Refresh browser pool guides and standardize on "browser pools" by andrewleesteele · Pull Request #464 · kernel/docs

andrewleesteele · 2026-07-28T02:36:43Z

Summary

Browser pools weren't surfaced where a user decides to go to production — the concept was called "Reserved Browsers" in the sidebar, and the Create page never mentioned them. And the pools page itself had grown into a tutorial and an API reference wearing one hat, explaining the same handful of facts three and four times over.

This PR is scoped to browser pools documentation. The end-to-end quickstart is #470 (stacked on this branch), and the broader docs IA rework — replacing Basics/Intermediate/Advanced with lifecycle groups — is tracked separately. (Merged main to pick up #469, which moved Chrome policies to a standalone page.)

1. One name: "browser pools", and every other "pool" qualified. The API, SDKs, CLI, and dashboard already said "browser pools" — the docs were the outlier. Renamed the sidebar group, dropped "reserved browsers" as a product name, and swept bare "pool" → "browser pool" in prose. "Pool" is overloaded here, so the other senses are disambiguated too: "connection pool" on the curl networking limits, "managed proxy pool" on bot-detection. ("ISP pool" and the unikernels page's "warm pools" were already unambiguous.)

2. Not described as "warm". Per docs-team feedback on this PR, "warm" implies pools run hot and bill for idle time — the opposite of the actual benefit. Now "ready to use" / "pre-provisioned", and the pricing line leads with the benefit: "an idle browser pool costs nothing between tasks."

3. One page at /browsers/pools. The section was three pages (overview + FAQ + Chrome policies); it's now one, served at /browsers/pools rather than /browsers/pools/overview. The FAQ folded in, Chrome policies left via #469, the nav group collapsed to a single entry, and a redirect covers the old path. The changelog's bare /browsers/pools links — previously 404s — now resolve, because that's where the page actually lives.

4. Deduped. The intro explained "config is pre-applied so acquisition is faster" four times; read-only profiles appeared three times; update/stale-config semantics three times, including a paragraph duplicated verbatim two paragraphs later; refresh_on_profile_update three times. Merged the three profile sections into one "Profiles with browser pools", moved the stale-config warning to "Update a pool" where it belongs, replaced "Pool configuration options" with a short Configuration pointer, and moved Sizing next to the acquire/release lifecycle.

5. Pitched where users move to production, workload-driven. An "On demand or from a browser pool" section on introduction/create (build with browsers.create(), move to a pool once you're repeating the same task), plus pointers from the home page and Scale. Fundamentals first, then pools — not a day-one default, not an afterthought.

6. Scale page rewritten. It was written pre-launch and framed pools around three co-equal factors with a blunt "<50 concurrency → don't bother" gate. Now: benefit (low-latency acquisition, reserved capacity, higher creation throughput; the concurrency-limit tradeoff) → when to use vs on-demand (workload signals, not thresholds) → sizing (links to the pools page), keeping the three architecture patterns and dropping their numeric gates.

7. Content gaps closed.

Reuse semantics — reuse: true (default) returns the same browser with cookies/storage/sessions intact, so it's fast but not isolated; reuse: false is clean at the cost of a rebuild. Multi-tenant leak warning added.
Why acquiring is faster — pre-applied restart-triggering configs, and no browser-creation rate limit.
Read-only profiles — point to the per-user-profiles pattern instead of "use a standalone session," which undersold it.
Sizing — watch available_count, target 10–20% available; a small pool still pays off when acquisition latency matters, with no concurrency-number gate.
Limitations — new section: no GPU browsers, one fixed config per pool (start_url the only per-acquire override), read-only profiles, reserved capacity holds concurrency slots whether or not acquired, Start-Up/Enterprise only.
fill_rate_per_minute example aligned with the documented 25% default (was 10, which read as a competing default).

Verification

Merged origin/main; resolved docs.json and took main's canonical browsers/chrome-policies.mdx.
docs.json valid; every nav page resolves to a file; the pools entry is a single browsers/pools page; no stale overview/faq/policy-json nav refs.
All internal /browsers/pools/overview links repointed; a stale #create-a-pool-of-reserved-browsers anchor fixed; every in-page anchor resolves; externally-linked anchors preserved (#how-browser-pools-work, #create-a-pool, #update-a-pool, #sizing-a-browser-pool, #per-user-profiles-with-pools).
Redirects: /browsers/pools/overview → /browsers/pools (new), /browsers/pools/policy-json → /browsers/chrome-policies (from Move Chrome Policies to Advanced and clarify it applies to individual browsers #469).
API details verified against the OpenAPI spec — 25% default fill rate, 600s default timeout. Correction: an earlier revision of this PR claimed size is required on update; it isn't. size is required on create only, and optional on update (param.Opt[int64], "If provided, replaces the number of browsers to maintain in the pool"). The note asserting otherwise has been removed, along with the Go update sample that passed a bare int for that optional field. "Acquire isn't rate-limited" verified against the API's rate-limiter: only POST /browsers is rate-limited.
mint dev not booted in this environment, so the pages aren't visually confirmed. Worth a preview pass before merge.

Add a Get started section with an end-to-end quickstart #470 — the end-to-end quickstart, stacked on this branch. Merge this first.
add pool sizing calculator to reserved browsers overview #392 (browser-pool sizing calculator) — recommend closing; this PR adds a prose "Sizing a browser pool" section instead of the interactive component.
Nav placement: the pools page stays under Advanced pending the IA rework, where it should move under a lifecycle Scale group.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Note

Low Risk
Documentation-only changes with redirects and link updates; no runtime code paths affected. Residual risk is broken anchors or stale external changelog links not updated in this PR.

Overview
Consolidates browser pools documentation into a single page at /browsers/pools, removing browsers/pools/overview.mdx and browsers/pools/faq.mdx. The nav drops the "Reserved Browsers" subgroup for one entry; docs.json adds redirects from the old paths and repoints internal links from /browsers/pools/overview (and old anchors) to the new page.

The new guide deduplicates repeated lifecycle, profile, and update semantics, adds limitations, reuse behavior (including multi-tenant warnings), sizing via available_count, and clearer why acquire is faster (pre-applied restart configs, no browsers.create rate limit). Wording shifts from "warm/pre-warmed" to ready/pre-provisioned and clarifies idle pool billing.

Production positioning updates: introduction/create gets an "On demand or from a pool" section with acquire examples; introduction/scale is rewritten around benefits, workload-based pool vs on-demand choice, and sizing (without hard concurrency gates). Smaller sweeps across pricing, concepts, profiles, CLI/MCP copy, and misc pages qualify bare "pool" where needed (e.g. curl connection pool).

No product or API behavior changes in this diff—documentation and IA only.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit cd11471. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

Add a Browser Pools Quickstart, move the pool guides from Advanced to Basics, and use "browser pools" as the single name for the concept everywhere in the docs (the API, SDKs, CLI, and dashboard already do). Push pools as the production path from the Create page, the home page, and the Scale guide, and lead with the fact that idle pooled browsers aren't billed.

vercel · 2026-07-28T02:36:51Z

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
docs	Error		Aug 4, 2026 9:17pm

mintlify · 2026-07-28T02:37:53Z

Preview deployment for your docs. Learn more about Mintlify Previews.

Project	Status	Preview	Updated (UTC)
Kernel	🟢 Ready	View Preview	Jul 28, 2026, 2:37 AM

💡 Tip: Enable Workflows to automatically generate PRs for you.

mintlify · 2026-07-28T02:41:20Z

Preview deployment for your docs. Learn more about Mintlify Previews.

Project	Status	Preview	Updated (UTC)
Kernel	🟡 Building	–	Jul 28, 2026, 2:36 AM

💡 Tip: Enable Workflows to automatically generate PRs for you.

andrewleesteele · 2026-07-28T02:55:15Z

Note: Hypeship prematurely created this PR...still thinking necessary changes through.

- Document that reuse: true persists browser state across acquisitions (not isolated) and reuse: false is the clean/per-user path, with a multi-tenant leak warning. - Explain why acquiring is faster than browsers.create(): pre-applied restart-triggering configs and no create-endpoint rate limit. - Point the read-only-profile note at the per-user-profiles pattern instead of a standalone session. - Fold two update-semantics FAQ entries into one pointer to the canonical Update a pool section; align the fill-rate example with the 25% default. - Keep the Browser Pools nav group in Advanced for now. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

The pools quickstart is being folded into a future unified Kernel quickstart rather than living as a feature-specific guide. Delete the page and its nav entry, and repoint the six inbound links (home, pricing, concepts, create, scale, and the overview callout) to the browser pools overview. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

cursor

Stale comment

Risk assessment: Very Low

Verdict: Very Low risk — prior approval retained (risk did not increase).

Re-evaluation after synchronize

Previous automation approval was on bf5ab05. Latest HEAD is 0ca62af, which removes browsers/pools/quickstart.mdx, drops its docs.json nav entry, and retargets intro/home links to the overview. That narrows scope; it does not raise risk.

Evidence (from full diff vs base)

10 files, all Mintlify docs: .mdx content plus a docs.json nav label rename (Reserved Browsers → Browser Pools).

Content/terminology updates and example code blocks on pools overview, FAQ, create, scale, pricing, concepts, and related pages.

No application code, APIs, auth, infra, schema, deploy config, or model-prompt instruction files.

No CODEOWNERS file requiring a separate owner approval.

Why this level

Documentation-only surface with no production logic or shared runtime impact.

Blast radius limited to published docs/nav; easy to reason about and revert.

Actions taken

Risk unchanged at Very Low → did not dismiss prior approval.

Did not re-approve (approval already present).

Did not assign or request reviewers.

_{Sent by Cursor Automation: Assign PR reviewers}

Position browser pools as the step you reach when taking a working automation to production, after learning to create and drive a browser — rather than "most production workloads run on them from day one," which pushes them before the fundamentals. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

cursor

Stale comment

Risk assessment: Very Low

Verdict: Very Low risk — prior approval retained (risk did not increase).

Re-evaluation after synchronize

Previous automation approval was on bf5ab05. Latest HEAD is ad048aa. Since that approval, the branch removed the browser-pools quickstart (already assessed) and made a one-line home-page copy reframe in index.mdx. That does not raise risk.

Evidence (from full diff vs base)

10 files, all Mintlify docs: .mdx content plus a docs.json nav label rename (Reserved Browsers → Browser Pools).

Terminology, guidance, and example code-block updates across pools overview/FAQ, create, scale, pricing, concepts, and related pages.

No application code, APIs, auth, infra, schema, deploy config, or model-prompt instruction files.

No CODEOWNERS file requiring a separate owner approval.

Why this level

Documentation-only surface with no production logic or shared runtime impact.

Blast radius limited to published docs/nav; easy to reason about and revert.

Actions taken

Risk unchanged at Very Low → did not dismiss prior approval.

Did not re-approve (approval already present).

Did not assign or request reviewers.

_{Sent by Cursor Automation: Assign PR reviewers}

Move the one piece of guidance the overview lacked — pool sizing via available_count — into a Sizing section, and drop the FAQ page. Its other entries duplicated overview sections (update, reuse, timeout, profiles) or belonged elsewhere (target-site rate limiting, debugging). Repoint the auth/profiles link to the per-user-profiles section. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

cursor

Stale comment

Risk assessment: Very Low

Verdict: Very Low risk — prior approval retained (risk did not increase).

Re-evaluation after synchronize

Previous automation approval was on bf5ab05. Latest HEAD is 8f38449. Since that approval, the branch removed the browser-pools quickstart, reframed home-page copy, folded the FAQ into the overview (deleted browsers/pools/faq.mdx), added a short sizing section, and retargeted a profiles link. That does not raise risk.

Evidence (from full diff vs base)

11 files, all Mintlify docs: .mdx content plus docs.json nav updates (Reserved Browsers → Browser Pools; FAQ page removed from nav).

Terminology, guidance, and example code-block updates across pools overview, create, scale, pricing, concepts, and related pages.

No application code, APIs, auth, infra, schema, deploy config, or model-prompt instruction files.

No CODEOWNERS file requiring a separate owner approval.

Why this level

Documentation-only surface with no production logic or shared runtime impact.

Blast radius limited to published docs/nav; easy to reason about and revert.

Actions taken

Risk unchanged at Very Low → did not dismiss prior approval.

Did not re-approve (approval already present).

Did not assign or request reviewers.

_{Sent by Cursor Automation: Assign PR reviewers}

Apply the naming rule to cross-page references (home, pricing, projects, scale, create, proxies, reference, integrations) and the pools overview intro so the feature is never shortened to "pool" — which collides with connection pools, IP pools, and socket pools elsewhere in the docs. Non-browser-pool uses (curl connection/socket pools, proxy IP/ISP pools) are intentionally left for their own qualifiers. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

cursor

Stale comment

Risk assessment: Very Low

Verdict: Very Low risk — prior approval retained (risk did not increase).

Re-evaluation after synchronize

Previous automation approval was on bf5ab05. Latest HEAD is fd9c595. Since that approval, the branch removed the browser-pools quickstart, folded/deleted the FAQ, reframed home-page copy, and (latest) spell-out terminology updates replacing bare "pool" with "browser pool" across docs. That does not raise risk.

Evidence (from full diff vs base)

16 files, all Mintlify docs: .mdx content plus docs.json nav updates (Reserved Browsers → Browser Pools; FAQ page removed from nav).

Terminology, guidance, and example code-block updates across pools overview, create, scale, pricing, concepts, and related pages; FAQ deleted.

No application code, APIs, auth, infra, schema, deploy config, or model-prompt instruction files.

No CODEOWNERS file requiring a separate owner approval.

Why this level

Documentation-only surface with no production logic or shared runtime impact.

Blast radius limited to published docs/nav; easy to reason about and revert.

Actions taken

Risk unchanged at Very Low → did not dismiss prior approval.

Did not re-approve (approval already present).

Did not assign or request reviewers.

_{Sent by Cursor Automation: Assign PR reviewers}

…s-docs-refresh # Conflicts: # browsers/chrome-policies.mdx # docs.json

With the FAQ folded in and Chrome policies moved out (#469), the section is one page. Move browsers/pools/overview.mdx → browsers/pools.mdx so it serves at /browsers/pools, retitle it "Browser Pools", and collapse the nav group to a single entry. Repoint every /browsers/pools/overview link to /browsers/pools, fix a stale #create-a-pool-of-reserved-browsers anchor, and add a redirect from the old overview path. Changelog's bare /browsers/pools links now resolve to a real page. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

- Refer to on-demand browsers rather than browsers.create() in prose, and drop the size/fill-rate parameter mismatch: the code sample and API reference own parameter names and defaults, not the prose. - Cut the fill-rate link from five places to one, in Sizing, where you'd act on it. - Give flush its own short section under Update, where it's the remedy for stale configuration, and restore the two links that pointed at it. - Say "browser pool" at each section's first mention, keeping "the pool" only for back-references; rename the Create, Update, and per-user headings to match, updating the links that referenced them. - Remove three more restatements: the Create lead repeated the Steps block, the Update warning re-explained discard_all_idle, and the per-user lead repeated the read-only paragraph above it. - Soften releasing into a best practice rather than an instruction, and trim the Managed Auth mention to a pointer. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

cursor

Stale comment

Risk assessment: Very Low

Verdict: Very Low risk — prior approval retained (risk did not increase).

Re-evaluation after synchronize

Previous automation approval remains in effect. Latest HEAD is f6abf40. Diff vs merge base is still documentation-only: Mintlify .mdx pages plus docs.json nav/redirect updates.

Latest delta since the prior assessment (d75d11b → f6abf40): prose/structure polish in browsers/pools.mdx, plus two cross-link/anchor wording tweaks in auth/profiles.mdx and browsers/chrome-policies.mdx.

Evidence (from diff only)

26 files, +408 / −722 — all .mdx or docs.json

Consolidates browser pools docs (browsers/pools.mdx), deletes old browsers/pools/overview.mdx and faq.mdx, updates cross-links and terminology

Adds redirect /browsers/pools/overview → /browsers/pools and flattens sidebar entry in docs.json

Expands intro guidance in introduction/create.mdx and introduction/scale.mdx (examples and prose only)

No application code, CI, infra, auth, billing logic, or schema changes

No CODEOWNERS file in the repo

Risk factors

Factor Assessment

Codepaths / production logic None

Blast radius Docs site content and navigation only

Infrastructure None

Security / auth None

Action

No approval change. Risk remains Very Low; not re-approving because an automation approval is already present.

_{Sent by Cursor Automation: Assign PR reviewers}

The intro stated the same idea three times — configure once, get pre-configured browsers — and never actually said what a browser pool is. Replace it with three paragraphs doing one job each: what a browser pool is, why acquiring is faster, and what it costs. The Chromium restart becomes part of the start-up point rather than a third parallel clause. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

cursor

Stale comment

Risk assessment: Very Low

Verdict: Very Low risk — prior approval retained (risk did not increase).

Re-evaluation after synchronize

Previous automation approval was on bf5ab05. Latest HEAD is a4c7e45. Since that approval, the branch continued documentation-only work (FAQ fold/delete, terminology standardization, page collapse to /browsers/pools, Scale-page rewrite, pools-page restructuring). Latest delta (f6abf40 → a4c7e45) edits a single file (browsers/pools.mdx): rewrites the intro into a clearer definition / latency / cost framing. That does not raise risk.

Evidence (from full diff vs base)

26 files, all Mintlify docs: .mdx content plus docs.json nav/redirect updates (Reserved Browsers → single browsers/pools entry; FAQ removed; /browsers/pools/overview → /browsers/pools).

Terminology, guidance, and example code-block updates across pools, create, scale, pricing, concepts, and related pages; FAQ and old overview deleted in favor of one pools page.

Latest delta: 1 file, docs prose only (+4 / −2).

No application code, APIs, auth, infra, schema, deploy config, or model-prompt instruction files.

No CODEOWNERS file requiring a separate owner approval.

Why this level

Documentation-only surface with no production logic or shared runtime impact.

Blast radius limited to published docs/nav; easy to reason about and revert.

Actions taken

Risk unchanged at Very Low → did not dismiss prior approval.

Did not re-approve (approval already present).

Did not assign or request reviewers.

_{Sent by Cursor Automation: Assign PR reviewers}

- Drop the "size is always required on update" note: size is optional on update (required only on create), and following the note risks resizing the pool as a side effect of an unrelated config change. - Fix the Go update sample, which passed a bare int for an optional field. - Rework the sizing section: gloss available_count/acquired_count in prose, and match the page's bold-lead-in bullet pattern. - Fold the one-line flush subsection into the update warning that already referenced it, and add flush to the API reference pointer. - Drop the "pre-" from the page description. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

cursor

Stale comment

Risk assessment: Very Low

Verdict: Very Low risk — prior approval retained (risk did not increase).

Re-evaluation after synchronize

Previous automation approval was on bf5ab05. Latest HEAD is d67b61c. Since that approval, the branch continued documentation-only work (FAQ fold/delete, terminology standardization, page collapse to /browsers/pools, Scale/Create rewrites, pools-page tightening).

Latest delta since the prior assessment (a4c7e45 → d67b61c): copy and sample fixes in browsers/pools.mdx only — drop incorrect “size always required on update” guidance, correct the Go update sample (kernel.Int(20)), rework sizing bullets, and fold flush into the existing update warning. That does not raise risk.

Evidence (from diff only)

26 files, +402 / −722 — all Mintlify .mdx or docs.json

Consolidates browser pools docs onto /browsers/pools, adds overview→pools redirect, updates nav

Cross-page link/terminology updates (“browser pool”) and intro/scale/pricing prose

No application code, infra, auth/billing logic, schemas, or shared libraries

No CODEOWNERS requirement found

Decision

Risk remains Very Low. Prior approval stands; not re-approving.

_{Sent by Cursor Automation: Assign PR reviewers}

A browser pool and browsers.create() are two ways of provisioning the same browser, not two instruments to pick between, so "the right tool" reads oddly here. Use the verb the section below already uses. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

cursor

Stale comment

Risk assessment: Very Low

Verdict: Very Low risk — prior approval retained (risk did not increase).

Re-evaluation after synchronize

Previous automation approval was on bf5ab05. Latest HEAD is 327ca95. Since that approval, the branch continued documentation-only work (FAQ fold/delete, terminology standardization, page collapse to /browsers/pools, Scale/Create rewrites, pools-page tightening).

Latest delta since the prior assessment (d67b61c → 327ca95): one-line copy edit in introduction/scale.mdx ("when a browser pool is the right tool" → "when to reach for a browser pool"). That does not raise risk.

Evidence (from diff only)

26 files, +402 / −722 — all Mintlify .mdx or docs.json

Consolidates browser pools docs onto /browsers/pools, adds overview→pools redirect, updates nav

Cross-page link/terminology updates and intro/scale/pricing prose

No application code, infra, auth/billing logic, schemas, or shared libraries

No CODEOWNERS requirement found

Decision

Risk remains Very Low. Prior approval stands; not re-approving.

_{Sent by Cursor Automation: Assign PR reviewers}

cursor

Cursor Bugbot has reviewed your changes using high effort and found 1 potential issue.

^{❌ Bugbot Autofix is OFF. To automatically fix reported issues with cloud agents, enable autofix in the Cursor dashboard.}

Want fixes drafted automatically? Bugbot Autofix can create code changes for findings. A team admin can enable Autofix in the Cursor dashboard.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 327ca95. Configure here.}

AnnaXWang · 2026-08-04T20:51:47Z

 Browser curl concurrency is constrained by Chromium's internal networking limits:

- **HTTP/1.x (direct)** — About 6 sockets per host group and up to 256 active sockets per pool.
+- **HTTP/1.x (direct)** — About 6 sockets per host group and up to 256 active sockets per connection pool.


is connection pool the same as browser pool?

"connection pool" refers to chromium's internal socket pool (HTTP/1.x sockets), unrelated to browser pools.

AnnaXWang · 2026-08-04T20:52:17Z

 ## Browser
 A `Browser` is a cloud-based browser managed by Kernel. They accept Chrome DevTools Protocol connections and can be used to run browser automations or web agents.

+## Browser Pool


AnnaXWang · 2026-08-04T20:54:04Z

since we are removing browsers/pools/overview -> can we set up a redirect to /browsers/pools so that URLs that are floating in the wild don't break?

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

andrewleesteele · 2026-08-04T21:17:25Z

Pushed cd11471:

@AnnaXWang re: redirects — the /browsers/pools/overview → /browsers/pools redirect was already in docs.json, but you were right to push on the in-the-wild links: this PR also deletes pools/faq.mdx, and there was no redirect for /browsers/pools/faq — so any externally-pasted link to the old FAQ would've 404'd. Added it now. Full coverage of the old paths:

/browsers/pools/overview → /browsers/pools
/browsers/pools/faq → /browsers/pools (new)
/browsers/pools/policy-json → /browsers/chrome-policies
/browsers/pools/scaling → /introduction/scale

(These are page-level redirects — old per-question FAQ anchors land on the pools page rather than the exact heading.)

re: Bugbot "reserved browsers" — fixed both: introduction/scale.mdx ("keep reserved browsers utilized" → "keep the browser pool utilized") and info/pricing.mdx ("reserved in a browser pool" → "maintained in a browser pool"). Left the two changelog.mdx mentions as-is since they're historical entries describing what the page was named at the time.

cursor

Stale comment

Risk assessment: Very Low

Verdict: Very Low risk — prior approval retained (risk did not increase).

Re-evaluation after synchronize

Previous automation approval was on bf5ab05. Latest HEAD is cd11471. Since that approval, the branch continued documentation-only work (FAQ fold/delete, terminology standardization, page collapse to /browsers/pools, Scale/Create rewrites, pools-page tightening).

Latest delta since the prior assessment (327ca95 → cd11471): adds /browsers/pools/faq → /browsers/pools redirect in docs.json, plus two wording tweaks (reserved → maintained in pricing; "reserved browsers" → "the browser pool" in scale). That does not raise risk.

Evidence (from diff only)

26 files, +403 / −722 — all Mintlify .mdx or docs.json

Consolidates browser pools docs onto /browsers/pools, adds overview/faq→pools redirects, updates nav

Cross-page link/terminology updates and intro/scale/pricing prose

No application code, infra, auth/billing logic, schemas, or shared libraries

No CODEOWNERS requirement found

Decision

Risk remains Very Low. Prior approval stands; not re-approving.

_{Sent by Cursor Automation: Assign PR reviewers}

cursor

Risk assessment: Very Low

Verdict: Very Low risk — prior approval retained (risk did not increase).

Re-evaluation

Previous automation approval remains active (bf5ab05). Latest HEAD is cd11471. Full diff vs base is still documentation-only; risk has not increased.

Evidence (from diff only)

26 files, +403 / −722 — exclusively Mintlify .mdx and docs.json
Consolidates browser pools docs onto /browsers/pools (deletes overview/FAQ pages), collapses nav (Reserved Browsers → single browsers/pools entry), adds redirects for /browsers/pools/overview and /browsers/pools/faq
Cross-page terminology/link updates plus Create/Scale/pricing prose and example code blocks
No application/runtime code, APIs, auth/billing logic, infrastructure, schemas, CI/deploy config, or model-prompt instruction files
No CODEOWNERS file requiring separate owner approval

Why this level

Docs-site content and nav/redirects only; no production logic or shared systems
Blast radius limited to published documentation IA and copy; easy to reason about and revert

Actions taken

Risk remains Very Low → did not dismiss prior approval
Did not re-approve (approval already present)
Did not assign or request reviewers

_{Sent by Cursor Automation: Assign PR reviewers}

AnnaXWang

thank you! i would love to move "browser pools" out of advanced and into intermediate but that probably opens a whole can of worms because other concepts under advanced also arguably should move as well.

mintlify Bot deployed to staging July 28, 2026 02:37 View deployment

vercel Bot had a problem deploying to Preview July 29, 2026 21:32 Failure

cursor Bot approved these changes Jul 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading

View reviewed changes

mintlify Bot deployed to staging July 29, 2026 21:33 View deployment

vercel Bot had a problem deploying to Preview July 29, 2026 22:47 Failure

cursor Bot reviewed Jul 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

mintlify Bot deployed to staging July 29, 2026 22:48 View deployment

vercel Bot had a problem deploying to Preview July 29, 2026 23:00 Failure

cursor Bot reviewed Jul 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

mintlify Bot deployed to staging July 29, 2026 23:01 View deployment

juecd self-requested a review July 29, 2026 23:03

vercel Bot had a problem deploying to Preview July 29, 2026 23:08 Failure

cursor Bot reviewed Jul 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

mintlify Bot deployed to staging July 29, 2026 23:09 View deployment

vercel Bot had a problem deploying to Preview July 29, 2026 23:22 Failure

cursor Bot reviewed Jul 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

mintlify Bot deployed to staging July 29, 2026 23:23 View deployment

andrewleesteele and others added 2 commits July 29, 2026 23:27

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into hypeship/browser-pool…

802f277

…s-docs-refresh # Conflicts: # browsers/chrome-policies.mdx # docs.json

vercel Bot had a problem deploying to Preview July 29, 2026 23:30 Failure

vercel Bot had a problem deploying to Preview July 30, 2026 19:27 Failure

mintlify Bot deployed to staging July 30, 2026 19:28 View deployment

cursor Bot reviewed Jul 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

vercel Bot had a problem deploying to Preview July 30, 2026 20:22 Failure

mintlify Bot deployed to staging July 30, 2026 20:23 View deployment

cursor Bot reviewed Jul 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

vercel Bot had a problem deploying to Preview August 3, 2026 20:35 Failure

cursor Bot reviewed Aug 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

mintlify Bot deployed to staging August 3, 2026 20:37 View deployment

vercel Bot had a problem deploying to Preview August 3, 2026 20:37 Failure

mintlify Bot deployed to staging August 3, 2026 20:38 View deployment

cursor Bot reviewed Aug 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

andrewleesteele requested a review from AnnaXWang August 3, 2026 20:45

AnnaXWang marked this pull request as ready for review August 4, 2026 20:40

cursor Bot reviewed Aug 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread introduction/scale.mdx Outdated

AnnaXWang reviewed Aug 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

Add pools/faq redirect and drop remaining reserved-browsers wording

cd11471

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

vercel Bot had a problem deploying to Preview August 4, 2026 21:17 Failure

mintlify Bot deployed to staging August 4, 2026 21:18 View deployment

cursor Bot reviewed Aug 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

AnnaXWang self-requested a review August 4, 2026 21:47

AnnaXWang approved these changes Aug 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

Factor	Assessment
Codepaths / production logic	None
Blast radius	Docs site content and navigation only
Infrastructure	None
Security / auth	None

Uh oh!

Conversation

andrewleesteele commented Jul 28, 2026 • edited by cursor Bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Summary

Verification

Related

Uh oh!

vercel Bot commented Jul 28, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mintlify Bot commented Jul 28, 2026

Uh oh!

mintlify Bot commented Jul 28, 2026

Uh oh!

andrewleesteele commented Jul 28, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

cursor Bot left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Risk assessment: Very Low

Re-evaluation after synchronize

Evidence (from full diff vs base)

Why this level

Actions taken

Uh oh!

cursor Bot left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Risk assessment: Very Low

Re-evaluation after synchronize

Evidence (from full diff vs base)

Why this level

Actions taken

Uh oh!

cursor Bot left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Risk assessment: Very Low

Re-evaluation after synchronize

Evidence (from full diff vs base)

Why this level

Actions taken

Uh oh!

cursor Bot left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Risk assessment: Very Low

Re-evaluation after synchronize

Evidence (from full diff vs base)

Why this level

Actions taken

Uh oh!

cursor Bot left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Risk assessment: Very Low

Re-evaluation after synchronize

Evidence (from diff only)

Risk factors

Action

Uh oh!

cursor Bot left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Risk assessment: Very Low

Re-evaluation after synchronize

Evidence (from full diff vs base)

Why this level

Actions taken

Uh oh!

cursor Bot left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Risk assessment: Very Low

Re-evaluation after synchronize

Evidence (from diff only)

Decision

Uh oh!

andrewleesteele commented Jul 28, 2026 •

edited by cursor Bot

Loading

vercel Bot commented Jul 28, 2026 •

edited

Loading

cursor Bot left a comment •

edited

Loading

cursor Bot left a comment •

edited

Loading

cursor Bot left a comment •

edited

Loading

cursor Bot left a comment •

edited

Loading

cursor Bot left a comment •

edited

Loading

cursor Bot left a comment •

edited

Loading

cursor Bot left a comment •

edited

Loading

cursor Bot left a comment •

edited

Loading

cursor Bot left a comment •

edited

Loading