ci: scope website e2e check to runtime changes

Addresses CodeRabbit review:

- The check keyed off any apps/website/ file plus fix-style title wording,
  so a test-only or CI-only change with a "fix:" subject would demand a
  Playwright test. Narrow the trigger to runtime files under
  apps/website/src and apps/website/public, treat title wording as a hint
  to confirm against the diff rather than a qualifying signal on its own,
  and exempt test/tooling/CI-only changes explicitly.

- Any unrelated spec edit satisfied the requirement. Require the added or
  updated assertion to exercise the route, flow, or behaviour the PR
  actually changed.

- Document the packages/ hand-off. The website consumes four workspace
  packages, and changes there run the website e2e workflow, but the
  generic check already requires a browser_tests/ regression test for
  them. Expanding this check to packages/ would demand two e2e tests for
  one shared-package fix, so record the hand-off instead.

- The path instructions cited the website-unit gate for every
  apps/website/src file, including src/content, src/i18n and
  content.config.ts, which vitest.config.ts excludes from coverage. Note
  the exceptions so reviewers do not ask for tests that cannot move the
  gate, or for extraction into an uninstrumented directory.

Author: Glary-Bot

.coderabbit.yaml

@@ -62,14 +62,16 @@ reviews:
           Do not inspect reverse diffs, files changed only on the base branch, or files outside this PR.
           If the changed-file list or commit subjects are unavailable, mark the check inconclusive instead of guessing.
 
-          This check applies ONLY when the PR changes files under `apps/website/`. If no `apps/website/` files changed, pass immediately.
+          This check applies ONLY when the PR changes website runtime files under `apps/website/src/` or `apps/website/public/`. If no such files changed, pass immediately — that includes PRs touching only `apps/website/e2e/`, tooling, config, or CI.
+
+          Changes confined to `packages/` are deliberately out of scope here, even though the website consumes those packages: the generic "End-to-end regression coverage for fixes" check already requires a `browser_tests/` regression test for them. Do not demand a second website-specific test for a shared-package change.
 
           Fail if all of the following are true:
-          1. The change alters observable website behaviour: it fixes a bug (title or a commit subject uses `fix`, `fixed`, `fixes`, `fixing`, `bugfix`, or `hotfix`), adds a new page or route, or changes an interactive flow, form, or navigation.
-          2. The PR does not add or update a meaningful Playwright assertion under `apps/website/e2e/**/*.spec.ts`.
+          1. The diff itself changes observable website runtime behaviour — fixes a user-visible bug, adds a page or route, or changes an interactive flow, form, or navigation. A `fix`/`bugfix`/`hotfix` style title or commit subject is only a hint: confirm it against the diff, and never treat the wording alone as qualifying.
+          2. The PR does not add or update a Playwright assertion under `apps/website/e2e/**/*.spec.ts` that actually exercises the route, flow, or behaviour this PR changed. An unrelated assertion elsewhere in the suite does not satisfy this.
           3. The PR description lacks a concrete explanation of why an end-to-end regression test was not added.
 
-          Do not fail for text/copy-only edits, translation-only changes, static asset swaps, styling-only changes, generated files, dependency metadata, or refactors that preserve behaviour.
+          Do not fail for text/copy-only edits, translation-only changes, static asset swaps, styling-only changes, generated files, dependency metadata, refactors that preserve behaviour, or changes confined to tests, tooling, or CI.
           A reformatted or whitespace-only edit to an existing spec does not count as adding coverage.
 
           Pass otherwise.
@@ -129,6 +131,9 @@ reviews:
         status, so new behaviour needs a colocated Vitest test. Treat
         `docs/guidance/vitest.md` as required review context. Flag new
         exported logic that no test exercises.
+        Exception: `src/content/**`, `src/i18n/**` and `src/content.config.ts`
+        are excluded from coverage in `apps/website/vitest.config.ts`, so do
+        not invoke the `website-unit` gate for changes confined to those.
     - path: 'apps/website/src/**/*.astro'
       instructions: |
         `.astro` files are excluded from coverage because V8 cannot
@@ -137,6 +142,9 @@ reviews:
         for it to be extracted into a `.ts` module beside the component so it
         is covered by the `website-unit` gate. Markup and static content are
         fine to leave inline.
+        Extraction only helps where the destination is instrumented:
+        `src/content/**` and `src/i18n/**` are excluded from coverage, so do
+        not ask for logic to be moved into them.
     - path: '{browser_tests,apps/website/e2e}/**/*.spec.ts'
       instructions: |
         Treat `.agents/checks/test-quality.md`, `docs/testing/README.md`,