[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Documents describing a rule on New rule. With Describe a rule from New rule and fall back to an agent rule, New rule lists four templates and then a describe box under "Or just describe it below". Concierge builds a standard rule from the description, or drafts an agent rule when it can't. That box replaces Describe agent rule, and the Agents tab gets an Add agent rule row. The Describe button inside the rule editors, from App#99624, is unchanged. The templates now read Require fields and use shorter descriptions, so the category article changes too.

On HOLD: merge after the describeRule beta is removed. Help docs go live on merge, and until then only beta accounts see this New rule page. The refusals that Web-E#56886 turns on aren't documented here.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/683436
PROPOSAL:

Tests

1. Open the HelpDot preview from OSBotify's comment and go to Workspace Rules > How to have Concierge build a rule.
2. With the describeRule beta on, follow the steps and confirm each label matches New rule.
3. Open Automate Workflows with Agent Rules > How to create an agent rule and Create expense categories, and confirm their steps match too.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

No QA

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

• I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
  • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
  • I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
  • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
  • I added steps to cover 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 tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
  • Android: Native
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: Native
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
• I verified any copy / text that was added to the app 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 tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
• If new assets were added or existing ones were modified, I verified that:
  • The assets are optimized and compressed (for SVG files, run npm run compress-svg)
  • The assets load correctly across all supported platforms.
• 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.
• If the PR adds or modifies the UI:
  • I asked an AI agent to review the changes for accessibility issues and addressed its findings.
  • I tested with a screen reader (VoiceOver on macOS) and verified all new/changed elements are reachable with a logical focus order.
  • I verified all new/changed elements have meaningful accessible names and roles.
  • I verified state changes are announced (e.g. checked/unchecked, expanded/collapsed, selected).
• I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user 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.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://fcc6721e.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/ai-agents/Automate-Workflows-with-Agent-Rules
• articles/new-expensify/workspaces/Create-expense-categories
• articles/new-expensify/workspaces/Workspace-Rules

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	⚠️ Failed 2026-10-23T00:27:54.631296Z We couldn’t complete this review. Comment @codex review to try again.	34d4a3d	Draft marked ready

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" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[melvin-bot]

Product 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?

cc @heyjennahay

[melvin-bot]

@heyjennahay 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]

[github-actions]

AI readiness / vague wording: "Receipts, categories, etc." uses "etc.", which the authoring guidelines call out as vague wording to avoid (HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md Section 6). Spell out what Require fields can require instead of trailing "etc." — for example, "Require a description, attendees, or a receipt for an expense."

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR updates three articles to document the new New rule page, where workspace admins pick from four templates or describe a rule in plain English for Concierge to build. The changes rename Describe agent rule to a describe box, add an Add agent rule row on the Agents tab, add a new How to have Concierge build a rule section, and rename the Set field requirements template to Require fields across all three files. The changes are consistent, well-structured, and align closely with the governance rules. Scores below reflect only the proposed diff.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - Steps are sequential and action-oriented, and sentences are clear and scannable. The updated template descriptions ("Require fields - Receipts, categories, etc." and "Flag for review - Notify when your conditions are met.") are terse fragments, but they mirror the exact UI text so this is acceptable.
• AI Readiness: 9/10 - The new section uses a full task-based "How to" heading, the heading hierarchy stays at H1 and H2 only, and the keywords plus internalScope in Workspace-Rules.md were expanded to cover the new Concierge build-a-rule workflow. Strong retrieval alignment.
• Style Compliance: 9/10 - Uses select throughout the changed steps, bolded navigation paths with the lowercase [workspace name] placeholder, correct navigation-tabs phrasing, and exact UI labels in bold. Terminology changes are applied consistently across all three files.

Key Findings

• Terminology is applied consistently: Set field requirements becomes Require fields in all three articles, and the Add AI rule / Add agent rule wording matches between Workspace-Rules.md and Automate-Workflows-with-Agent-Rules.md.
• The new How to have Concierge build a rule section is task-based, uses correct navigation phrasing, keeps steps action-oriented with select, and correctly notes that nothing is saved until the admin confirms.
• Metadata was thoughtfully updated (keywords and internalScope) to reflect the new plain-English/Concierge workflow, which is good for semantic retrieval.
• Minor: the pre-existing "click Create new rule" and "click Save rule" lines in Create-expense-categories.md are not part of this diff, so they are not penalized, but the surrounding file still uses click where select is required.

Recommendations

• Confirm the terse template descriptions (such as "Receipts, categories, etc.") match the production UI verbatim; if the UI phrases these as full sentences, mirror that instead.
• Optional: when touching Create-expense-categories.md, consider converting the nearby click usages to select to align the whole file with the naming conventions (out of scope for this diff).
• Honor the HOLD note in the PR description; these docs publish on merge, so merge only after the describeRule beta is removed.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/workspaces/Workspace-Rules.md - New Concierge section, updated template list, expanded metadata. Compliant.
• docs/articles/new-expensify/ai-agents/Automate-Workflows-with-Agent-Rules.md - Updated create-agent-rule steps and Agents-tab entry point. Compliant.
• docs/articles/new-expensify/workspaces/Create-expense-categories.md - Terminology rename to Require fields. Compliant.

Note: Detailed line-by-line feedback has been provided as inline comments.