docs(direction): add community-providers policy section

[Wirasm]

Summary

• Problem: Every community-provider PR review (feat(providers): add GitHub Copilot community provider  #1505 Copilot, feat(providers): add OpenCode community provider with agents support #1384 OpenCode, feat(providers): add Oh My Pi provider #1545 Oh My Pi, previously feat(providers): add GitHub Copilot community provider (builtIn: false) #1351/feat(providers): add Hermes Agent as community provider #1648) has stalled on the same meta-question: should this match Pi or not, what's the acceptance bar, who maintains it, when do we remove it? No documented policy meant each review devolved into ad-hoc debate.
• Why it matters: Carry-over direction question marked day 23+ overdue in the standup brief. Three queued community-provider PRs are blocked on the missing decision. New contributors have no rubric to write to.
• What changed: New `§community-providers` section in `.archon/maintainer-standup/direction.md` captures the acceptance criteria, the architectural constraint (coding-agent SDK only, not raw `chat.completions` wrappers), and the maintenance policy (community-owned; deprecate-and-remove non-functional providers).
• What did not change: No code changes. No tests changed. `direction.md` is a maintainer-facing triage doc, not user docs.

Label Snapshot

• Risk: `risk: low`
• Size: `size: XS`
• Scope: `docs`
• Module: `docs:direction`

Test plan

No tests — this is a maintainer-facing direction doc.

Security Impact

• New permissions/capabilities? No
• New external network calls? No
• Secrets/tokens handling changed? No
• File system access scope changed? No

Compatibility / Migration

• Backward compatible? Yes (text-only)
• Config/env changes? No
• Database migration needed? No

Human Verification

• The policy reflects an explicit maintainer decision: Pi-pattern as the bar, coding-agent SDK only, community-maintained with a documented removal pathway.
• Verified the section heading produces the citable slug `§community-providers` consistent with how other clauses are cited in PR comments.

Side Effects / Blast Radius

• Affects PR triage going forward — community-provider PRs can now be evaluated against a concrete rubric instead of meta-debate.
• Unblocks the final-review pass on feat(providers): add GitHub Copilot community provider  #1505 (Copilot) which has been waiting on this decision.

Rollback Plan

• Revert the commit. Triage reverts to the previous ad-hoc state.

Risks and Mitigations

• Risk: Policy may need refinement as more community providers land.
  • Mitigation: `direction.md` is explicitly designed to evolve — the "How to evolve this doc" section already covers updating clauses as decisions get made.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Established comprehensive guidelines for community AI coding-agent providers, defining acceptance criteria including SDK-only scope, Pi pattern alignment, test parity validation, and documentation requirements.
  • Introduced maintenance and deprecation policy for community-contributed providers with PR triage citation guidance.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: f2a6f3f2-1321-455c-8f23-5e57b90df0d5

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 7ab4df8 and 0333643.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• .archon/maintainer-standup/direction.md

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The PR adds a new "Community providers" section to the maintainer direction document, establishing acceptance criteria for community AI coding-agent providers including SDK-only scope, Pi pattern alignment requirements, parity tests, documentation standards, and a maintenance/deprecation policy with PR citation guidance.

Changes

Community Providers Policy

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Community providers acceptance and maintenance policy .archon/maintainer-standup/direction.md	Introduced "Community providers" section defining acceptance criteria (SDK-only scope, Pi pattern alignment, parity tests, documentation), maintenance model with acceptance and ownership guidelines, and deprecation/removal behavior when upstream breaks occur; includes PR comment citation format.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• coleam00/Archon#1575: Updates .archon/maintainer-standup/direction.md to define community-adapter scope and acceptance criteria alongside this PR's community-providers policy definition.

Poem

A community springs forth, clear rules in sight,
Pi patterns aligned, acceptance shining bright,
Tests and docs hand in hand they go,
Deprecation paths for all to know. 🐰✨

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately describes the main change: adding a community-providers policy section to the direction document.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description provides all critical sections and required information, though formatted informally rather than following the exact template structure.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch docs/community-providers-policy

---

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.}