docs: view scout approach in contribution guidelines

[angelicawill]

resolves #64

https://github.com/holdex/developers/blob/25e7002ecdb171c987fe571a36f553b1fc1604a3/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md#scout-approach

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Updated contribution guidelines to add a "Scout approach" subsection that encourages proactive review engagement and timely feedback; reordered the existing "Code Quality and Reviews" section to follow the new guidance.

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

Adds a "Scout approach" subsection to .github/CONTRIBUTING.md that instructs contributors to proactively find and review PRs needing attention; reorders the "Code Quality and Reviews" section to follow the new subsection. No code, tooling, or logic changes.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Documentation update ​.github/CONTRIBUTING.md	Adds a new "Scout approach" subsection encouraging proactive review ownership and guidance on identifying PRs that need reviewers; moves the existing "Code Quality and Reviews" section to follow the new content (content reordering only).

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

• Single documentation file changed
• No logic, tests, or configuration edits
• Review focus: clarity and wording of the new guidance

Suggested reviewers

• markholdex
• matthewvogas
• georgeciubotaru

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately describes the main change: adding the scout approach section to contribution guidelines documentation.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	The PR successfully addresses issue #64 by adding the scout approach subsection to CONTRIBUTING.md, guiding developers to proactively seek PR reviews when idle.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	All changes are confined to .github/CONTRIBUTING.md with documentation updates directly addressing the scout approach objectives; no out-of-scope modifications detected.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

.github/CONTRIBUTING.md (1)

254-254: Strengthen the wording and consider adding the search link.

Two improvements: (1) "free time" is weak—replace with more concrete language like "idle time" or "available capacity". (2) The PR objectives mention providing a search link to help developers find PRs needing reviewers. Consider adding a reference to that resource to make the guidance more actionable.

-If you ever have free time, be proactive and apply the scout approach: own the job, look for PRs that still need reviewers, and offer timely feedback so work keeps moving.
+If you have idle time, be proactive and apply the scout approach: own the job, find PRs that need reviewers using [this search](https://github.com/issues?q=state%3Aopen+archived%3Afalse+sort%3Aupdated-desc+is%3Apr+org%3Aholdex), and offer timely feedback to keep work moving.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between a8360d3 and 25e7002.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• .github/CONTRIBUTING.md (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

🪛 LanguageTool

.github/CONTRIBUTING.md

[style] ~254-~254: The word “free” tends to be overused. Consider using an alternative wording to strengthen your writing.
Context: ... #### Scout approach If you ever have free time, be proactive and apply the scout appro...

(FREE_TIME)

🪛 markdownlint-cli2 (0.18.1)

.github/CONTRIBUTING.md

252-252: Heading levels should only increment by one level at a time
Expected: h3; Actual: h4

(MD001, heading-increment)

[holdex]

Time Submission Status

Member	Status	Time	Action	Last Update
angelicawill	✅ Submitted	20min	Update time	Nov 27, 2025, 1:05 AM
zolotokrylin	✅ Submitted	5min	Update time	Nov 27, 2025, 1:05 AM

[angelicawill]

Can't attach reviewer. This PR is ready for review, thanks @zolotokrylin

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

.github/CONTRIBUTING.md (1)

254-254: Consider rephrasing "free time" for stronger writing.

The phrase "free time" is somewhat overused in professional documentation. Alternatives like "idle time," "downtime," or "between assignments" would convey the same meaning while adding variety to the writing.

-If you ever have free time, be proactive and apply the scout approach: own the job, look for PRs that still need reviewers, and offer timely feedback so work keeps moving.
+If you have idle time, be proactive and apply the scout approach: own the job, look for PRs that still need reviewers, and offer timely feedback so work keeps moving.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 25e7002 and 055309b.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• .github/CONTRIBUTING.md (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

🪛 LanguageTool

.github/CONTRIBUTING.md

[style] ~254-~254: The word “free” tends to be overused. Consider using an alternative wording to strengthen your writing.
Context: .... ### Scout approach If you ever have free time, be proactive and apply the scout appro...

(FREE_TIME)

🔇 Additional comments (1)

.github/CONTRIBUTING.md (1)

245-256: Heading hierarchy fixed; content aligns with PR objectives.

The previous critical issue about heading levels has been resolved—the "Scout approach" subsection now correctly uses h3 (###), maintaining proper hierarchy progression from h2 "Requesting Review" through consecutive h3 subsections. The content effectively addresses issue #64 by encouraging proactive engagement with open PRs during idle periods.