docs(chat): clarify injectThreadRouting usage prerequisites

[blove]

Adds a one-line callout to the thread-routing guide: call injectThreadRouting() from an injection context and declare the active-thread signal at module scope (so the provideAgent({ threadId }) provider can reference it).

Doubles as the verification PR for the now-fixed Claude Review bot (non-workflow change, so the action's workflow-change safety guard won't skip it).

[vercel]

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

1 Skipped Deployment

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
threadplane	Ignored	Preview	Jun 19, 2026 2:59am

[claude]

Claude finished @blove's task in 49s —— View job

---

Review

• Read diff and file context
• Analyze change for correctness, style, and consistency

---

The two-line callout is accurate and useful — both prerequisites it states are verified by the surrounding prose:

• Injection-context requirement: confirmed at line 78 ("It must run in an injection context because it calls inject(Router) internally.")
• Module-scope signal requirement: confirmed at lines 31–33 ("A component-class field would not exist yet when the provider config is evaluated.")

Surfacing them upfront, before the detailed walkthrough, is a good DX win for readers who skim the intro.

One minor inconsistency to consider

The file already has a <Callout> MDX component (line 156):

<Callout type="info">
  ...
</Callout>

The new note uses a plain Markdown blockquote (>), which will render differently. If the docs site styles blockquotes and <Callout> the same it's fine, but if they look different it creates a visual inconsistency. Consider whether this should use the same component for visual consistency — e.g.:

<Callout type="info">
  Call `injectThreadRouting()` from an injection context (a component constructor or field initializer), and declare the active-thread signal at module scope so your `provideAgent({ threadId })` provider can reference it.
</Callout>

Fix this →

That said, this is a style nit — the content itself is correct and the PR is good to merge as-is if blockquotes render acceptably in this doc framework.

[github-actions]

Automated approval: this PR received an intelligent (AI) code review. See the review comments on this PR.

[claude]

Claude finished @blove's task in 32s —— View job

---

• Read diff and file context
• Analyze change for correctness, style, and consistency

---

Review

The <Callout type="info"> added at line 5 is accurate and now visually consistent with the rest of the file. Both prerequisites it states are verified by the surrounding prose:

• Injection-context requirement — confirmed at line 78 of the file ("It must run in an injection context because it calls inject(Router) internally.")
• Module-scope signal requirement — confirmed at lines 31–34 ("A component-class field would not exist yet when the provider config is evaluated.")

The previous review flagged an inconsistency between the blockquote and <Callout> — that has been addressed in this sync. The callout now matches the existing component used at line 156.

No issues found. This is good to merge.