From coder/coder#13868 (comment)

The wording is a little weird here. Can we change it and add a link to the dormancy docs:

I don't think we need to include the initiator, just improve the reasons (see end of message).

Hi {user-name}, your workspace {ws-name} has been marked dormant because of {reason}.

Append if dormancy cleanup is enabled and dormancy_hours < 24:

Dormant workspaces are automatically deleted after {dormancy_hours} hours of inactivity.

Append if dormancy cleanup is enabled, and dormancy_hours > 24:

Dormant workspaces are automatically deleted after {dormancy_hours // 24} days of inactivity.

To prevent deletion, use your workspace with the link below.

The reasons also fit into differing grammatic context:

• Lifecycle executor: "breached the template's threshold for inactivity"
• API: "requested by user"
• Template: "template updated to new dormancy policy"

If we use these, they'd fit the above messages better.

• Lifcycle: "prolonged inactivity, exceeding the dormancy threshold"
• API: "a user request"
• Template: "an update to the template's dormancy"