Correct project scoping and lifecycle documentation

[IlyaasK]

Summary

• document project-ID-only request scoping
• use first-class project options in TypeScript, Python, and Go examples
• document merged project lifecycle error codes and soft deletion
• clarify the project-scoped key rename exception

Why

The project guide still described pre-contract name scoping and generic deletion failures. This aligns customer guidance with the merged API and released SDKs.

Verification

• Mint broken-links
• git diff --check
• contract checked against kernel/kernel merged origin/main
• SDK examples checked against Node, Python, and Go SDK v0.86.1

---

Note

Low Risk
Documentation-only changes with no runtime or security behavior changes in this repo.

Overview
Updates the Projects guide and CLI reference so customer docs match the merged API contract and released SDKs (v0.86.1).

Request scoping is documented as project ID only: X-Kernel-Project-Id, global --project, and KERNEL_PROJECT no longer accept project names. TypeScript, Python, and Go examples use first-class client options (projectID, project_id, option.WithProjectID) instead of raw headers, and per-request header overrides are removed from the samples.

Lifecycle and errors are spelled out with concrete codes: last_active_project, project_not_empty, projects_disabled, plus note that deletion is a soft delete. API keys section adds that most project admin needs an org-wide credential, with rename as the exception for project-scoped keys.

CLI docs (reference/cli.mdx, reference/cli/projects.mdx) mirror the ID-only scoping rule while still noting that kernel projects subcommands can use <id-or-name> where documented.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 8a67fa2. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

[mintlify]

Preview deployment for your docs. Learn more about Mintlify Previews.

Project	Status	Preview	Updated (UTC)
Kernel	🟢 Ready	View Preview	Aug 6, 2026, 10:06 PM

💡 Tip: Enable Workflows to automatically generate PRs for you.

[vercel]

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
docs	Error		Aug 7, 2026 5:53pm

[cursor]

Stale comment

Risk assessment: Very Low

Verdict: Existing approval stands (risk did not increase)

Re-evaluation after synchronize

This PR was previously approved at 85e5aa1. The follow-up commit 68c8119 only adjusts documentation wording in info/projects.mdx (archive or remove → delete or otherwise remove). That does not change blast radius, codepaths, or operational impact.

Evidence (from full diff)

• Files changed: 3 MDX docs pages (info/projects.mdx, reference/cli.mdx, reference/cli/projects.mdx)
• Diff size: +15 / −41 — documentation copy and example updates only
• No runtime/code/infra changes: no application logic, config, CI, auth, or schema edits
• No CODEOWNERS file requiring a separate ownership review

Why Very Low

Scoped documentation correction only: request-scoping language, SDK/CLI examples, lifecycle/error-code wording, and API-key guidance. Blast radius is limited to published docs content; there is no production behavior change in this repository.

Actions taken

• Risk remains Very Low after the update → did not dismiss prior approval
• Did not re-approve (approval already present)
• No reviewers assigned or requested

  

_{Sent by Cursor Automation: Assign PR reviewers}

[cursor]

Risk assessment: Very Low

Verdict: Existing approval stands (risk did not increase)

Re-evaluation after synchronize

Re-checked the full range 796a23e...8a67fa2. Changes remain documentation-only. Prior approval is unchanged because blast radius, codepaths, and operational impact did not increase.

Evidence (from diff)

• Files changed: 3 MDX docs pages (info/projects.mdx, reference/cli.mdx, reference/cli/projects.mdx)
• Diff size: +15 / −41 — copy, error-code wording, and SDK/CLI example updates only
• No runtime/code/infra changes: no application logic, config, CI, auth, or schema edits
• No CODEOWNERS file requiring a separate ownership review

Why Very Low

Scoped documentation correction only: project-ID request scoping, first-class SDK project options, lifecycle/error-code wording, soft-delete note, and CLI flag language. Blast radius is limited to published docs content; there is no production behavior change in this repository.

Actions taken

• Risk remains Very Low after the update → did not dismiss prior approval
• Did not re-approve (approval already present)
• No reviewers assigned or requested

  

_{Sent by Cursor Automation: Assign PR reviewers}