Added Aikido ocean integration documentation

[dev-habib-nuhu]

Description

Added Aikido ocean integration documentation

Added docs pages

Please also include the path for the added docs

• Aikido (/build-your-software-catalog/sync-data-to-catalog/code-quality-security/aikido/)
• ...

[aws-amplify-eu-west-1]

This pull request is automatically being deployed by Amplify Hosting (learn more).

Access this pull request here: https://pr-2604.d2ngvl90zqbob8.amplifyapp.com

[claude]

Claude finished @dev-habib-nuhu's task —— View job

---

PR Review Complete

I've reviewed the Aikido ocean integration documentation PR according to the CONTRIBUTING.md guidelines. Overall, this is a well-structured integration document that follows the established patterns, but there are several issues that need to be addressed.

Review Summary

✅ Strengths

• Structure: Follows the standard Ocean integration document pattern with proper tab organization
• Completeness: Includes all required sections (Overview, Setup, Configuration, Examples, Payload samples)
• Live Events: Properly implements webhook support with correct event listing in live-events.jsx
• Blueprint Examples: Comprehensive JSON blueprints with proper schema definitions

❌ Issues Found

Critical Issues

1. Parameter Table Inconsistencies (lines 154-169):

   • Line 163: aikidoClientSecret is marked as ❌ (not required) but should be ✅ (required)
   • Line 164: Parameter name mismatch - table shows integration.config.apiUrl but should be integration.config.aikidoApiUrl to match the YAML example
   • Line 165: baseUrl parameter description mentions "Port Ocean app" but this seems to be a copy-paste error from webhook-specific documentation

2. Inconsistent Parameter Names:

   • YAML example uses aikidoApiUrl (line 80) but parameter table references apiUrl (line 164)
   • GitHub secrets table uses OCEAN__INTEGRATION__CONFIG__AIKIDO_API_URL (line 195) which aligns with YAML, confirming the parameter table is incorrect

3. Missing Content in Blueprint Example (lines 759-760):

   • Issue payload example shows "severity": 90, "severity_score": "critical" which appears to have the fields swapped
   • Should be "severity": "critical", "severity_score": 90 based on the blueprint schema

Documentation Style Issues

4. Header Inconsistency (line 45):

   • Uses <h2>Prerequisites</h2> inside a tab instead of ### Prerequisites
   • CONTRIBUTING.md states "don't use # headers inside tabs since they are rendered in the table of contents"

5. Comment Syntax in YAML (lines 79-81, 83-87):

   • Uses // highlight-start and // highlight-end which are JavaScript-style comments in YAML
   • Should use YAML-style comments # highlight-start and # highlight-end

Minor Issues

6. Spacing (line 187):

   • Extra space in live-events.jsx: Aikido: should be Aikido:

7. Blueprint Relation Inconsistency:

   • Repository blueprint (line 571) defines relation as "aikidoIssue" but Issue blueprint (line 680) uses "aikidoRepository"
   • The relation direction appears correct but naming could be more consistent

Files Reviewed

✅ docs/build-your-software-catalog/sync-data-to-catalog/code-quality-security/aikido/category.json

• Status: Good
• Clean, simple category configuration

✅ docs/build-your-software-catalog/custom-integration/webhook/examples/resources/aikido/_example_aikido_blueprint.mdx

• Status: Good
• Comprehensive blueprint definitions matching the main documentation

⚠️ docs/build-your-software-catalog/sync-data-to-catalog/code-quality-security/aikido/aikido.md

• Status: Needs fixes
• Multiple parameter inconsistencies and formatting issues detailed above

✅ src/components/ocean-saas-specifics/live-events.jsx

• Status: Good (minor spacing issue)
• Correctly implements Aikido webhook events support

Recommendations

High Priority

1. Fix parameter table inconsistencies in aikido.md:154-169
2. Correct YAML comment syntax throughout the document
3. Fix the severity/severity_score example in payload section
4. Replace <h2> with ### for Prerequisites header

Medium Priority

1. Remove extra space in live-events.jsx:187
2. Consider adding prerequisites section similar to other integrations (like Snyk)
3. Verify all parameter names match between YAML examples and parameter tables

Low Priority

1. Consider standardizing relation naming conventions across blueprints

Conclusion

This is solid documentation work that demonstrates good understanding of the Port Ocean integration pattern. The issues found are primarily consistency and accuracy problems rather than structural flaws. Once the parameter inconsistencies and formatting issues are resolved, this will be a high-quality integration document.

Todo List:

• Read CONTRIBUTING.md for review guidelines
• Review main Aikido documentation (aikido.md)
• Review category configuration (category.json)
• Review blueprint example file
• Review live-events.jsx modifications
• Check documentation consistency and formatting
• Provide comprehensive review feedback

---