docs(contributing): document enforced merge grading gate - #667
Conversation
Co-Authored-By: Codex <codex@openai.com>
|
@coderabbitai review |
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 53 minutes Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. How can I continue?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 reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. 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, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Repository: escoffier-labs/coderabbit/.coderabbit.yaml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
Note Reviews pausedIt looks like this branch is under active development. To avoid overwhelming you with review comments due to an influx of new commits, CodeRabbit has automatically paused this review. You can configure this behavior by changing the Use the following commands to manage reviews:
Use the checkboxes below for quick actions:
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe contribution guide adds a “Pull requests” section. It documents branch protection requirements, review rules, merge-gate commands, approval invalidation, and the dispatched-session workflow. ChangesPull request contribution guidance
Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~2 minutes 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
✅ Passed checks (4 passed)
✨ 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 |
✅ Action performedReview finished.
|
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Action performedReview finished.
|
|
@coderabbitai full review |
✅ Action performedFull review finished. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
CONTRIBUTING.md (1)
63-74: 🗄️ Data Integrity & Integration | 🔵 Trivial | ⚡ Quick winName the identity that creates the formal approval.
Line 63 distinguishes CodeRabbit's status from the grading artifact, but Line 74 only says “the external reviewer” records approval. If CodeRabbit does not submit the formal GitHub
APPROVEDreview, name the bot or second identity and document the trigger that creates it. Otherwise, dispatched sessions know when to stop but not how the required artifact is produced.🤖 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 `@CONTRIBUTING.md` around lines 63 - 74, The CONTRIBUTING.md merge-gate guidance must identify the bot or second identity that submits the formal GitHub APPROVED review and document the trigger that causes it. Update the paragraph referring to “the external reviewer” so dispatched sessions know which identity produces the required artifact and when that approval is expected after the final push.
🤖 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.
Inline comments:
In `@CONTRIBUTING.md`:
- Around line 65-72: Update the merge-gate guidance near the “Inspect the gate
before attempting a merge” section to include verification that all review
conversations are resolved. Add either a UI or GraphQL-based check, or
explicitly instruct contributors to verify unresolved conversations separately,
while preserving the existing required-check and review-state commands.
---
Nitpick comments:
In `@CONTRIBUTING.md`:
- Around line 63-74: The CONTRIBUTING.md merge-gate guidance must identify the
bot or second identity that submits the formal GitHub APPROVED review and
document the trigger that causes it. Update the paragraph referring to “the
external reviewer” so dispatched sessions know which identity produces the
required artifact and when that approval is expected after the final push.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Repository: escoffier-labs/coderabbit/.coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 08ffd0ec-7390-4940-95b0-2ae6121c7203
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
CONTRIBUTING.md
|
@coderabbitai full review |
✅ Action performedFull review finished. Your included review limit is currently reached under our Fair Usage Limits Policy. This review may still proceed through usage-based billing if eligible. Your next included review will be available in 54 minutes. |
Summary
Verification
./scripts/verifythrough Brigade: passgit diff --check: passdetect CONTRIBUTING.md: 1% likely AI-generatedCloses #658
Summary by CodeRabbit