Enhance model temperature documentation and add related image

[hannesrudolph]

Important

Enhances model temperature documentation with detailed explanations, practical usage guidance, and a related image.

• Documentation Enhancements:
  • Expanded model-temperature.md to clarify the role of temperature in AI model outputs, addressing common misconceptions.
  • Added detailed sections on default values, when to adjust temperature, and technical implementation.
  • Included a new image illustrating the temperature setting slider in Roo Code settings.
• API Configuration Profiles:
  • Linked temperature settings to api-configuration-profiles.md for better integration and user guidance.
  • Explained how to use profiles for task-specific temperature settings.
• Misc:
  • Updated links and references to ensure consistency across documentation.

^{This description was created by for 0ef2d89. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Reviewed everything up to 3159471 in 1 minute and 29 seconds

More details

• Looked at 128 lines of code in 2 files
• Skipped 1 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 6 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. docs/advanced-usage/api-configuration-profiles.md:14

• Draft comment:
  Consider specifying the file extension (e.g., model-temperature.md) in the link for clarity and consistency with other internal links.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 40% <= threshold 50%
  The comment suggests specifying a file extension in a link for clarity and consistency. This aligns with the principle of maintaining clarity and consistency in code, which is a good practice. However, it doesn't directly relate to the specific rules provided, such as enforcing code style, modularity, error handling, or testing. It seems to be more of a suggestion for documentation or link formatting, which isn't covered by the rules. Therefore, it might not be necessary to keep this comment.

2. docs/advanced-usage/model-temperature.md:1

• Draft comment:
  The document is well-structured and clear. No issues found.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. docs/advanced-usage/api-configuration-profiles.md:14

• Draft comment:
  Nice update linking temperature settings to the model-temperature page. This improves navigation and clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. docs/advanced-usage/model-temperature.md:11

• Draft comment:
  Clarify that the temperature range (0.0-2.0) might vary across providers. A brief note could prevent potential confusion.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. docs/advanced-usage/model-temperature.md:85

• Draft comment:
  Please add a newline at the end of the file for consistency (the diff indicates 'No newline at end of file').
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

6. docs/advanced-usage/model-temperature.md:5

• Draft comment:
  Typographical Error: The admonition block uses four colons (::::info on line 5 and :::: on line 7) instead of the typical three (:::info and :::). Please adjust these to follow standard syntax.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50%
  The comment claims there are four colons but looking at the actual code shows three colons. The comment is making a false assumption about an error that doesn't exist. Even if there was a syntax error, this would likely be caught by the documentation build process.
  Could I be misreading the colons? Could there be a reason why four colons would be preferred in this specific documentation system?
  No, the code clearly shows three colons, and three colons is the standard syntax for admonition blocks in most markdown systems. The comment is simply incorrect about the current state of the code.
  The comment should be deleted because it is factually incorrect - the code already uses the correct three-colon syntax that the comment suggests changing to.

Workflow ID: wflow_mVbDqfIbkPlNItuW

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Incremental review on 0ef2d89 in 1 minute and 24 seconds

More details

• Looked at 49 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 6 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. docs/advanced-usage/model-temperature.md:10

• Draft comment:
  Ensure consistency in the admonition syntax. The info block here uses '::::info' (four colons); verify that this aligns with our docs styling guidelines (typically triple colons are used).
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the author to verify the consistency of syntax with the documentation styling guidelines. This falls under asking the author to double-check or verify something, which is against the rules. Therefore, this comment should not be approved.

2. docs/advanced-usage/model-temperature.md:26

• Draft comment:
  Consider clarifying model categories; specifying which models fall under each default temperature range (e.g. LM Studio models) might improve readability.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. docs/advanced-usage/model-temperature.md:29

• Draft comment:
  Rephrase the sentence on thinking-enabled models for clarity. For example, consider simplifying the phrase '(where the AI shows its reasoning process)' to improve conciseness.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. docs/advanced-usage/model-temperature.md:10

• Draft comment:
  The info block uses '::::info' instead of the common ':::info'. Please ensure this syntax aligns with our markdown processor conventions.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the author to ensure that the syntax aligns with markdown processor conventions. This is a request for confirmation, which is not allowed according to the rules. The comment does not provide a specific suggestion or point out a clear error that needs fixing.

5. docs/advanced-usage/model-temperature.md:26

• Draft comment:
  The revised 'Default Values in Roo Code' section improves clarity. Consider adding a reference link for the ':thinking' flag for further clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

6. docs/advanced-usage/model-temperature.md:10

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error: The info block opening marker should use three colons (:::info) instead of four (::::info).
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was on unchanged code.

Workflow ID: wflow_JYnRl5REEYiAMYzO

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.