[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Rename the agent rule Edit tab to Custom renamed the Edit tab in the new agent rule flow to Custom. This made one step in Automate Workflows with Agent Rules incorrect.

Incorrect sentence (step 5 of "How to create an agent rule"):

Choose a pre-written rule from the Suggested list and select Next, or select Edit to write your own rule.

What changed: the tab label is now Custom (workspace.rules.agentRules.writeTab in src/languages/en.ts), so the step now says "select Custom to write your own rule." No other content changed.

Fixed Issues

$ #105180
PROPOSAL:

Tests

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review"
// Please describe what tests you performed that validates your changed worked.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the QA tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review".
// Please describe what QA needs to do to validate your changes and what areas do they need to test for regressions.

• 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

@yuwenmemon, please review the files changed and confirm they reflect the current behavior. Then post a new comment saying @MelvinBot mark this PR as ready for review.

[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 2026-10-30T22:04:24.581259Z We couldn’t complete this review. Comment @codex review to try again.	c3d63eb	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 @JmillsExpensify

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR makes a single, focused terminology correction in Automate-Workflows-with-Agent-Rules.md. In the "How to create an agent rule" steps, the UI label for writing a custom rule was changed from Edit to Custom (step 5). This aligns the documentation with the actual UI label, exactly the kind of exact-UI-match correction the governance files require.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 10/10 - The changed step remains clear, action-oriented, and correctly formatted. The branching instruction (choose a suggested rule or create a custom one) is easy to follow.
• AI Readiness: 10/10 - No impact to headings, metadata, or structure. The task-based heading and sequential numbered steps are preserved. Using the precise UI label Custom improves retrieval accuracy for members searching how to write their own rule.
• Style Compliance: 10/10 - The new label Custom is bolded, uses the select verb, matches UI capitalization, and is not wrapped in quotes or paraphrased, consistent with HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md button naming standards.

Key Findings

• The diff is a precise one-line UI label correction (Edit to Custom), the governance-preferred way to keep docs matching production UI.
• Button formatting conventions are correctly maintained: bolded, sentence case, select verb, no quotation marks.
• No new structural, metadata, or cross-linking concerns introduced by this change.
• Assumption: this reflects the real production UI label. If the button still reads Edit in product, it would need to be reverted. The change can only be fully validated against src/languages/en.ts and the live UI.

Recommendations

• Confirm the button label in production (and/or src/languages/en.ts) is indeed Custom so the doc matches the source of truth.
• No further documentation changes needed. The edit is clean, compliant, and ready to merge once the label is verified.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/ai-agents/Automate-Workflows-with-Agent-Rules.md - Approved. Single compliant UI label correction on step 5 of "How to create an agent rule."

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/yuwenmemon in version: 9.5.27-0 🚀

platform	result
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅

[m-natarajan]

@yuwenmemon No QA steps, OK to checkoff this one?

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/blimpich in version: 9.5.27-2 🚀

platform	result
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android
• iOS