refreshes spy page, updates llms

[dawnkelly09]

Description

Refreshes Spy page in Learn/Infra section by:

• refactoring some headings and sections
• adds Additional Resources section
• adds Next Steps section

@martin0995 @ilariae I added Queries in the Additional Resources and Next Steps as an "alternative option" etc. My thinking is they are sort of moving away from the Spy so this might be a good direction to nudge folks in? Let me know what you think!

Checklist

• [ x] Required - I have added a label to this PR 🏷️
• [x ] Required - I have run my changes through Grammarly
• If pages have been moved, I have created redirects in the wormhole-mkdocs repo

[eshaben]

There's an inconsistency here with spies vs the spy vs a spy @ilariae @martin0995 please let us know if it's ok to use spies (plural) - I feel like it should be Spies, and I can't remember, but I think there was something weird about this before

[eshaben]

Maybe use a book icon here instead to help create more of a distinction between Discover Wormhole Queries and Use Wormhole Queries

[eshaben]

use cases doesn't seem like it belongs under key features

[eshaben]

Message Categories as a key feature seems unintuitive to me. When I look at this and put myself in the shoes of someone who doesn't know anything about this stuff yet or someone who is just scanning the page, this doesn't standalone well on it's own.

Like what about message categories is important? It's that the spy can monitor these different categories of messages, so I feel like we should capture that

[ilariae]

yeah agree, i think we can just keep key features

[dawnkelly09]

Idk. I just kind of shuffled around what was already there. This is the current version:

https://wormhole.com/docs/learn/infrastructure/spy/

So I guess I could use some guidance on:

• Which headings are preferred. Right now it's like this:

h2 Introduction
h2 Key Features of the Spy
h3 Monitor Spy-Accessible Messages
h2 Integrator Use Case
h2 Resources (now is Additional Resources with the cards)

So, is it preferred to switch back to that (with the exception of the Resources thing), or is there something else that would be better?

To me, it didn't make sense to say "Key Features" and then only one thing under it (Monitor Spy-Accessible Messages) so I tried to move some stuff around. I can definitely see where Integrator Use Case should come back out to it's own h2. Let me know your thoughts.

[eshaben]

Which headings are preferred

The only headers I had a problem with are Message Categories and then bumping Integrator Use Cases out to it's own H2, because it's not really a key feature. So IMO everything else you have is fine.

So, is it preferred to switch back to that (with the exception of the Resources thing), or is there something else that would be better?

I don't think there's a need to switch it back. I just think we need to evaluate the Key Features / Message Categories sections.

To me, it didn't make sense to say "Key Features" and then only one thing under it (Monitor Spy-Accessible Messages) so I tried to move some stuff around

That's fair. The point I was trying to make about Message Categories is that, when considering it as a key feature, the value isn't that these categories exist — it's that the Spy can monitor them. So the specific categories it observes feel more like supporting detail than something that belongs in the Key Features section. So perhaps we just get rid of the key feature section. Or maybe we explore what else the key features are. See my answer I got from AI: Spy Key Features Gist - cc: @ilariae @martin0995 to verify

So I'd probably suggest something like this:

h1 Spy - basic introduction, what the spy is
h2 Key Features - why it's useful - insert features list like the one I got from AI
h2 Integrator Use Cases - how can it be used
h2 Observable Message Categories - with base understanding established, what messages can be observed
h2 Additional Resources

[ilariae]

There's an inconsistency here with spies vs the spy vs a spy @ilariae @martin0995 please let us know if it's ok to use spies (plural) - I feel like it should be Spies, and I can't remember, but I think there was something weird about this before

I think it's just one spy that can be run by whoever so singular, but I don't think it's wrong to also say spies