chore: consistent naming of lightspeed#264
Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reached
More reviews will be available in 45 minutes and 56 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 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 see our Fair Usage Limits Policy for further information. ℹ️ Review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (13)
WalkthroughThis PR standardizes documentation references to use “Lightspeed” instead of “LightSpeed” in the README, AGENTS file, and several guides. ChangesFramework name capitalization
Estimated code review effort🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes Possibly related PRs
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 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 |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
README.md (1)
1-1: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🔵 Trivial | ⚡ Quick winRuntime string still uses old capitalization.
The CLI runner at
src/lightspeed_evaluation/runner/evaluation.py:112still prints"🚀 LightSpeed Evaluation Framework". Consider a follow-up PR to align runtime user-facing strings with the documentation branding.🤖 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 `@README.md` at line 1, The runtime branding string is still using the old capitalization, so update the user-facing message in the CLI runner’s evaluation flow to match the documented “Lightspeed Evaluation Framework” branding. Locate the print/output in the evaluation runner (the startup message in the runner/evaluation logic) and change the displayed text consistently across any related user-facing strings.docs/multi_provider_evaluation.md (1)
231-231: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🔵 Trivial | 💤 Low valueReferenced config file still uses old capitalization.
The
config/system.yamlcomment at line 1 still reads"# LightSpeed Evaluation Framework Configuration", while this documentation now refers to"Standard Lightspeed system configuration". Consider updating the config file comment in a follow-up for complete consistency.🤖 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 `@docs/multi_provider_evaluation.md` at line 231, The documentation now uses “Standard Lightspeed system configuration,” but the config header comment in config/system.yaml still has the old capitalization. Update that top-of-file comment to match the new “Lightspeed” wording so the docs and config stay consistent; this is a follow-up change in the system config comment, not in the evaluation logic.
🤖 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 `@docs/multi_provider_evaluation.md`:
- Line 231: The documentation now uses “Standard Lightspeed system
configuration,” but the config header comment in config/system.yaml still has
the old capitalization. Update that top-of-file comment to match the new
“Lightspeed” wording so the docs and config stay consistent; this is a follow-up
change in the system config comment, not in the evaluation logic.
In `@README.md`:
- Line 1: The runtime branding string is still using the old capitalization, so
update the user-facing message in the CLI runner’s evaluation flow to match the
documented “Lightspeed Evaluation Framework” branding. Locate the print/output
in the evaluation runner (the startup message in the runner/evaluation logic)
and change the displayed text consistently across any related user-facing
strings.
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 9f13f592-b208-4778-bb69-f31ec9352e20
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
AGENTS.mdREADME.mddocs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.mddocs/agentic_lightspeed_evaluation.mddocs/multi_provider_evaluation.md
asamal4
force-pushed
the
lightspeed-naming
branch
from
284a978 to
8cc647b
Compare
1 participant
Description
(Release Readiness) chore: consistent naming of lightspeed
Type of change
Tools used to create PR
Identify any AI code assistants used in this PR (for transparency and review context)
Related Tickets & Documents
Checklist before requesting a review
Testing
Summary by CodeRabbit