Introduces scripts/generate_rules/misra_help/, a two-stage pipeline for (mostly) idempotent generation of per-query .md help files. It uses MISRA rule text as input and creates (or updates) documentation for codeql-coding-standards queries in C and C++.

Initial supported standards:

• MISRA C 2012 / 2023
• MISRA C++ 2023

Stage 1 — deterministic, docling-based extraction and rendering, with a JSON sidecar for downstream consumption.

Stage 2 — a headless Python driver for the Copilot SDK that rewrites each help file from the JSON sidecar against a fixed Markdown schema, normalized to American English.

See scripts/generate_rules/misra_help/README.md for usage, architecture, and operational notes.

Description

Adds a new internal tooling package under scripts/generate_rules/misra_help/ that automates generation of per-query Markdown help files for MISRA C/C++ queries. No query files, query metadata, rule packages, shared libraries, tests, .expected files, or release artifacts are modified by this PR — it is purely additive tooling (7 new files, ~2.1k lines, all under scripts/generate_rules/misra_help/).

The pipeline is split so that the deterministic extraction stage can be re-run cheaply and audited independently of the LLM-driven rewrite stage. The JSON sidecar is the contract between the two stages, which keeps Stage 2 reproducible against a pinned input.

Change request type

• Release or process automation (GitHub workflows, internal scripts)
• Internal documentation
• External documentation
• Query files (.ql, .qll, .qls or unit tests)
• External scripts (analysis report or other code shipped as part of a release)

Rules with added or modified queries

• No rules added
• Queries have been added for the following rules:
  • rule number here
• Queries have been modified for the following rules:
  • rule number here

Release change checklist

A change note (development_handbook.md#change-notes) is required for any pull request which modifies:

• The structure or layout of the release artifacts.
• The evaluation performance (memory, execution time) of an existing query.
• The results of an existing query in any circumstance.

If you are only adding new rule queries, a change note is not required.

Author: Is a change note required?

• Yes
• No — tooling-only change under scripts/generate_rules/misra_help/; no release artifacts, query results, or query performance are affected.

🚨🚨🚨
Reviewer: Confirm that format of shared queries (not the .qll file, the
.ql file that imports it) is valid by running them within VS Code.

• N/A — no .ql/.qll files modified.

Reviewer: Confirm that either a change note is not required or the change note is required and has been added.

• Confirmed

Query development review checklist

For PRs that add new queries or modify existing queries, the following checklist should be completed by both the author and reviewer:

N/A for this PR — no queries are added or modified. This section is left as-is for the reviewer to confirm.

Author

• Have all the relevant rule package description files been checked in?
• Have you verified that the metadata properties of each new query is set appropriately?
• Do all the unit tests contain both "COMPLIANT" and "NON_COMPLIANT" cases?
• Are the alert messages properly formatted and consistent with the style guide?
• Have you run the queries on OpenPilot and verified that the performance and results are acceptable?
  As a rule of thumb, predicates specific to the query should take no more than 1 minute, and for simple queries be under 10 seconds. If this is not the case, this should be highlighted and agreed in the code review process.
• Does the query have an appropriate level of in-query comments/documentation?
• Have you considered/identified possible edge cases?
• Does the query not reinvent features in the standard library?
• Can the query be simplified further (not golfed!)

Reviewer

• Have all the relevant rule package description files been checked in?
• Have you verified that the metadata properties of each new query is set appropriately?
• Do all the unit tests contain both "COMPLIANT" and "NON_COMPLIANT" cases?
• Are the alert messages properly formatted and consistent with the style guide?
• Have you run the queries on OpenPilot and verified that the performance and results are acceptable?
  As a rule of thumb, predicates specific to the query should take no more than 1 minute, and for simple queries be under 10 seconds. If this is not the case, this should be highlighted and agreed in the code review process.
• Does the query have an appropriate level of in-query comments/documentation?
• Have you considered/identified possible edge cases?
• Does the query not reinvent features in the standard library?
• Can the query be simplified further (not golfed!)