improvement(guidelines): widen the danger criterion, add value separator rules (CUI-54)

[Cuervino]

Three rules coming out of the same UI review as #1223 and #1225.

The danger criterion was illustrated too narrowly

"Irreversible or destructive action (delete, reset)" does not cover stopping a running service, which is reversible. An action that deserves danger could be classified as something else while following the rule to the letter, which is what happened on the screen under review.

The variant row now reads "Destructive action, or one that interrupts something running (delete, reset, stop, disable, revoke)", and the Danger section says in as many words that an action does not have to be irreversible.

The key-value alignment rule read as general

"Do not right-align values regardless of key length" is scoped to key-value layouts by the sentence after it, but the wording can be used to justify leaving a numeric table column left-aligned. One sentence closes it.

Two rules that did not exist

How two values shown together on one line are separated, and how a value is written against its total. Both were decided screen by screen until now, which is visible in the products.

CUI-54.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[bert-e]

Hello cuervino,

My role is to assist you with the merge of this
pull request. Please type @bert-e help to get information
on this process, or consult the user documentation.

Available options

name	description	privileged	authored
/after_pull_request	Wait for the given pull request id to be merged before continuing with the current one.
/bypass_author_approval	Bypass the pull request author's approval	⭐
/bypass_build_status	Bypass the build and test status	⭐
/bypass_commit_size	Bypass the check on the size of the changeset TBA	⭐
/bypass_incompatible_branch	Bypass the check on the source branch prefix	⭐
/bypass_jira_check	Bypass the Jira issue check	⭐
/bypass_peer_approval	Bypass the pull request peers' approval	⭐
/bypass_leader_approval	Bypass the pull request leaders' approval	⭐
/bypass_source_branch_lineage	Bypass the cross-branch contamination check	⭐
/approve	Instruct Bert-E that the author has approved the pull request.		✍️
/create_pull_requests	Allow the creation of integration pull requests.
/create_integration_branches	Allow the creation of integration branches.
/no_octopus	Prevent Wall-E from doing any octopus merge and use multiple consecutive merge instead
/unanimity	Change review acceptance criteria from one reviewer at least to all reviewers
/wait	Instruct Bert-E not to run until further notice.

Available commands

name	description	privileged
/help	Print Bert-E's manual in the pull request.
/status	Print Bert-E's current status in the pull request.
/clear	Remove all comments from Bert-E from the history TBA
/retry	Re-start a fresh build TBA
/build	Re-start a fresh build TBA
/force_reset	Delete integration branches & pull requests, and restart merge process from the beginning.
/reset	Try to remove integration branches unless there are commits on them which do not appear on the source branch.

Status report is not available.

[bert-e]

Waiting for approval

The following approvals are needed before I can proceed with the merge:

• the author

• one peer

Peer approvals must include at least 1 approval from the following list:

• @MonPote

• @damiengillesscality

• @JBWatenbergScality

• @JeanMarcMilletScality

• @sanassicisse

• @PierreAlexandreDelgado

• @hervedombya

• @ZiyangLinScality

• @ChengYanJin

[JBWatenbergScality]

This is too perceived as AI rule, let's try not include "never" in our public guildelines, if AI fails at reading this we will reframe it in dedicated AI harness plugin.

CC @JeanMarcMilletScality

[Cuervino]

Usually I'm using "avoid", but in this specific case I never want a middle dot.
I mean, I never saw the middle dot before the AI rise. I didn't even remember it was a typographic sign.

[JeanMarcMilletScality]

I never saw the middle dot before the AI rise

Me neither so is it worth mentioning it ?