[codex] Plan submission artifact policy foundation#26
Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reached
More reviews will be available in 6 minutes and 53 seconds. Learn how PR review limits work. Your organization has used up its prepaid credits, and credit purchases are no longer available. Enable the review add-on in the billing tab to keep reviews running — you're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file). ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based credits. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan refill rate. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, the refill rate gradually slows as usage increases. The highest same-day bursts are limited more strictly. Please see our Fair Usage Limits Policy for further information. ℹ️ Review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (28)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThis PR advances the agent loop from the completed ChangesWS-POL-001 Initiative Planning
Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes Possibly related PRs
Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/CHUNK_MAP.md (1)
155-158: 🧹 Nitpick | 🔵 Trivial | ⚡ Quick winRefactor repetitive acceptance criteria wording for clarity.
Three successive acceptance criteria sentences in WS-POL-001-03 begin with "Blocking pre-submit failure creates no...". While the criteria are correct and verifiable, restructuring would improve readability without losing meaning.
🔧 Proposed restructuring
Acceptance criteria: -- Blocking pre-submit failure creates no submission row. -- Blocking pre-submit failure creates no submission version. -- Blocking pre-submit failure creates no submitted transition. -- Blocking pre-submit failure creates no durable checker run. +- Blocking pre-submit failure creates no submission row, version, submitted transition, or durable checker run. - Passing pre-submit creates a submission stamped with locked policy context.Alternatively, if preserving line-item structure is preferred:
Acceptance criteria: - Blocking pre-submit failure creates no submission row. - Blocking pre-submit failure creates no submission version. -- Blocking pre-submit failure creates no submitted transition. -- Blocking pre-submit failure creates no durable checker run. +- Pre-submit failure also creates no submitted transition or durable checker run. - Passing pre-submit creates a submission stamped with locked policy context.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In @.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/CHUNK_MAP.md around lines 155 - 158, The acceptance criteria in the WS-POL-001-03 section contains three consecutive lines that repetitively begin with "Blocking pre-submit failure creates no...", which impacts readability. Restructure these four acceptance criteria by consolidating the common phrase into a single introductory statement followed by a bulleted or enumerated list of the distinct outcomes (submission row, submission version, submitted transition, and durable checker run) to eliminate the repetition while preserving all the meaning and verifiability of the criteria.Source: Linters/SAST tools
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Nitpick comments:
In
@.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/CHUNK_MAP.md:
- Around line 155-158: The acceptance criteria in the WS-POL-001-03 section
contains three consecutive lines that repetitively begin with "Blocking
pre-submit failure creates no...", which impacts readability. Restructure these
four acceptance criteria by consolidating the common phrase into a single
introductory statement followed by a bulleted or enumerated list of the distinct
outcomes (submission row, submission version, submitted transition, and durable
checker run) to eliminate the repetition while preserving all the meaning and
verifiability of the criteria.
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 2a3b8fb4-fdba-4243-9f76-339677bd94e5
📒 Files selected for processing (11)
.agent-loop/LOOP_STATE.md.agent-loop/WORK_QUEUE.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/CHUNK_MAP.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/DECISIONS.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/DISCOVERY.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/INTENT.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/PLAN.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/RISKS.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/STATUS.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/chunks/WS-POL-001-01-submission-artifact-policy-foundation.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/reviews/WS-POL-001-01-internal-review-evidence.md
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Action performedReview finished.
|
1 participant
Summary
This PR adds the zero-trust planning package for
WS-POL-001 - Submission Artifact Policy Foundation.It does not implement product runtime changes yet. It locks the intent, discovery, plan, chunk map, first chunk contract, and internal review evidence before backend work begins.
What Changed
.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/.WS-POL-001-01 - Submission Artifact Policy Foundation.Product Direction Locked By This Plan
ProjectGuideis human-facing instruction.SubmissionArtifactPolicyis the machine-readable intake contract.WorkstreamDefaultSubmissionArtifactPolicy + ProjectSubmissionArtifactPolicy = EffectiveSubmissionArtifactPolicy.PreSubmitCheckerPolicyis generated from the effective policy.accept,needs_revision, andreject.Validation
python3 scripts/check_internal_review_evidence.pypython3 scripts/check_loop_memory_state.pypython3 scripts/workstream_agent_gate.py --base origin/main --head HEAD --format jsonreturnedREVIEW_REQUIREDas expected for.agent-looprisk-sensitive planning changes.python3 scripts/check_markdown_links.pypython3 scripts/check_stale_workstream_wording.pygit diff --check HEAD~2..HEADInternal Review
PASS WITH LOW RISKSPASS AFTER FIXESPASS WITH LOW RISKSPASS WITH LOW RISKSPASS WITH LOW RISKSPASS WITH LOW RISKSEvidence file:
.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/reviews/WS-POL-001-01-internal-review-evidence.md.Human Review Focus
evidence_policystays as a compatibility alias during migration.Stop Condition
No backend implementation should begin from this PR until the chunk contract is approved.
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
No end-user visible features, bug fixes, or functionality changes are included.