feat(ci): request reviews from API experts

[avivkeller]

Description

This is a potential solution for the linked issues, via mapping article -> api -> owner.

Prereqs:

• @nodejs/typescript write access revoked
• @nodejs/security-wg write access revoked¹

Validation

See #8040 (comment). In a real PR, these teams will be pinged.

Related Issues

Fixes #7292
Fixes #7294

Footnotes

1. Unless they have it for a different reason ↩

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Updated (UTC)
nodejs-org	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	Aug 5, 2025 6:02pm

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 72.82%. Comparing base (35f0004) to head (78cec81).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8040      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   72.77%   72.82%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files          96       96              
  Lines        8328     8328              
  Branches      215      214       -1     
==========================================
+ Hits         6061     6065       +4     
+ Misses       2266     2262       -4     
  Partials        1        1              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[github-actions]

Requesting a review from the following teams:

• nodejs/timers
• nodejs/events
• nodejs/repl
• nodejs/diagnostics
• nodejs/npm
• nodejs/undici
• nodejs/security-wg
• nodejs/fs
• nodejs/addon-api
• nodejs/test_runner
• nodejs/typescript

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

This PR implements a new automated reviewer assignment system for Node.js documentation by mapping articles to API domains and their respective expert teams. The change replaces static CODEOWNERS assignments with dynamic review requests based on frontmatter metadata.

• Adds api frontmatter field to 51 learning documentation files to categorize content by Node.js API domain
• Creates automated GitHub workflow to request reviews from appropriate API expert teams
• Removes static CODEOWNERS entries for TypeScript and security content in favor of the new dynamic system

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 54 out of 54 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
Multiple learn/*.md files	Added api frontmatter field to categorize content by Node.js API domain
.github/workflows/request-review.yml	New workflow to automatically request reviews based on API categorization
.github/scripts/get-reviewers.mjs	Script to parse frontmatter and map APIs to reviewer teams
.github/reviewers.json	Configuration mapping API domains to GitHub teams
.github/CODEOWNERS	Removed static assignments for TypeScript and security content

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

.github/scripts/get-reviewers.mjs:40

• [nitpick] The parameter name 'content' is too generic. Consider renaming it to 'fileContent' or 'markdownContent' to better indicate what it contains.

  if (!content.trimStart().startsWith('---')) {

[github-actions]

Lighthouse Results

URL	Performance	Accessibility	Best Practices	SEO	Report
/en	🟢 99	🟢 100	🟢 100	🟢 100	🔗
/en/about	🟢 100	🟢 97	🟢 100	🟠 88	🔗
/en/about/previous-releases	🟢 100	🟢 93	🟢 100	🟠 89	🔗
/en/download	🟢 95	🟢 100	🟢 100	🟢 100	🔗
/en/blog	🟢 99	🟢 100	🟢 96	🟢 100	🔗

[targos]

• I am not sure you can actually request reviews from teams that don't have write permission in the repo? At least I cannot do it from the GH UI (tried in this PR).
• Some collaborators prefer not being requested for review because it clashes with their use of GH at work. That's one of the reasons we use team pings in core.

[avivkeller]

• I am not sure you can actually request reviews from teams that don't have write permission in the repo? At least I cannot do it from the GH UI (tried in this PR).

The API is different, AFAICT. To request via the UI, the team needs write access, however, using the API/GitHub Mobile, any team can be requested.

• Some collaborators prefer not being requested for review because it clashes with their use of GH at work. That's one of the reasons we use team pings in core.

I have no preference either way

[flakey5]

Some collaborators prefer not being requested for review because it clashes with their use of GH at work

Doesn't it give them a notification either way?

[targos]

IIRC it wasn't about notifications but this tab on github.com/pulls:

[ovflowd]

I'm against a per-file ownership setting. I rather use a symbolic file such as NODE_CODEOWNERS and have it laid out there in the same format you are allowed to on the real CODEOWNERS file.

Otherwise maintaining ownership of each file becomes a burden. If the data becomes stale or you need to mass update and remember you actually edited/updated every single place.

[avivkeller]

Otherwise maintaining ownership of each file becomes a burden. If the data becomes stale or you need to mass update and remember you actually edited/updated every single place.

We are going to be mapping these files to APIs in core anyway, so that "burden" would already be on our shoulders, even without the ownership aspect, so-to-speak.

Plus, it's not often that a given API for an article will change. If a team name changes, only the one JSON file needs to be updated.