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 GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Preview	Updated (UTC)
nodejs-org	Ready	Preview	Sep 18, 2025 8:17pm

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 76.60%. Comparing base (746c040) to head (713fac0).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8040      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   76.59%   76.60%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         115      115              
  Lines        9602     9602              
  Branches      322      322              
==========================================
+ Hits         7355     7356       +1     
+ Misses       2246     2245       -1     
  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	🔗

[avivkeller]

As discussed in the first Node.js Web Team Meeting, this PR now follows the CODEOWNERS format.

[avivkeller]

@bmuenzenmeyer Can you please add my action to the allowlist (or I can move it into the organization, but that seems unnecessary for such a small action), so I can dummy-test it before merging this?

[bmuenzenmeyer]

Will do tomorrow

[RafaelGSS]

We have discussed it many times in some attempts to introduce actions hosted by personal accounts on nodejs/node, and the same applies on nodejs.org. I don't think we should use an action hosted outside of the Node.js organization as it introduces security risks (and opens a precedent)

Refs:

• nodejs/node#55201 (comment)
• nodejs/node#55201

[avivkeller]

@bjohansebas Can you ask if @pkgjs will accept the action?

[avivkeller]

(Also, for the record, this isn't the only case of outisde actions being used)

[ovflowd]

@bjohansebas Can you ask if @pkgjs will accept the action?

Couldn't we host the action ourselves?

[bjohansebas]

I don’t have a strong opinion on whether it should stay here or be moved to pkgjs, and so far no one from the package-maintenance team has objected to transferring it to pkgjs (we’re still waiting for Aviv to go through the nomination, which should be soon, and then he could go ahead and make the transfer).

[bjohansebas]

The action is now in pkgjs (https://github.com/pkgjs/request-codeowner-review)

[avivkeller]

Yup! I'll change this to use the new location tomorrow :-)

[bjohansebas]

LGTM

[bjohansebas]

Is there still any objection?

[avivkeller]

Bump @RafaelGSS

[avivkeller]

Also, can someone confirm that pkgjs/request-codeowner-review is allowed in this repo, after, I can test to verify this works