fix(docs): fix JSON in doc and ci/GHA linting

[tarilabs]

Description

As #72 has been merged, this started to show broken ci/GHA on main.

This resolves ci/GHA linting and the Documentation for valid JSON.

Related Issue

n/a

Motivation and Context

see above

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @tarilabs, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request focuses on rectifying a critical issue that caused CI/GHA linting failures on the main branch. The core problem was an invalid JSON structure within the documentation, which I've now corrected to ensure both the documentation's accuracy and the stability of the continuous integration pipeline.

Highlights

• Documentation Fix: I've corrected an invalid JSON syntax error within the docs/config.md file. Specifically, a missing comma after the "toolUsage": false entry was added to ensure the example JSON document is valid.
• CI/GHA Linting Resolution: This fix directly addresses and resolves the broken CI/GHA linting failures that occurred on the main branch, which were triggered by the invalid JSON in the documentation after a previous merge.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist is currently in preview and may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments to provide feedback.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request correctly fixes an invalid JSON example in the docs/config.md file by adding a missing comma, which resolves the CI linting failure. The change is accurate and addresses the immediate issue.

While this PR is good to merge, I noticed a couple of related inconsistencies during the review that could be addressed in a follow-up to improve the overall quality and clarity of the specification:

1. Schema Mismatch: The schema/config-schema.json file appears to be out of sync with the Go implementation and the documentation. Specifically, the ModelCapabilities definition in the schema is missing the embedding and reward fields, which are present in the Go struct and the documentation example.
2. Documentation Structure: In docs/config.md, the capabilities object is documented twice. It appears correctly under the config section, but also incorrectly at the root level. The detailed properties of the capabilities object are listed under this incorrect root-level entry.

Addressing these points in a future PR would greatly improve the consistency of the specification.

[bergwolf]

Thanks for fixing it!