chore: improve output with metadata processing

[avivkeller]

This PR improves the doc-kit generation pipeline by:

1. Pulling in comments that are missing from types.d.ts by reading source files directly
2. Adding additional inline documentation and code comments for clarity
3. Categorizing data as discussed on Discord
4. Updating declaration outputs to better adhere to https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nodejs/doc-kit/refs/heads/main/docs/specification.md.

cc @webpack/gsoc-2026: I’d appreciate reviews and feedback on any mistakes, edge cases, or changes that should be made.

Additionally, this PR refactors the processor into several smaller modules:

1. Sitemap generation
2. Routing
3. Type map generation
4. export= consolidation
5. Source comment appending (required to recover all source-level comments)

At the moment, sitemap categories are defined using regular expressions, though this can be adjusted later if needed.

source.mjs can eventually be removed once either:

• types.d.ts includes all source comments, or
• the Webpack source is migrated to a TypeScript-compatible structure (e.g. converted to TypeScript or updated for TS 7.0 support).

[vercel]

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
webpack-doc-kit	Ready	Preview, Comment	May 25, 2026 6:41pm

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR updates the TypeDoc → Markdown → doc-kit pipeline to generate docs that better align with the doc-kit specification by enriching reflections with source-file JSDoc metadata, reorganizing routing/output structure (including synthetic “types” pages), and adjusting theme partials/helpers to emit doc-kit-shaped Markdown.

Changes:

• Introduces a processor-layer router and metadata pass to enrich reflections from webpack/lib source comments and to reorganize output pages/anchors (including category “types” pages).
• Refactors theme partials/helpers to keep titles/anchors in sync with the router and to format examples/signatures in a doc-kit-friendly way.
• Tweaks generation configuration (plugin entrypoints, TypeDoc options, doc-kit config inputs and web settings).

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 11 out of 11 changed files in this pull request and generated 4 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
scripts/markdown.mjs	Switches to the new processor plugin entrypoint and adjusts TypeDoc output options.
plugins/theme/router.mjs	Removes the theme-owned router (routing moved into the processor plugin).
plugins/theme/partials/index.mjs	Major partial overrides for doc-kit-style headings/lists and type-page-aware titles.
plugins/theme/index.mjs	Stops registering a router from the theme plugin (theme-only registration remains).
plugins/theme/helpers/index.mjs	Updates example rendering to fence bare snippets and align with doc-kit expectations.
plugins/shared/titles.mjs	Centralizes title/signature formatting to keep router + theme anchors consistent.
plugins/shared/categories.mjs	Adds category inference rules used by routing/type-page generation.
plugins/processor/router.mjs	Adds a processor-owned router with synthetic type pages and doc-kit slugging/anchors.
plugins/processor/metadata.mjs	Adds source-metadata extraction from webpack/lib JS files and applies it to reflections.
plugins/processor/index.mjs	Wires router registration, metadata enrichment, and writes the final type-map using router URLs.
doc-kit.config.mjs	Adjusts doc-kit input globbing and web generation settings (threads/remote config).

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

plugins/processor/index.mjs:18

• typeMapKey() duplicates the same “prefix project root name if missing” logic that also exists in plugins/shared/titles.mjs (fullName()). Duplicating this logic risks drift between rendered titles/anchors and the generated type-map keys; consider importing and reusing the shared helper instead of reimplementing it here.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[Copilot]

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review is ineligible. To be eligible to request a review, you need a paid Copilot license, or your organization must enable Copilot code review.

[Copilot]

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review is ineligible. To be eligible to request a review, you need a paid Copilot license, or your organization must enable Copilot code review.

[avivkeller]

@moshams272 Thanks for pushing those commits! Unfortunately, I ended up overwriting them during my push because I had already incorporated the same ideas in a slightly different way.

For example, the README → index workaround was replaced by configuring TypeDoc to emit the entry file as index directly instead of readme, which avoids the need for the additional workaround layer.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 18 out of 19 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.

[avivkeller]

@ryzrr @moshams272 Unless you have more comments, could you approve this so it can land? We can iterate in follow-ups, but I feel like I (and this is my fault) am making this PR very large

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 18 out of 19 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.

[moshams272]

@ryzrr @moshams272 Unless you have more comments, could you approve this so it can land? We can iterate in follow-ups, but I feel like I (and this is my fault) am making this PR very large

I really enjoyed reviewing this code. Don't worry about the PR size at all, it's totally worth it.