uses a real Why cant I query phrasing. Correct heading hierarchy (only level-2 headings under the single title and FAQ). Full feature names (RuleBot, Agent rules) used throughout.
• Style Compliance: 8/10 - UI labels are correctly bolded in Sentence case (Remove from workspace, Member, Auditor, Delete agent, Members, Agents). Minor terminology inconsistency: Members list (capitalized, matching the UI) vs member details page (lowercase). Recommend consistent capitalization when referring to UI elements.

Key Findings

• Strong: The new section heading is task-based and the FAQ question mirrors real search intent; both integrate cleanly without introducing a second workflow or extra top-level headings.
• Strong: All actionable UI elements are bolded correctly and match Sentence case per the naming conventions.
• Strong: Resolution steps are sequential and cross-reference the existing How to delete an Agent rule section rather than duplicating it.
• Minor: member details page should align with the capitalization used for UI-labeled elements elsewhere (e.g., Members).

Recommendations

• Standardize capitalization when referencing UI locations (e.g., the Members list and the member details page) for consistency with the naming conventions.
• Optional: confirm the exact in-product message shown when an action is blocked; if it has fixed UI text, quoting or bolding it would improve precision.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/ai-agents/Create-Agent-Rules.md - Approved with minor style suggestions.

Note: This is a top-level summary review.

[NicolasBonet]

@MelvinBot adjust the two open threads

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: af070ed05d

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[MelvinBot]

Both open review threads are addressed in cb57ee9:

• Role naming (line 115): "a workspace admin" → Workspace Admin, bolded and capitalized to match Member/Auditor and the rest of the article.
• Cross-link (line 121): replaced the bolded heading **How to delete an Agent rule** with a descriptive anchor link — [delete an Agent rule](#how-to-delete-an-agent-rule) — per the Cross-Linking Standards, so bold stays reserved for UI labels.

I replied inline on each thread as well. The separate Codex thread about documenting non-admin role changes was left untouched since your request was scoped to the two open review threads — let me know if you'd like that one adjusted too.

[stephanieelliott]

Approved! Will merge tomorrow once this hits production.

[melvin-bot]

Concierge reviewer checklist:

• I have verified the accuracy of the article
  • The article is within a hub that makes sense, and the navigation is correct
  • All processes, screenshots, and examples align with current product behavior.
  • All links within the doc have been verified for correct destination and functionality.
• I have verified the readability of the article
  • The article's language is clear, concise, and free of jargon.
  • The grammar, spelling, and punctuation are correct.
  • The article contains at least one image, or that an image is not necessary
• I have verified the formatting of the article
  • The article has consistent formatting (headings, bullet points, etc.) with other HelpDot articles and that aligns with the HelpDot formatting standards.
  • The article has proper text spacing and breaks for readability.
• I have verified the article has the appropriate tone and style
  • The article's tone is professional, friendly, and suitable for the target audience.
  • The article's tone, terminology, and voice are consistent throughout.
• I have verified the overall quality of the article
  • The article is not missing any information, nor does it contain redundant information.
  • The article fully addresses user needs.
• I have verified that all requested improvements have been addressed

For more detailed instructions on completing this checklist, see How do I review a HelpDot PR as a Concierge Team member?

cc @VictoriaExpensify

[melvin-bot]

@VictoriaExpensify Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

[NicolasBonet]

@MelvinBot resolve conflicts, @VictoriaExpensify and @stephanieelliott are we missing something?

[MelvinBot]

✅ Conflicts resolved in 1f8e5c9 — the PR is now mergeable (remaining BLOCKED status is just pending checks/approval, not conflicts).

The only conflict was in Create-Agent-Rules.md: both this branch and main added a new FAQ entry at the same spot. They don't overlap, so I kept both — this branch's Why can't I remove RuleBot from the workspace? and main's Where can I see a history of Agent rule changes?

stephanieelliott mentioned merging once this hits production — content-wise nothing looks missing, so I think you're just waiting on the reviewer checklist + deploy. VictoriaExpensify / stephanieelliott can confirm.

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://5d6b34d9.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/ai-agents/Create-Agent-Rules

[MelvinBot]

I looked into the failing check — there's nothing to fix here. 👍

The only check reporting fail is Check independent approval, which isn't a code/CI failure. It's a policy gate that stays red until an independent reviewer approves the PR — it's not something I can resolve by pushing a commit. It clears on its own once the PR gets an approval.

Everything else that has run is passing (check, spellcheck, validate, verify, dryRun, verifySignedCommits, CLA, etc.). This is a docs-only change (docs/articles/new-expensify/ai-agents/Create-Agent-Rules.md), and the remaining build jobs are still pending, not failing.

Next step: get an independent review/approval on the PR and the Check independent approval gate will go green — no code changes needed.

[MelvinBot]

The only failing check is Check independent approval, and there's nothing to fix in the code — every real CI check (build, check, spellcheck, validate, verify, dryRun, verifySignedCommits, etc.) is passing.

Check independent approval is a governance gate, not a code/lint/test failure. It fails because the PR hasn't yet received an approval from an independent reviewer — it can't be resolved by a commit. It clears once someone other than the author approves the PR.

Since this PR is still a Melvin-authored draft awaiting your review, the next step is on you: review the doc changes, and if they look right, comment @MelvinBot mark this PR as ready for review (as the PR description requests). No code push is needed.

[VictoriaExpensify]

Reviewer Checklist

• I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
• I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
  • I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
  • I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
  • I verified the steps cover any possible failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
  • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
• I checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I verified that the composer does not automatically focus or open the keyboard on mobile unless explicitly intended. This includes checking that returning the app from the background does not unexpectedly open the keyboard.
• I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
  • Android: HybridApp
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: HybridApp
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
• I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
  • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
  • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
  • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
• If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
• If a new component is created I verified that:
  • A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
  • All props are defined accurately
  • The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
  • The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
  • The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
• If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
  • A similar style doesn't already exist
  • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG)
• If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
• If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
• If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
• If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
• If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
  • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
  • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
• For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this flow.
• If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.
• I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: HybridApp

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/VictoriaExpensify in version: 9.4.55-0 🚀

platform	result
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/Beamanator in version: 9.4.55-4 🚀

platform	result
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	failure ❌

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android