Workers new module registry documentation

[jasnell]

Summary

Documentation for the workers new module registry.

Just in preparation... not yet ready to merge

Documentation checklist

• Is there a changelog entry (guidelines)? If you don't add one for something awesome and new (however small) — how will our customers find out? Changelogs are automatically posted to RSS feeds, the Discord, and X.
• The change adheres to the documentation style guide.
• If a larger change - such as adding a new page- an issue has been opened in relation to any incorrect or out of date information that this PR fixes.
• Files which have changed name or location have been allocated redirects.

[github-actions]

Hey there, we've marked this pull request as stale because there's no recent activity on it. This label helps us identify PRs that might need updates (or to be closed out by our team if no longer relevant).

[cloudflare-docs-bot]

Review

⚠️ 3 warnings, 💡 2 suggestions found in commit fc04765.

👉 Fix in your agent 👈

Fix the following review findings in PR #32550 (https://github.com/cloudflare/cloudflare-docs/pull/32550).

Before making changes, review each finding and present a brief summary table:
- For each finding, state whether you agree, disagree, or need clarification
- If you disagree (e.g. the fix requires disproportionate effort for minimal benefit,
  or the finding is factually incorrect), explain why
- If you need clarification before deciding, ask those questions
- Then share your plan for which issues to tackle and in what order

After triaging, follow this order:
1. Post a comment on this PR for any findings you are skipping, with the finding ID and your reasoning.
2. Then commit the fixes for the legitimate findings.

The comment must come before the commit — the bot reads PR comments when a new
push triggers a review, so skip comments posted after the push will be missed.

---

## Code Review

### Suggestions (1)

#### CR-39302a5c0ac8 · Contradictory specifier resolution claims
- **File:** `src/content/docs/workers/reference/module-registry.mdx` line 70
- **Issue:** The example states `import.meta.resolve("fs")` returns `"node:fs"`, but the section "Specifiers are URLs" (line 79) says specifiers are resolved via `new URL(specifier, base)` uniformly — and `new URL('fs', 'file:///bundle/index.js')` yields `file:///bundle/fs`, not `node:fs`. The two statements contradict each other, so a reader cannot tell whether bare builtin names are special-cased or whether the example is wrong.
- **Fix:** Clarify that bare specifiers matching Node builtin names are mapped to `node:` URLs (if that is the intended behavior), or change the example to use a `node:`-prefixed specifier such as `import.meta.resolve("node:fs")`.

---

## Style Guide Review

### Warnings (3)

#### SG-3185b51e4c5b · Use <TypeScriptExample> instead of raw js/ts fences in docs MDX
- **File:** `src/content/docs/workers/reference/module-registry.mdx` line 243
- **Issue:** Line adds a raw ```js fenced block in a docs MDX file
- **Fix:** Replace the raw ```js fence with <TypeScriptExample> and write the example in TypeScript

#### SG-4698fdb294ec · Use TypeScriptExample for JS/TS code blocks in docs MDX
- **File:** `src/content/docs/workers/runtime-apis/webassembly/javascript.mdx` line 93
- **Issue:** Added line opens a raw ```js fenced block in a src/content/docs/ MDX file
- **Fix:** Use the <TypeScriptExample> component instead, which auto-generates a JS tab from the TypeScript source.

#### SG-16600f363caa · Use TypeScriptExample for JS/TS code blocks in docs MDX
- **File:** `src/content/docs/workers/runtime-apis/webassembly/javascript.mdx` line 101
- **Issue:** Added line opens a second raw ```js fenced block in a src/content/docs/ MDX file
- **Fix:** Use the <TypeScriptExample> component instead, which auto-generates a JS tab from the TypeScript source.

### Suggestions (1)

#### SG-3578aac5ee8b · Bullet list with fewer than three items
- **File:** `src/content/changelog/workers/2026-08-05-new-module-registry.mdx` line 22
- **Issue:** The `## Performance improvements` section contains only two bullet items (lines 22 and 23).
- **Fix:** Consider writing the two items as prose instead of a bullet list.

Code Review

This code review is in beta and may not always be helpful — use your judgment.

Suggestions (1)

File

Issue

workers/reference/module-registry.mdx line 70

Contradictory specifier resolution claims — The example states import.meta.resolve("fs") returns "node:fs", but the section "Specifiers are URLs" (line 79) says specifiers are resolved via new URL(specifier, base) uniformly — and new URL('fs', 'file:///bundle/index.js') yields file:///bundle/fs, not node:fs. The two statements contradict each other, so a reader cannot tell whether bare builtin names are special-cased or whether the example is wrong. Fix: Clarify that bare specifiers matching Node builtin names are mapped to node: URLs (if that is the intended behavior), or change the example to use a node:-prefixed specifier such as import.meta.resolve("node:fs").

Conventions

_{No convention issues found.}

Style Guide Review

Warnings (3)

File	Issue
workers/reference/module-registry.mdx line 243	Use instead of raw js/ts fences in docs MDX — Line adds a raw js fenced block in a docs MDX file Fix: Replace the raw js fence with and write the example in TypeScript
workers/runtime-apis/webassembly/javascript.mdx line 93	Use TypeScriptExample for JS/TS code blocks in docs MDX — Added line opens a raw ```js fenced block in a src/content/docs/ MDX file Fix: Use the component instead, which auto-generates a JS tab from the TypeScript source.
workers/runtime-apis/webassembly/javascript.mdx line 101	Use TypeScriptExample for JS/TS code blocks in docs MDX — Added line opens a second raw ```js fenced block in a src/content/docs/ MDX file Fix: Use the component instead, which auto-generates a JS tab from the TypeScript source.

Suggestions (1)

File	Issue
changelog/workers/2026-08-05-new-module-registry.mdx line 22	Bullet list with fewer than three items — The ## Performance improvements section contains only two bullet items (lines 22 and 23). Fix: Consider writing the two items as prose instead of a bullet list.

Commands

Only codeowners can run commands. Post a comment with the command to trigger it.

Command	Description
/review	Runs a review now. Incremental if a prior review exists, full if not.
/full-review	Re-reviews the entire PR diff from scratch, ignoring incremental history. Useful after a rebase, when you want a fresh review, or if the bot gets out of sync and reports issues that no longer exist.
/ignore-review-limit	Permanently lifts the 2-review automatic limit for this PR. Future pushes will trigger reviews as normal.
/disable-auto-review	Stops automatic reviews from triggering on future pushes to this PR. Codeowners can still run /review or /full-review manually.
/rebase	Rebases the PR branch against production. On conflict, attempts to resolve automatically using AI. Stops with an explanation if confidence is not high enough.