Added firecrawl as a toolcall to crawl website contents from url

[SoloDevAbu]

Description

Added firecrawl with an input box to crawl website contents from url and pass the response data in the LLM prompt

Related Issues

fixes #1624

Type of Change

Created a New Script to crawl website contents using firecrawl
Added an Input box for the users to provide url

• Bug fix
• New feature
• Documentation update
• Release
• Refactor
• Other (please describe):

Testing

Tested by running locally

Screenshots

---

Important

Adds Firecrawl integration for website content crawling with a URL input in the project creation flow.

• New Feature:
  • Adds CrawlerService in crawler.ts to crawl website content using Firecrawl.
  • Integrates crawling functionality into PromptingCard.tsx with a URL input box.
  • Updates create.ts to handle crawled content in sendPrompt().
• Dependencies:
  • Adds @mendable/firecrawl-js to package.json.
• Environment:
  • Adds VITE_FIRECRAWL_API_KEY to .env.example.
• UI/UX:
  • Updates translation.json and PromptingCard.tsx for new crawl input UI.
• Error Handling:
  • Validates URL format and handles errors with user feedback in PromptingCard.tsx.

^{This description was created by for 793342e. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Reviewed everything up to 47b20b3 in 3 minutes and 1 seconds

More details

• Looked at 291 lines of code in 7 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 3 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. apps/studio/src/lib/services/crawler.ts:22

• Draft comment:
  Typo: 'intance' should be 'instance'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

2. apps/studio/src/lib/services/crawler.ts:22

• Draft comment:
  Typo: Rename 'intance' to 'instance' for the singleton variable.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

3. apps/studio/src/lib/projects/create.ts:98

• Draft comment:
  Consider sanitizing or validating the 'crawledContent' before logging it to analytics to avoid inadvertently exposing sensitive or excessively large data.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  While data sanitization is generally good practice, we don't have enough context about what crawledContent contains or how sendAnalytics handles data. The comment is somewhat speculative - it says "to avoid inadvertently exposing..." without clear evidence that this is actually a problem. The same data is also used for project creation, so sanitization may need to happen elsewhere if needed.
  I might be underestimating the security implications of logging potentially sensitive data. Analytics logs could be exposed in ways that project data isn't.
  Without knowing the content type, size limits of analytics, or how sendAnalytics handles data sanitization internally, this comment is too speculative and may be suggesting unnecessary work.
  The comment should be removed as it makes assumptions about security/data issues without clear evidence and may be suggesting unnecessary work if sendAnalytics already handles data appropriately.

Workflow ID: wflow_TAs8CLZhbCFDVh5L

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Reviewed everything up to 2b43d82 in 2 minutes and 22 seconds

More details

• Looked at 313 lines of code in 7 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 10 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. apps/studio/.env.example:8

• Draft comment:
  Good addition of FIRECRAWL API key. Consider adding a comment about its expected format or usage if not self-explanatory.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 20% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. apps/studio/package.json:56

• Draft comment:
  Ensure the version (^1.24.0) for @mendable/firecrawl-js is compatible with the rest of the project.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 10% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. apps/studio/src/lib/projects/create.ts:93

• Draft comment:
  Passing crawledContent along with prompt and images is clear. Consider validating or truncating crawledContent if it could be very large.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 30% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. apps/studio/src/locales/en/translation.json:76

• Draft comment:
  New crawl translation keys added; ensure they are used consistently across the UI.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 10% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:187

• Draft comment:
  URL validation and crawling logic look solid. Consider clearing or disabling the URL input after a successful crawl if not needed for subsequent actions.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 30% <= threshold 50%
  None

6. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:216

• Draft comment:
  After crawling, the concatenation of markdown and HTML is hardcoded. Verify if this format is acceptable downstream or if further processing is required.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 30% <= threshold 50%
  None

7. apps/web/client/messages/en.json:75

• Draft comment:
  New crawl translations are added. Confirm that any variable placeholders (if any) follow the correct templating format consistent with the project.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 10% <= threshold 50%
  None

8. apps/studio/src/lib/projects/create.ts:92

• Draft comment:
  Document the new 'crawledContent' parameter in the sendPrompt function. Clearly specify its expected format and usage.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

9. apps/studio/src/lib/services/crawler.ts:27

• Draft comment:
  Ensure that process.env.VITE_FIRECRAWL_API_KEY is defined. Consider adding a check or fallback to handle missing API keys.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  This is a new file that uses an environment variable without checking if it exists. However, the comment starts with "Ensure that..." which violates our rules. Additionally, if the API key is missing, the FirecrawlApp constructor would likely throw an error anyway, which would be caught during testing/build. The error handling in crawlUrl suggests the library handles errors appropriately.
  The API key being undefined could cause runtime errors in production. Missing environment variables are a common source of production issues.
  While environment variable validation can be helpful, this is likely handled by the FirecrawlApp library itself, and the comment's phrasing makes it more of a verification request than an actionable code change.
  Delete the comment. It starts with "Ensure that..." which violates our rules, and environment variable handling is likely managed by the library itself.

10. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:221

• Draft comment:
  Validate the structure of response.data before accessing its array elements. Adding a guard can prevent issues if the response format changes.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

Workflow ID: wflow_XvtDAd3yOJn4KsV4

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Reviewed everything up to 2b43d82 in 2 minutes and 29 seconds

More details

• Looked at 313 lines of code in 7 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 11 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. apps/studio/.env.example:8

• Draft comment:
  Consider adding a note on where to obtain the Firecrawl API key.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. apps/studio/src/lib/projects/create.ts:94

• Draft comment:
  The new 'crawledContent' parameter is passed through analytics and the prompt payload. Ensure downstream handlers properly handle undefined or empty string values.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. apps/studio/src/lib/services/crawler.ts:27

• Draft comment:
  Consider validating that process.env.VITE_FIRECRAWL_API_KEY is defined to avoid initializing FirecrawlApp with an undefined API key.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 30% vs. threshold = 50%
  This is a reasonable suggestion since undefined API keys could cause runtime issues. However, environment variables are typically validated at app startup/bootstrap time, not in individual services. Without seeing the app's initialization code, we don't know if this validation already exists elsewhere. The comment also doesn't specify exactly what validation to add or how to handle the undefined case.
  I might be wrong about where env var validation should happen - maybe service-level validation is a good defense-in-depth practice. Also, even if validation exists elsewhere, local validation could provide better error messages.
  While additional validation could be helpful, without seeing the full codebase context, we can't be certain this validation doesn't exist elsewhere or that this is the right place for it. The comment also isn't specific enough about the solution.
  The comment should be removed as it requires more context to validate its usefulness and doesn't provide specific enough guidance for improvement.

4. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:190

• Draft comment:
  Before accessing responseData[0], consider checking if the data array exists and has at least one element to avoid potential runtime errors.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

5. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:492

• Draft comment:
  Consider localizing the button text ('Crawling...' and 'Crawl URL') using the translation framework instead of hard-coded strings.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

6. apps/studio/.env.example:9

• Draft comment:
  Ensure that exposing VITE_FIRECRAWL_API_KEY in a VITE_* variable is safe. If this key has sensitive privileges, consider using a more secure method.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  The comment is speculative and asks for verification rather than pointing out a clear issue. The file follows an established pattern where other API keys use the VITE_ prefix. This is an example file, not the actual .env file. The comment doesn't provide clear evidence that this is actually unsafe.
  The comment could be raising a legitimate security concern about client-side exposure of API keys. Maybe there's something specifically sensitive about Firecrawl vs the other APIs.
  Without specific knowledge of Firecrawl's security model or evidence that it differs from the other APIs, this is speculation. The consistent pattern with other API keys suggests this is the intended approach.
  Delete this comment as it's speculative, asks for verification, and doesn't provide clear evidence of an actual issue.

7. apps/studio/package.json:56

• Draft comment:
  New dependency '@mendable/firecrawl-js' added. Verify its version compatibility and impact on bundle size.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is about a new dependency and asks the author to verify version compatibility and impact on bundle size. This falls under the rule of not commenting on dependency changes or asking the author to verify things.

8. apps/studio/src/lib/projects/create.ts:98

• Draft comment:
  Passing 'crawledContent' to analytics and backend calls. Consider sanitizing or limiting its size to avoid logging overly sensitive or verbose data.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  The comment raises a valid security/privacy concern about potentially sensitive data being logged. However, without knowing what crawledContent contains or the system's requirements around data logging, this feels somewhat speculative. The comment also doesn't provide specific guidance on how to sanitize or what size limits to use.
  I might be too quick to dismiss a legitimate security concern. Data sanitization is important for logging and analytics.
  While data sanitization is important, this comment is too vague and speculative without more context about what crawledContent contains and what the system requirements are.
  Delete the comment as it's too speculative and lacks specific, actionable guidance. If there are specific requirements around data sanitization, they should be documented elsewhere.

9. apps/studio/src/lib/services/crawler.ts:27

• Draft comment:
  Consider validating that process.env.VITE_FIRECRAWL_API_KEY is set before using it, to handle missing configurations gracefully.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 30% vs. threshold = 50%

1. This is a new file, so the comment is about changed code. 2. The suggestion is reasonable as missing env vars can cause runtime errors. 3. However, the FirecrawlApp constructor likely already handles invalid API keys appropriately. 4. This is more of a defensive programming suggestion rather than a clear bug. 5. Without seeing FirecrawlApp's implementation, we can't be certain this validation is necessary.
   We don't know how FirecrawlApp handles missing API keys internally. The validation might be redundant if the library already handles this case.
   While the library might handle this, having application-level validation could provide better error messages and fail-fast behavior.
   While the suggestion has merit, it's not clearly necessary without knowing the library's behavior. Following our principle of only keeping strongly evidenced issues, we should remove this comment.

10. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:187

• Draft comment:
  In handleCrawlSubmit, the crawled response is concatenated using hardcoded separators. Consider sanitizing and/or limiting the size of the returned HTML/Markdown to mitigate risks with large or unsafe content.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%

1. The code does fetch potentially untrusted content from external URLs. 2. There's no limit on content size which could cause memory issues. 3. However, we don't know if the CrawlerService already handles sanitization and size limits. 4. The comment makes assumptions about the implementation details of CrawlerService. 5. Without seeing CrawlerService code, we can't be certain this is a real issue.
   I don't have visibility into CrawlerService's implementation - it may already handle sanitization and size limits. Making assumptions about security without full context could lead to redundant or unnecessary changes.
   While the concern about content size and sanitization is valid in principle, we can't be certain this is actually an issue without seeing CrawlerService's implementation. The comment makes too many assumptions.
   The comment should be deleted since it makes assumptions about security concerns without having visibility into the CrawlerService implementation which may already handle these issues.

11. apps/studio/package.json:30

• Draft comment:
  The script key 'pree2e' seems unusual and might be a typographical error. If this was intended to be a pre-script for the 'e2e' command, please consider renaming it to something like 'pre:e2e' to improve clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_z00lpdB253wyeNzY

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Reviewed everything up to 6c05577 in 2 minutes and 19 seconds

More details

• Looked at 329 lines of code in 7 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 12 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. apps/studio/.env.example:8

• Draft comment:
  Ensure the Firecrawl API key placeholder includes guidance for users to set a valid key.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

2. apps/studio/package.json:56

• Draft comment:
  Locking the version for @mendable/firecrawl-js is fine; ensure it's compatible with your existing dependencies.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 30% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. apps/studio/src/lib/projects/create.ts:95

• Draft comment:
  The new 'crawledContent' parameter is added to sendPrompt; ensure the backend/LLM accepts and properly processes this new field.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to ensure that the backend/LLM accepts and processes the new crawledContent parameter. This falls under the category of asking the author to ensure behavior, which is against the rules.

4. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:222

• Draft comment:
  If the crawl response may return multiple data items, ensure that processing only the first element (responseData[0]) is sufficient.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the author to ensure that processing only the first element of a response is sufficient. This is a request for confirmation of intention, which violates the rule against asking the author to confirm their intention or ensure behavior is intended.

5. apps/studio/.env.example:8

• Draft comment:
  Consider adding a trailing newline to follow Unix best practices.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 30% <= threshold 50%
  None

6. apps/studio/src/lib/services/crawler.ts:27

• Draft comment:
  Ensure that VITE_FIRECRAWL_API_KEY is set (or add a check) to avoid runtime errors if the key is missing.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  The comment starts with "Ensure that..." which is a red flag per the rules. Additionally, Vite handles environment variables in a specific way - if a variable is missing, it would be caught during build time, not runtime. The FirecrawlApp constructor would likely throw its own error if the key is invalid. Adding an extra check wouldn't add much value.
  The API key being undefined could cause confusing runtime errors for developers. Maybe an explicit check would provide a better developer experience?
  Vite's build process already handles missing env vars, and the FirecrawlApp library likely has its own validation. Adding another check would be redundant.
  Delete the comment. It starts with "Ensure that..." which violates the rules, and the suggested check would be redundant with existing validations.

7. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:224

• Draft comment:
  Consider clearing the URL input state (urlInput) after a successful crawl to improve UX.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

8. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:474

• Draft comment:
  Consider disabling the URL input field while the crawl is in progress to prevent multiple submissions.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

9. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:189

• Draft comment:
  Consider providing user feedback (e.g., a toast) when the URL input is empty instead of only logging a warning.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 40% <= threshold 50%
  None

10. apps/studio/package.json:30

• Draft comment:
  The script name 'pree2e' seems to be a typographical mistake. Please verify if it should be renamed to something like 'pre-e2e' to improve clarity and consistency.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

11. apps/studio/src/locales/en/translation.json:80

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error: the placeholder text 'Paste a link of a website' should be changed to 'Paste a link to a website' to maintain consistency and improve clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  While the suggested change would improve the grammar, this is a very minor UI text change. The current text is understandable and doesn't impact functionality. The rules state not to comment on pure frontend UI changes and to assume the author made UI choices correctly. This seems to fall into that category.
  The grammar correction would make the text more professional and consistent with standard English usage. Poor grammar could reflect badly on the product quality.
  While better grammar is good, this is ultimately a UI text choice that doesn't impact functionality. The rules explicitly state to trust the author on UI decisions.
  The comment should be deleted as it relates to a pure UI text change, which the rules state we should trust the author on.

12. apps/web/client/messages/en.json:80

• Draft comment:
  The placeholder text in the 'crawl' section reads 'Paste a link of a website', but the description uses 'Paste a link to a website'. For consistency and clarity, consider updating the placeholder to 'Paste a link to a website'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  While this is about changed code, it's a very minor wording difference in UI text. Both phrases are grammatically correct and convey the same meaning. The comment isn't pointing out a bug or significant quality issue. It's more of a nitpick about style preference.
  The inconsistency could potentially confuse users if they see both phrasings in the UI. Consistency in UI language is a best practice.
  The difference is so minor that users are unlikely to notice or be confused. Both phrasings are clear and natural English.
  This comment should be deleted as it addresses an extremely minor UI text inconsistency that doesn't impact usability or understanding.

Workflow ID: wflow_e3xbHw315NdxhCeN

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Reviewed everything up to 6c05577 in 2 minutes and 41 seconds

More details

• Looked at 329 lines of code in 7 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 9 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. apps/studio/src/lib/projects/create.ts:92

• Draft comment:
  Include new parameter 'crawledContent' in analytics and invocation. Ensure backend/IPC handler supports this new field.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

2. apps/studio/src/lib/services/crawler.ts:27

• Draft comment:
  Check if VITE_FIRECRAWL_API_KEY is available to prevent unintentional runtime errors.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  This is a new file that uses an environment variable. However, in a Vite application, if an environment variable is missing, it would typically be caught during build time or initial load. The error handling in crawlUrl would catch any API errors. Adding an explicit check wouldn't add much value since the app would fail immediately on startup if the key is missing anyway.
  The comment does point out a potential runtime issue. Missing environment variables can cause hard-to-debug problems in production.
  While environment variable checking is good practice, this would be caught immediately on app startup, and the error would be obvious. The existing error handling would surface any API key issues clearly.
  Delete the comment. The suggestion wouldn't meaningfully improve error handling since missing env vars would be caught immediately on startup anyway.

3. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:226

• Draft comment:
  Ensure the response data structure from crawler.crawlUrl is stable; handle cases where response.data might be empty or formatted differently.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

4. apps/studio/src/lib/projects/create.ts:92

• Draft comment:
  Great integration of the new 'crawledContent' parameter in sendPrompt. Verify that downstream channels accept this new field.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. apps/studio/src/lib/services/crawler.ts:27

• Draft comment:
  Ensure that VITE_FIRECRAWL_API_KEY is securely set in the environment, especially in production deployments.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

6. apps/studio/src/lib/services/crawler.ts:47

• Draft comment:
  Consider validating the structure of response.data before accessing index [0] to avoid potential runtime errors if the response format changes.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

7. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:53

• Draft comment:
  After sending the prompt, crawledValue is cleared; consider whether the URL input (urlInput) should also be reset for clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

8. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:218

• Draft comment:
  Good error handling in handleCrawlSubmit; consider logging additional details if error is not an instance of Error.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

9. apps/web/client/messages/en.json:80

• Draft comment:
  Typo in placeholder text: Instead of "Paste a link of a website", it should be "Paste a link to a website" for grammatical consistency.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  While the grammar suggestion is technically correct ("link to" is more proper than "link of"), this is a relatively minor UI text change. The current wording is understandable and doesn't impact functionality. The rules state not to comment on pure UI changes unless there's a logic issue. This seems more like a style preference than a critical issue.
  The grammar correction is valid and would make the text more professional. Poor grammar could reflect badly on the product quality.
  However, the rules explicitly state not to comment on pure UI or styling changes. The current text is understandable and doesn't impact functionality.
  Delete this comment as it relates to UI text styling rather than logic or functionality issues.

Workflow ID: wflow_mZ02PMSzRAr12dla

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Reviewed everything up to 6c05577 in 2 minutes and 27 seconds

More details

• Looked at 329 lines of code in 7 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 14 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. apps/studio/src/lib/projects/create.ts:92

• Draft comment:
  Passes crawledContent to analytics and channel. Consider documenting and sanitizing this new optional parameter.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. apps/studio/src/lib/services/crawler.ts:27

• Draft comment:
  Consider checking if VITE_FIRECRAWL_API_KEY is defined to avoid runtime errors when API key is missing.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 30% vs. threshold = 50%
  This is a valid concern since missing environment variables in Vite default to undefined, which could cause runtime errors. However, this is typically handled by build-time environment validation or TypeScript types. The FirecrawlApp constructor would likely throw an error if the API key is invalid anyway. The comment is somewhat speculative about runtime errors.
  I might be underestimating the value of defensive programming. A runtime check could provide a better error message than what FirecrawlApp might give.
  While better error messages are nice, this feels like a configuration/deployment issue that should be caught during build or deployment, not at runtime. The existing error handling in crawlUrl would catch and log any API key issues.
  The comment should be removed as it's somewhat speculative and suggests handling what is typically a build-time or deployment concern at runtime.

3. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:218

• Draft comment:
  Before accessing response.data[0], verify that response.data is a non-empty array to handle cases with no crawl results.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

4. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:196

• Draft comment:
  Consider clearing the URL input (setUrlInput) after a successful crawl for a better UX.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. apps/studio/.env.example:8

• Draft comment:
  New Firecrawl API key added. Ensure that users supply a valid VITE_FIRECRAWL_API_KEY as required for crawling functionality.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is purely informative, reminding the author to ensure users supply a valid API key. It doesn't provide a specific code suggestion or ask for a test to be written. It violates the rule against making purely informative comments.

6. apps/studio/package.json:56

• Draft comment:
  Dependency '@mendable/firecrawl-js' added. Confirm that the version (^1.24.0) is compatible and that the lock file is updated accordingly.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to confirm the compatibility of a dependency version and to ensure the lock file is updated. This falls under the rule of not commenting on dependency changes or asking the author to confirm compatibility, which is not allowed.

7. apps/studio/src/lib/projects/create.ts:93

• Draft comment:
  sendPrompt now accepts a new optional parameter (crawledContent). Consider validating or sanitizing this input to avoid overly large data or potential injection issues.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  While input validation is generally good practice, we don't have enough context to know if this is actually needed here. We don't know: 1) What crawledContent contains 2) How invokeMainChannel sanitizes inputs 3) How the backend handles this data 4) Whether there are already validation checks elsewhere. The comment is speculative without clear evidence of an issue.
  I might be underestimating the security implications. Even if there's validation elsewhere, defense in depth is valuable.
  Without clear evidence of a vulnerability or understanding the full context, adding validation here could be premature optimization or redundant with existing safeguards.
  The comment makes a speculative suggestion without clear evidence that there's actually a problem to fix. We should delete it.

8. apps/studio/src/lib/services/crawler.ts:27

• Draft comment:
  Initialization of FirecrawlApp uses VITE_FIRECRAWL_API_KEY. Consider checking if the API key is provided (non-empty) to avoid runtime failures.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  This is a new file introducing a crawler service. The comment makes a reasonable suggestion about defensive programming. However, Vite environment variables are typically validated at build time, and if the API key is missing, it would fail fast during initialization rather than causing subtle runtime issues. The FirecrawlApp library likely has its own validation as well.
  I might be assuming too much about Vite's environment variable handling and FirecrawlApp's internal validation. An empty API key could potentially cause confusing runtime errors.
  While API key validation could add an extra safety layer, it's not clearly necessary given typical Vite practices and would just add complexity. The current error handling in crawlUrl() would catch and properly report any API key issues.
  The comment should be removed as it suggests additional validation that isn't clearly necessary and the current error handling is sufficient.

9. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:188

• Draft comment:
  The handleCrawlSubmit function robustly validates the URL. Consider whether clearing the URL input after a successful crawl would improve UX.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50%
  This is a reasonable UX suggestion - after successfully crawling a URL, users may want to crawl another URL and having to manually clear the previous one is slightly annoying. However, this is a minor UX improvement that isn't critical to functionality. The comment is speculative ("Consider whether...") rather than making a clear recommendation.
  The comment is about code that was changed in this PR (the new URL crawling feature). However, it's phrased as a suggestion to consider rather than a clear recommendation, which violates our rule about speculative comments.
  While the phrasing is speculative, the underlying suggestion is valid and actionable - we could simply rephrase it to be more direct.
  The comment should be deleted because it's phrased speculatively. If the reviewer feels strongly about the UX improvement, they should rephrase it as a direct recommendation.

10. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:220

• Draft comment:
  Response parsing assumes response.data is an array with at least one element. Ensure the API response format is consistent or handle cases where data may be missing.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

11. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:473

• Draft comment:
  The new URL input element is styled appropriately. Consider adding accessibility attributes such as aria-label for improved usability.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 30% vs. threshold = 50%
  While accessibility is important, this input already has implicit accessibility through its type="url" and placeholder text which screen readers can use. The placeholder is also translated, suggesting accessibility was considered. The comment isn't pointing out a critical accessibility issue, just suggesting a potential enhancement.
  The comment raises a valid accessibility concern - aria-labels can provide more explicit and reliable accessibility information than placeholders alone. This could be important for users relying on screen readers.
  However, the input already has basic accessibility covered through its semantic type and translated placeholder. The aria-label would be nice-to-have but not critical, and we want to avoid noise in PR comments.
  Delete this comment. While the suggestion is valid, the input already has basic accessibility covered, and this enhancement suggestion isn't critical enough to warrant a PR comment.

12. apps/web/client/messages/en.json:76

• Draft comment:
  Crawl-related translation keys have been added. Verify consistency with existing translation patterns and ensure these keys are used uniformly across the application.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to verify consistency and ensure uniform usage, which falls under the rule of not asking the author to confirm or ensure things. It doesn't provide a specific suggestion or point out a specific issue.

13. apps/studio/src/locales/en/translation.json:80

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error: Consider replacing 'Paste a link of a website' with 'Paste a link to a website' for grammatical consistency.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  While the suggested change would improve the grammar, this is a very minor change in a UI text string. The current wording, while not perfect, is still understandable and doesn't impact functionality. The comment is about changed code, but it's an extremely minor UI text issue.
  The grammar correction would make the text more professional. Poor grammar in UI text could reflect badly on the product's quality.
  While better grammar is good, this is too minor of an issue to warrant a PR comment. The current text is understandable and this kind of minor text polish could be handled in a dedicated UI text review pass.
  Delete the comment as it's too minor of an issue to warrant blocking or modifying the PR.

14. apps/web/client/messages/en.json:80

• Draft comment:
  Typographical suggestion: Consider updating the placeholder text from 'Paste a link of a website' to 'Paste a link to a website' for clarity and consistency.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  While the suggested change would improve the grammar, this is a very minor UI text change. The current text is understandable even if not perfectly grammatical. The rules state not to comment on pure UI changes and to only keep comments that require clear code changes. This feels more like a preference than a critical issue.
  The grammar correction would make the text more professional and consistent with standard English usage. Poor grammar could reflect badly on the product quality.
  While better grammar is good, this is ultimately a minor UI text change that doesn't affect functionality. The rules explicitly say not to comment on pure UI/styling changes.
  Delete this comment as it violates the rule about not commenting on pure UI changes. The current text is understandable even if not perfectly grammatical.

Workflow ID: wflow_CIHPfJfWjBB9Db06

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Reviewed everything up to db20380 in 1 minute and 41 seconds

More details

• Looked at 337 lines of code in 7 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 20 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. apps/studio/.env.example:8

• Draft comment:
  Good addition of the FIRECRAWL API key placeholder. Consider adding a documentation reference for the required API key format.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. apps/studio/package.json:56

• Draft comment:
  Dependency '@mendable/firecrawl-js' added; ensure its version and usage follow the proper integration and update policy.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. apps/studio/src/lib/projects/create.ts:93

• Draft comment:
  Passing 'crawledContent' to analytics and main channel invocation looks correct. Confirm that downstream processing supports the new optional parameter.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. apps/studio/src/lib/services/crawler.ts:27

• Draft comment:
  Good check for a missing FIRECRAWL API key. Consider handling the error in a user-friendly way if used in a client context.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. apps/studio/src/locales/en/translation.json:73

• Draft comment:
  New translation entries for 'crawl' are added. Ensure consistency with similar strings in other parts or locales if needed.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

6. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:189

• Draft comment:
  Great URL validation logic in handleCrawlSubmit. Consider using i18n strings for toast messages on errors for better localization.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

7. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:227

• Draft comment:
  Setting the crawled content with markdown and HTML separates looks clear. Verify that downstream consumers correctly parse this format.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

8. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:242

• Draft comment:
  Ensure that resetting the urlInput state after crawling is desired; consider preserving user input if an error occurs during crawling.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

9. apps/web/client/messages/en.json:76

• Draft comment:
  Translations for 'crawl' have been added. Validate that placeholders and keys align with those used in the studio module.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

10. apps/studio/.env.example:8

• Draft comment:
  New Firecrawl API key added; ensure documentation/README is updated with setup details.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to update the documentation, which is not allowed according to the rules. It doesn't provide a specific code suggestion or point out a potential issue with the code itself.

11. apps/studio/package.json:56

• Draft comment:
  Dependency '@mendable/firecrawl-js' is correctly added with version '^1.24.0'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is purely informative and does not provide any actionable feedback or suggestions for improvement. It simply states that a dependency is correctly added, which is not necessary for the PR review process.

12. apps/studio/src/lib/projects/create.ts:93

• Draft comment:
  sendPrompt signature updated to include crawledContent; analytics payload now includes crawledContent as expected.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is purely informative, describing what changes were made without providing any actionable feedback or suggestions. It does not align with the rules for good comments, as it doesn't ask for confirmation, suggest improvements, or highlight potential issues.

13. apps/studio/src/lib/services/crawler.ts:27

• Draft comment:
  CrawlerService constructor properly checks for the Firecrawl API key; singleton pattern is appropriately implemented.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is purely informative, as it only states that the constructor checks for the API key and that the singleton pattern is implemented correctly. It does not provide any actionable feedback or suggestions for improvement.

14. apps/studio/src/lib/services/crawler.ts:59

• Draft comment:
  Error handling in crawlUrl logs and rethrows errors; consider ensuring response structure is robust if API changes.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  The comment is speculative - it's suggesting to prepare for potential future API changes that haven't happened. The current error handling looks reasonable, checking both for explicit failure responses and catching any other errors. The code is already doing proper error handling.
  The comment might have a point about API stability - what if the response structure changes and 'success' or 'error' fields are renamed or removed?
  That's a speculative concern about future API changes. The code handles current error cases well, and we shouldn't add complexity for hypothetical future changes.
  Delete the comment. It's speculative about future API changes and the current error handling is already robust.

15. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:33

• Draft comment:
  New state variables (urlInput, isCrawling, crawledValue) added for crawl functionality; state management looks good.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is purely informative and does not provide any actionable feedback or suggestions for improvement. It simply states that the state management looks good, which is not aligned with the rules for useful comments.

16. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:188

• Draft comment:
  handleCrawlSubmit performs robust URL validation with appropriate feedback using toasts; consider abstracting URL validation if reused.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  The URL validation logic is contained within a single function and isn't duplicated elsewhere in this file. While abstracting validation could make the code more modular, there's no clear evidence that this validation logic is reused or needs to be reused. The comment is speculative about potential future reuse. Following our rules, we should not make speculative suggestions without clear evidence of need.
  The validation logic could potentially be reused in other parts of the application that we can't see. Also, abstracting validation could make the code more testable.
  While those benefits are possible, we don't have evidence in the current code that this abstraction is needed. We should avoid premature abstraction without a clear use case.
  The comment should be deleted as it makes a speculative suggestion about code organization without clear evidence that the abstraction would be beneficial.

17. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:219

• Draft comment:
  CrawlerService is used as a singleton to crawl URL; the response handling extracts markdown and HTML correctly.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is purely informative and does not provide any actionable feedback or suggestions for improvement. It simply states what the code is doing without offering any critique or advice.

18. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:242

• Draft comment:
  UI state cleanup after crawling (isCrawling reset, urlInput cleared) ensures a consistent UX.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is purely informative, as it simply states what the code is doing without providing any actionable feedback or suggestions. It doesn't ask for confirmation or suggest improvements.

19. apps/web/client/messages/en.json:75

• Draft comment:
  New 'crawl' translation entries have been added consistently with existing translation structure.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is purely informative, as it only states that the new 'crawl' translation entries have been added consistently with the existing structure. It does not provide any actionable feedback or suggestions for improvement.

20. apps/studio/package.json:30

• Draft comment:
  The script key 'pree2e' seems like it might be a typographical error. Did you mean to name it 'pre:e2e'? Please double-check to ensure this is intentional.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_gZzyHQxMVBL5RGSV

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Reviewed everything up to db20380 in 2 minutes and 17 seconds

More details

• Looked at 337 lines of code in 7 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 13 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. apps/studio/.env.example:8

• Draft comment:
  Good: Added FIRECRAWL API key environment variable. Ensure that users comment it out if they don't have a key.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. apps/studio/package.json:56

• Draft comment:
  Dependency on @mendable/firecrawl-js is added. Verify that this version is compatible with the existing codebase.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. apps/studio/src/lib/projects/create.ts:93

• Draft comment:
  Ensure that the backend accepts the new 'crawledContent' field in the prompt creation API.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is asking the author to ensure that the backend accepts a new field. It is not a specific code suggestion or a request for a test, but rather a general request to ensure something is done. This violates the rule against asking the author to ensure behavior is intended or tested.

4. apps/studio/src/lib/services/crawler.ts:27

• Draft comment:
  Retrieving the API key from import.meta.env works for Vite; double-check that the key is injected at build/runtime.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:188

• Draft comment:
  HandleCrawlSubmit properly validates URL input; consider adding additional user feedback for malformed URLs.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

6. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:241

• Draft comment:
  Resetting the URL input and crawl state in finally block is good; ensure no unintended loss of crawled data if needed later.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

7. apps/studio/src/locales/en/translation.json:73

• Draft comment:
  New translation keys for the crawl feature added; check consistency and clarity with existing prompt translations.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

8. apps/web/client/messages/en.json:73

• Draft comment:
  Crawl-related translation strings are consistent with the studio translations. Ensure unified wording across platforms.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

9. apps/studio/.env.example:8

• Draft comment:
  Added FIRECRAWL API key variable. Ensure documentation clarifies when to set this key.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

10. apps/studio/package.json:56

• Draft comment:
  New dependency '@mendable/firecrawl-js' added. Verify version compatibility and update changelogs if necessary.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

11. apps/studio/src/lib/projects/create.ts:93

• Draft comment:
  The 'sendPrompt' function now accepts an optional 'crawledContent' parameter. Confirm that the backend and analytics handle this extra data properly.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

12. apps/studio/src/lib/services/crawler.ts:27

• Draft comment:
  Good check for the FIRECRAWL API key. Consider whether a fallback/development default might be useful in non-production environments.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

13. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:188

• Draft comment:
  In 'handleCrawlSubmit', URL validation and crawling logic is implemented well. Consider adding a check for when 'response.data' is empty or not in the expected format to prevent potential runtime errors.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  The existing code already handles the case of empty/invalid response data safely. The optional chaining on responseData[0]?.html means it won't throw if responseData[0] is undefined. The || '' ensures we get empty strings if the values are falsy. The suggestion to check if response.data is an array seems unnecessary since the code already gracefully handles invalid data structures.
  I could be wrong about the API contract - maybe there's a specific reason we need to validate that response.data is an array. However, without seeing the API documentation or CrawlerService implementation, I can't be certain.
  The existing error handling with ?. and || operators already provides sufficient safety against runtime errors, making additional validation unnecessary. The code will work correctly even if response.data is not an array.
  Delete the comment since the code already has appropriate error handling in place and the suggested change would add unnecessary complexity.

Workflow ID: wflow_jD9swm6lr1gqP6dK

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Reviewed everything up to db20380 in 2 minutes and 31 seconds

More details

• Looked at 337 lines of code in 7 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 15 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. apps/studio/.env.example:8

• Draft comment:
  Good addition of FIRECRAWL API key placeholder.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. apps/studio/package.json:56

• Draft comment:
  Dependency '@mendable/firecrawl-js' added; ensure version matches your API wrapper requirements.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. apps/studio/src/lib/projects/create.ts:92

• Draft comment:
  New 'crawledContent' parameter is integrated into both analytics and main channel. Confirm that downstream consumers support this new field.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. apps/studio/src/lib/services/crawler.ts:27

• Draft comment:
  Good check for the API key. Consider handling missing key gracefully in production.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 10% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. apps/studio/src/locales/en/translation.json:73

• Draft comment:
  New 'crawl' translation keys added. Verify consistent usage in UI.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

6. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:188

• Draft comment:
  handleCrawlSubmit properly validates the URL and shows toast errors. Consider localizing error messages.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

7. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:449

• Draft comment:
  New UI MotionCard for crawling feature looks good; ensure styling works responsively.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

8. apps/web/client/messages/en.json:76

• Draft comment:
  Crawl translation keys are consistent with the studio translations. Good job!
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

9. apps/studio/.env.example:8

• Draft comment:
  Added VITE_FIRECRAWL_API_KEY. Ensure users have documentation/guidance to obtain and set this key.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to ensure that users have documentation or guidance, which is similar to asking them to confirm or ensure something. This violates the rule against asking the PR author to ensure something is done.

10. apps/studio/package.json:56

• Draft comment:
  Dependency '@mendable/firecrawl-js' added. Confirm version ^1.24.0 is aligned with expected Firecrawl API usage.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to confirm the version of a dependency, which is related to dependencies. According to the rules, I should not comment on dependency changes or versions that I don't recognize. Therefore, this comment should be removed.

11. apps/studio/src/lib/projects/create.ts:93

• Draft comment:
  sendPrompt() now accepts crawledContent and logs it to analytics. Consider sanitizing or omitting sensitive website data in analytics logs.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  While logging potentially sensitive data to analytics could be a security concern, we don't actually know: 1) What crawledContent contains 2) Whether it's already sanitized before reaching this point 3) How the analytics system handles data. The comment is speculative without more context about the data flow.
  I might be too quick to dismiss a legitimate security concern. Security issues should be taken seriously.
  However, without clear evidence that this is definitely exposing sensitive data, the comment is speculative and violates our rule about making speculative "if X then Y" type comments.
  The comment should be deleted as it makes assumptions about data sensitivity without clear evidence and is speculative in nature.

12. apps/studio/src/lib/services/crawler.ts:27

• Draft comment:
  When VITE_FIRECRAWL_API_KEY is missing, an error is thrown. Consider enhancing the error message or logging instructions for easier debugging.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

13. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:475

• Draft comment:
  The URL input field lacks an explicit accessible label. Consider adding a label or aria-label for better accessibility.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50%
  While the input has a placeholder and is within a section with a clear heading, proper accessibility best practices do recommend explicit labels for form controls. However, this seems like a relatively minor UI issue since there is contextual labeling through the heading structure. The comment is technically correct but may not rise to the level of requiring immediate action.
  I might be underestimating the importance of explicit labels for screen reader users. The heading context may not be sufficient for all assistive technologies.
  While explicit labels are ideal, the presence of clear headings and context makes this a relatively low-priority issue that could be addressed in a future accessibility pass.
  Given that this is a UI-focused comment about a relatively minor accessibility issue, and there is some contextual labeling present, this comment should be removed per the review rules.

14. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:227

• Draft comment:
  Crawled data is concatenated into a formatted string. Consider using a structured object for crawled data to allow more flexible handling later on.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  While using a structured object could be cleaner than string concatenation with delimiters, I don't have enough context about how this data is used downstream to know if this would actually be beneficial. The current format may be exactly what's needed by the consuming code. The comment is speculative about potential future benefits without clear evidence of current issues.
  The suggestion could be valid if there's complex parsing happening downstream. The current string format might be error-prone if the content contains the delimiter strings.
  Without seeing how the crawledValue is used downstream, this suggestion is speculative. The current implementation may be intentionally simple if the downstream code expects this exact format.
  Delete the comment since it makes assumptions about future needs without evidence of current issues. The existing implementation may be intentionally designed this way.

15. apps/studio/package.json:30

• Draft comment:
  The script key 'pree2e' appears to be a typographical error. Consider renaming it to 'pre:e2e' (or another consistent naming) to match the expected convention.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_Zm7LiQwTYaG1HJpS

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Reviewed everything up to db20380 in 2 minutes and 32 seconds

More details

• Looked at 337 lines of code in 7 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 12 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. apps/studio/.env.example:8

• Draft comment:
  Ensure users update the API keys, including VITE_FIRECRAWL_API_KEY, for production use.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is asking the PR author to ensure that users update the API keys for production use. It is not making a specific code suggestion or pointing out a potential issue with the code itself. It is more of a reminder or an instruction, which falls under the category of purely informative comments.

2. apps/studio/package.json:56

• Draft comment:
  Added dependency '@mendable/firecrawl-js'. Verify that version '^1.24.0' is fully compatible with other modules.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is asking the PR author to verify compatibility of a dependency version, which is against the rules. It does not provide a specific suggestion or point out a specific issue with the code.

3. apps/studio/src/lib/projects/create.ts:92

• Draft comment:
  Extended sendPrompt to accept an optional 'crawledContent' parameter. Confirm that callers provide valid data.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to confirm that callers provide valid data, which falls under the rule of not asking the author to confirm or ensure behavior. It doesn't provide a specific suggestion or point out a specific issue with the code.

4. apps/studio/src/lib/services/crawler.ts:26

• Draft comment:
  CrawlerService throws an error if VITE_FIRECRAWL_API_KEY is missing. Consider handling this more gracefully in development.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  The error handling seems intentional and appropriate - an API key is required for the service to function at all. Making it "more graceful" in development would mean allowing the service to initialize without a key, but then it wouldn't be able to do anything useful. The current behavior provides clear feedback about the configuration issue. This feels like a speculative suggestion without strong evidence that it would be better.
  The comment could be valid if there's a development mode where the crawler functionality should be mocked or disabled. The current error might make local development harder.
  Without seeing evidence of a development mode or mocking system, the current error handling is appropriate - failing fast when a required configuration is missing is a good practice.
  Delete the comment. The current error handling is appropriate for a required API key, and the suggestion to handle it "more gracefully" is speculative without evidence of a specific better approach.

5. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:188

• Draft comment:
  handleCrawlSubmit performs URL validation and provides user feedback via toast; ensure accessibility hints (e.g., aria-label) for the input field if needed.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  While accessibility is important, this seems like a speculative suggestion rather than a clear issue. The input already has a type="url" and placeholder text which provides some accessibility. There's no strong evidence that aria-label is definitely needed here. The comment uses tentative language ("if needed") making it more of a suggestion than a requirement.
  I could be undervaluing accessibility concerns. Missing aria labels could be a real issue for screen readers.
  While accessibility is important, we should only keep comments that identify clear issues. This comment is speculative and uses tentative language ("if needed"). If accessibility was a clear requirement, it should be more definitive.
  Delete this comment as it's speculative rather than identifying a clear issue that needs to be fixed.

6. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:223

• Draft comment:
  Formatting of crawled content (Markdown and HTML sections) assumes response.data is an array with first element. Confirm this is reliable or add fallback handling.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

7. apps/studio/.env.example:8

• Draft comment:
  New Firecrawl API key added. Ensure the API key is provided and consider adding a newline at the end of the file for consistency.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 50% <= threshold 50%
  The comment suggests ensuring the API key is provided, which is a form of asking the author to double-check something, violating the rules. However, the suggestion to add a newline at the end of the file for consistency is a valid code style suggestion.

8. apps/studio/package.json:56

• Draft comment:
  Added dependency '@mendable/firecrawl-js'. Confirm version compatibility with other packages.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to confirm version compatibility, which is against the rules. It is related to dependencies, and the rules specify not to comment on dependency changes or version compatibility.

9. apps/studio/src/lib/projects/create.ts:92

• Draft comment:
  sendPrompt now accepts 'crawledContent'. Ensure the content is sanitized as needed before further use.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  The comment is speculative - it assumes sanitization is needed without evidence. The crawledContent is just passed through to other functions. Without seeing the implementation of invokeMainChannel or knowing how the content is used downstream, we can't be sure sanitization is needed here. The comment is also asking the author to "ensure" something, which violates our rules.
  Maybe sanitization is actually important for security reasons when dealing with crawled content. The downstream usage could be vulnerable.
  Without seeing evidence of how the content is used downstream, we can't make assumptions about sanitization needs. If sanitization is needed, it should be handled by the components that actually process the content.
  Delete the comment as it's speculative, asks for verification, and lacks evidence that sanitization is needed at this layer.

10. apps/studio/src/lib/services/crawler.ts:26

• Draft comment:
  Good use of a singleton pattern with Firecrawl. Consider exposing more configurable options (like retries or additional scrapeOptions) if needed.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  The comment is speculative - it suggests "if needed" without evidence that these options are actually needed. We don't know if retries or other options are even supported by FirecrawlApp. The CrawlOptions interface already defines the options that matter for this implementation. Adding more options would be premature optimization without clear requirements.
  The comment could be valid if there are known issues with connection reliability that would benefit from retries. The singleton pattern does make it harder to configure options later.
  Without evidence of actual needs for additional configuration, this is premature optimization. The code can be enhanced later if specific requirements arise.
  Delete the comment as it's speculative and suggests changes without clear evidence of need.

11. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:90

• Draft comment:
  Consider parallelizing image compression in handleNewImageFiles (e.g. using Promise.all) for improved performance when multiple files are processed.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

12. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:298

• Draft comment:
  Image pill keys are generated from index and content; consider using a more robust unique identifier to avoid possible key collisions.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_q1xPimtZhPDfvCJ7

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Reviewed everything up to 793342e in 2 minutes and 46 seconds

More details

• Looked at 341 lines of code in 7 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 15 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. apps/studio/.env.example:8

• Draft comment:
  New FIRECRAWL API key added. Ensure the key is provided in production.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. apps/studio/package.json:56

• Draft comment:
  New dependency '@mendable/firecrawl-js' added. Verify version compatibility.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. apps/studio/src/lib/projects/create.ts:95

• Draft comment:
  New 'crawledContent' parameter integrated. Confirm that the backend channel expects this field.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 30% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. apps/studio/src/lib/services/crawler.ts:27

• Draft comment:
  CrawlerService uses VITE_FIRECRAWL_API_KEY; proper error notification is in place if key is missing.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. apps/studio/src/locales/en/translation.json:80

• Draft comment:
  Consider using 'ariaLabel' instead of 'arialLabel' for accessibility consistency.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  While the comment is technically correct (the standard HTML attribute is "aria-label" and React uses "ariaLabel"), this is in a translation file, not a React component. The actual component code would handle the mapping between the translation key and the proper React prop. Without seeing the component code, we can't be certain this is actually an issue. The translation key name is an implementation detail.
  The naming convention for ARIA attributes is a well-established standard in web development. Getting it wrong could indicate other accessibility issues.
  However, this is just a translation key name that will be mapped to a component prop - the actual aria attribute implementation would be in the React component code, which we can't see. The translation key name doesn't affect accessibility.
  Delete the comment. While the standard is "ariaLabel", this is just a translation key name and doesn't directly affect accessibility. Without seeing the component code, we can't be sure this is an actual issue.

6. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:189

• Draft comment:
  URL validation is good; ensure error feedback via toast covers various URL parsing failures.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

7. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:247

• Draft comment:
  Reset 'crawledValue' after sending the prompt seems proper. Double-check state flow if a user submits multiple times.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 20% <= threshold 50%
  None

8. apps/web/client/messages/en.json:80

• Draft comment:
  As in other locale files, consider renaming key from 'arialLabel' to 'ariaLabel' for consistency.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  While accessibility is important and consistency in aria labels is good practice, I can't verify if other files actually use 'ariaLabel'. The comment makes an assumption about other files that I can't validate. The change would be simple to make, but without evidence I can't be certain this is actually an inconsistency.
  I might be overly cautious - this is a common convention in React where it's typically 'ariaLabel', so the comment could be valuable even without seeing other files.
  However, following our rules, we need strong evidence to keep a comment. Making assumptions about other files or common conventions without direct evidence violates this principle.
  Without being able to verify the consistency claim against other locale files, we should err on the side of removing this comment.

9. apps/studio/package.json:56

• Draft comment:
  Ensure '@mendable/firecrawl-js' version (^1.24.0) is compatible with the project and consider locking it down if needed.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is about ensuring compatibility of a dependency version, which falls under the rule of not commenting on dependency changes unless it's a specific version mismatch or similar issue. The comment is asking the author to ensure compatibility, which is not allowed.

10. apps/studio/src/lib/projects/create.ts:92

• Draft comment:
  New 'crawledContent' parameter added to sendPrompt; verify that downstream handlers and analytics correctly process this additional data.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to verify that downstream handlers and analytics correctly process the new crawledContent parameter. This falls under the rule of not asking the author to ensure behavior is intended or to double-check things. Therefore, this comment should be removed.

11. apps/studio/src/lib/services/crawler.ts:27

• Draft comment:
  Ensure VITE_FIRECRAWL_API_KEY is securely managed in production, as its absence will trigger a runtime error.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  This is a "ensure that..." comment which is explicitly called out as not useful in the rules. It's asking the author to verify something rather than pointing out a specific issue. The code already handles the missing key case appropriately with error handling. Managing secrets is an infrastructure concern, not a code review issue.
  The comment does raise a valid security consideration about API key management. Production security is important.
  While security is important, this comment is asking for verification rather than pointing out a specific code issue. API key management should be handled by DevOps/infrastructure teams, not in code review.
  Delete the comment as it violates the rule about verification comments and doesn't suggest any specific code changes.

12. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:376

• Draft comment:
  Instead of using document.getElementById('image-input') to trigger the file input, use the imageRef (e.g., imageRef.current?.click()) for a more React-friendly approach.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

13. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:227

• Draft comment:
  When setting 'crawledValue', consider sanitizing or limiting the size of the crawled content to prevent performance issues with very large payloads.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  While the concern about large payloads is theoretically valid, we don't have enough context to know if this is actually a problem. We don't know the typical size of crawled content, what the CrawlerService does, or if there are already size limits in place. The comment is speculative ("to prevent performance issues") rather than pointing to a concrete issue.
  The comment raises a legitimate concern about handling potentially unbounded data. Large HTML pages could cause memory or performance problems.
  However, without evidence that this is actually causing problems, the comment is speculative. The CrawlerService may already handle size limits, and we don't want to prematurely optimize.
  Delete this comment since it's speculative and we lack evidence that large payloads are actually causing problems. The comment violates the rule against speculative "if X then Y could be an issue" type comments.

14. apps/studio/src/locales/en/translation.json:80

• Draft comment:
  Typo found: The key 'arialLabel' in the crawl input object seems to be a typo. It should likely be 'ariaLabel' to correctly reference the accessibility attribute.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  This is a translation key file, not actual HTML/React code. The key name is arbitrary and doesn't need to match HTML attribute names exactly. The key will be referenced consistently in the code. There's no technical requirement that translation keys match HTML attribute names. This is just a string identifier.
  Maybe inconsistent key naming could lead to confusion for developers? Maybe there's a team convention about matching HTML attribute names?
  Without seeing team conventions or other files, we can't assume there's any requirement about key naming. The key will work fine either way, and changing it would require coordinated changes in the code that uses it.
  Delete this comment. The spelling of translation keys is arbitrary and doesn't need to match HTML attributes. The comment isn't pointing out a real issue.

15. apps/web/client/messages/en.json:81

• Draft comment:
  It appears that 'arialLabel' may be a typo. Typically, accessibility labels use 'ariaLabel' (without the extra 'l') to follow ARIA conventions.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  This is a translation file containing UI strings, not actual code. The property name 'arialLabel' vs 'ariaLabel' is determined by how it's used in the code, not how it's named in the translations. Without seeing the actual React components that use this string, we can't know if this naming is correct or not. The comment is making assumptions about code we can't see.
  The comment could be correct - ARIA attributes typically use 'aria-label' or 'ariaLabel'. But we're only looking at string definitions, not their usage.
  Since we can't see the actual code that uses this string, we can't verify if this naming is incorrect. The translation key naming might be intentional to match existing code patterns.
  Delete the comment since we can't verify if the naming is actually incorrect without seeing the component code that uses this string.

Workflow ID: wflow_r0dYNs6ZKXfKHoUd

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

Consider renaming the translation key arialLabel to ariaLabel to better align with ARIA naming conventions.

[ellipsis-dev]

Consider renaming the key arialLabel to ariaLabel here as well for consistency with ARIA standards.

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Reviewed everything up to 793342e in 2 minutes and 40 seconds

More details

• Looked at 341 lines of code in 7 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 15 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. apps/studio/.env.example:8

• Draft comment:
  Consider adding a sample API key or extra instructions for users regarding VITE_FIRECRAWL_API_KEY usage.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

2. apps/studio/package.json:56

• Draft comment:
  Dependency @mendable/firecrawl-js added. Confirm that version ^1.24.0 aligns with project requirements.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to confirm that the version of a dependency aligns with project requirements. This falls under the rule of not commenting on dependency changes or asking for confirmation about them.

3. apps/studio/src/lib/projects/create.ts:95

• Draft comment:
  Ensure parameter ordering in sendPrompt (prompt, images, crawledContent, blank) is consistently used throughout the codebase.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the author to ensure consistency in parameter ordering across the codebase. This is a request for the author to double-check their work, which violates the rule against asking the author to ensure behavior is intended or to double-check things.

4. apps/studio/src/lib/services/crawler.ts:27

• Draft comment:
  Good error handling for missing API key, but consider logging a more descriptive message or fallback behavior if the API key is undefined.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  The current error handling is actually quite good. It checks for undefined API key, throws a clear error message that tells exactly what's missing and what needs to be done. Adding more logging wouldn't really improve this. A fallback behavior wouldn't make sense since the API key is required for the FirecrawlApp to function.
  Maybe there could be a more graceful way to handle missing API keys in development vs production environments?
  The current error handling is appropriate for both dev and prod - it fails fast with a clear message when a required configuration is missing, which is a good practice.
  The comment should be deleted. The existing error handling is clear and appropriate, and the suggested changes wouldn't improve the code.

5. apps/studio/src/locales/en/translation.json:75

• Draft comment:
  Consider renaming the key 'arialLabel' to 'ariaLabel' for accessibility consistency.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

6. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:189

• Draft comment:
  Validation of URL input is robust; consider adding debounce logic to handle rapid successive crawl submissions.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

7. apps/web/client/messages/en.json:80

• Draft comment:
  Update translation key 'arialLabel' to 'ariaLabel' to match accessibility standards.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

8. apps/studio/.env.example:9

• Draft comment:
  Added Firecrawl API key config; ensure documentation reflects the requirement for this key.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to ensure that documentation reflects the requirement for a new API key. This is a request for confirmation or action related to documentation, which violates the rule against asking the PR author to update the PR description or similar documentation-related tasks.

9. apps/studio/package.json:56

• Draft comment:
  New dependency '@mendable/firecrawl-js' added; verify version compatibility with the rest of the stack.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is about a new dependency and asks the author to verify version compatibility, which falls under the rule of not commenting on dependency changes or asking the author to verify things.

10. apps/studio/src/lib/projects/create.ts:95

• Draft comment:
  sendPrompt now accepts 'crawledContent'; ensure that empty string vs. undefined is handled consistently in downstream logic.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  The comment is speculative - it's suggesting potential issues without evidence of actual problems. The code simply passes the parameter through, and there's no indication of any special handling needed. We can't see the downstream code that processes this value, so we can't verify if there's actually an issue.
  Maybe there are important downstream implications for empty string vs undefined that could cause bugs. The reviewer might have knowledge of the backend handling.
  Without seeing the downstream code or evidence of actual issues, this is exactly the kind of speculative "what if" comment we should avoid. The code handles the parameter consistently by just passing it through.
  Delete this comment as it's speculative and asks for verification without clear evidence of an actual issue.

11. apps/studio/src/lib/services/crawler.ts:27

• Draft comment:
  CrawlerService singleton implementation looks solid. Consider documenting the expected structure of response.data (e.g., handling multiple formats).
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  The response structure comes from FirecrawlApp library, not this code. Documentation for that should live in the library itself. This wrapper class is just passing through the response. Adding documentation here could become outdated if the library changes. The code already handles success/error cases appropriately.
  Documentation could help users of this service understand what to expect without having to look up the library docs. The multiple format options might make the response structure complex.
  While documentation could be helpful, it would be redundant with the library's docs and could become a maintenance burden. The TypeScript types from the library should provide sufficient interface documentation.
  Delete the comment. Documentation of the third-party library's response structure belongs in that library, not in this wrapper class.

12. apps/studio/src/locales/en/translation.json:76

• Draft comment:
  New translation keys for crawl are added. Verify if 'arialLabel' is intentional or should be 'ariaLabel' for accessibility consistency.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

13. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:188

• Draft comment:
  The new crawling feature (handleCrawlSubmit) implements URL validation and error handling well. Consider handling multiple crawled results if the API returns more than one item, and ensure 'crawledValue' is cleared appropriately after submission.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50%
  The comment raises two concerns but both are already handled:

1. Multiple results - code explicitly takes first result only, which seems intentional
2. Clearing crawledValue - this is already done in handleSubmit()
   The comment appears to be speculative without strong evidence of an actual issue.
   Could there be a legitimate use case for handling multiple crawl results that I'm missing? Maybe the API design intends for multiple results to be used.
   Without seeing the API documentation or requirements, I can't assume handling multiple results is needed. The code clearly shows an intentional design to use only the first result.
   Delete the comment. Both concerns are already handled in the code, and there's no strong evidence that handling multiple results is required.

14. apps/web/client/messages/en.json:76

• Draft comment:
  Updated crawl translation keys in the web client; verify consistency with the studio translations.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to verify consistency between two parts of the codebase, which is against the rules. It doesn't provide a specific suggestion or point out a specific issue.

15. apps/web/client/messages/en.json:80

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error: The key 'arialLabel' seems to be a typo. It should likely be 'ariaLabel' to correctly reference ARIA attributes for accessibility.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  This is a valid accessibility concern since ARIA attributes in HTML/React are standardized as 'aria-label' or 'ariaLabel', not 'arialLabel'. However, since this is a translations file, the key naming is an implementation detail that may be correctly mapped in the code. Without seeing the component code that uses this translation, we can't be certain this is actually an issue.
  The comment assumes the translation key must match the HTML attribute name exactly, but there could be transformation/mapping logic in the code that handles this. We don't have visibility into how these strings are actually used.
  While the mapping logic could handle this, using standard naming conventions makes code more maintainable and reduces the chance of bugs. However, we still lack concrete evidence that this is causing any real issues.
  Without seeing the component code that uses this translation key, we can't be certain this naming is actually problematic. The comment should be removed since we lack strong evidence it's an issue.

Workflow ID: wflow_ekuT3QBut7E5SzsS

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

Typo detected: The key arialLabel seems to be a typo. It should likely be ariaLabel to adhere to standard accessibility attribute naming.

Suggested change

	"arialLabel": "URL input for web page crawling",
	"ariaLabel": "URL input for web page crawling",

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Reviewed everything up to 793342e in 2 minutes and 43 seconds

More details

• Looked at 341 lines of code in 7 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 13 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. apps/studio/.env.example:8

• Draft comment:
  Clarify if FIRECRAWL API key is mandatory or optional.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to clarify whether the FIRECRAWL API key is mandatory or optional. This falls under asking the author to confirm their intention or to explain something, which is against the rules.

2. apps/studio/package.json:56

• Draft comment:
  Dependency '@mendable/firecrawl-js' added. Confirm semver range fits update policy.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to confirm the semver range fits the update policy, which is related to dependencies. According to the rules, I should not comment on dependency changes or ask for confirmations related to them.

3. apps/studio/src/lib/projects/create.ts:93

• Draft comment:
  New 'crawledContent' param passed to sendPrompt. Confirm downstream channels support it.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to confirm that downstream channels support a new parameter. This falls under the rule of not asking the author to confirm their intention or to ensure behavior is intended. Therefore, this comment should be removed.

4. apps/studio/src/lib/services/crawler.ts:27

• Draft comment:
  Proper error thrown if VITE_FIRECRAWL_API_KEY is missing. Consider adding logging for missing API key.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  The code already handles the missing API key case well with a descriptive error message. Adding logging would be redundant since the error will already be visible when thrown. This is a new file, so the comment is about changed code. The suggestion seems more like a preference than a necessary improvement.
  Perhaps in some environments, having separate logging could help with monitoring or analytics. The error might be caught higher up and not properly logged.
  The error message is clear and will be visible in stack traces. If additional logging is needed, it should be handled at the application level where errors are caught, not in this service class.
  The comment should be deleted as it suggests an unnecessary change - the existing error handling is sufficient and adding logging here would be redundant.

5. apps/studio/src/locales/en/translation.json:80

• Draft comment:
  Check key 'arialLabel'; should it be 'ariaLabel' for accessibility?
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

6. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:188

• Draft comment:
  URL validation and crawling logic looks good. Consider including additional user feedback for invalid URL formats.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

7. apps/web/client/messages/en.json:80

• Draft comment:
  Review translation key 'arialLabel' for consistency; standard is 'ariaLabel'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 30% vs. threshold = 50%
  While "ariaLabel" is indeed the more standard naming convention in HTML/React (matching the actual aria-label attribute), I don't have strong evidence from this codebase that this is their established pattern. The comment is about changed code, but without seeing the actual React components or other translation keys using this pattern, I can't be 100% certain this is a real issue.
  I could be wrong about needing to see established patterns - maybe the standard HTML aria-label attribute name is enough evidence on its own. Also, fixing this early could prevent inconsistency from spreading.
  While those are fair points, our directive is to only keep comments when we have strong evidence. The HTML standard alone isn't enough - the codebase could have its own conventions.
  Without seeing clear evidence of the established pattern in this codebase, we should err on the side of removing this comment rather than potentially enforcing the wrong convention.

8. apps/studio/.env.example:8

• Draft comment:
  Consider adding a note that API keys (like VITE_FIRECRAWL_API_KEY) should be commented out or secured in production to avoid accidental exposure.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

9. apps/studio/src/lib/projects/create.ts:93

• Draft comment:
  Ensure the backend/API supports the new 'crawledContent' field passed in the sendPrompt function and update documentation accordingly.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the author to ensure backend support and update documentation, which is not allowed by the rules. It doesn't provide a specific code suggestion or point out a specific issue with the code.

10. apps/studio/src/lib/services/crawler.ts:27

• Draft comment:
  If VITE_FIRECRAWL_API_KEY is missing, an error is thrown. Consider logging a warning or handling this gracefully in non-production environments.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  The current error handling seems appropriate - an API key is required for the service to function at all. Throwing immediately on initialization is better than allowing the service to be created in an invalid state. This is a critical configuration issue that should fail fast. Logging a warning wouldn't help since the service can't work without the key.
  Maybe there are valid development workflows where running without an API key should be allowed? The comment suggests non-production environments might need different handling.
  Even in development, having an invalid service instance would lead to confusing errors later. The error message is clear and actionable - it tells developers exactly what they need to do to fix it.
  The current error handling is appropriate and the comment's suggestion would make the code worse by masking a critical configuration issue. The comment should be deleted.

11. apps/studio/src/locales/en/translation.json:80

• Draft comment:
  Typo in translation key 'arialLabel'. Consider renaming it to 'ariaLabel' to align with standard accessibility attributes.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

12. apps/studio/src/locales/en/translation.json:81

• Draft comment:
  Typo found: The key 'arialLabel' should be corrected to 'ariaLabel' to properly reference the accessibility attribute.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  While 'ariaLabel' is indeed the more common format in React for aria attributes, this is a translation key in a JSON file, not actual React code. The naming of translation keys is arbitrary and doesn't affect functionality. The actual aria attribute name will be set in the React component, not here. This is just a key name in a translation file.
  Maybe there's a team convention for naming translation keys that match React prop names exactly? Maybe this inconsistency could cause confusion for developers?
  Even if there were such conventions, this comment doesn't demonstrate knowledge of them. The comment assumes this is a React prop when it's just a translation key. Translation keys can be named anything as long as they're used consistently.
  Delete this comment. It's making assumptions about naming requirements for translation keys that don't actually matter for functionality.

13. apps/web/client/messages/en.json:81

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error: 'arialLabel' should likely be 'ariaLabel' (without the extra 'l').
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

Workflow ID: wflow_a5jVeAusWIaJXPIW

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

Typo in translation key arialLabel. Consider renaming it to ariaLabel for consistency and adherence to accessibility standards.

[ellipsis-dev]

Consider validating the structure of the crawled response (e.g., ensuring response.data is an array with expected 'html' and 'markdown' properties) before using it.

[SoloDevAbu]

@ellipsis-dev is there any changes should i make in all the files. please tell them all

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Reviewed everything up to 793342e in 2 minutes and 45 seconds

More details

• Looked at 341 lines of code in 7 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 12 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. apps/studio/src/lib/projects/create.ts:98

• Draft comment:
  Double-check that sending 'crawledContent' to analytics doesn't leak sensitive data.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment asks the PR author to double-check something, which is against the rules. It doesn't provide a specific suggestion or point out a specific issue with the code.

2. apps/studio/src/lib/services/crawler.ts:53

• Draft comment:
  Consider adding extra validation for response.data structure before accessing [0].
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:216

• Draft comment:
  Minor: Consider memoizing 'handleCrawlSubmit' with useCallback to avoid unnecessary re-creations on re-renders.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 30% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. apps/studio/.env.example:8

• Draft comment:
  Consider adding a short comment/example on how to obtain/format the VITE_FIRECRAWL_API_KEY, as done for other keys.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. apps/studio/package.json:56

• Draft comment:
  Verify that the added dependency '@mendable/firecrawl-js' v1.24.0 is compatible with the rest of the project.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

6. apps/studio/src/lib/projects/create.ts:93

• Draft comment:
  Ensure callers pass a consistent and sanitized 'crawledContent' value when invoking sendPrompt.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

7. apps/studio/src/lib/services/crawler.ts:55

• Draft comment:
  Optionally include the URL in the error message (e.g. 'Failed to crawl : ') for better debugging.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

8. apps/studio/src/locales/en/translation.json:80

• Draft comment:
  The translation key 'arialLabel' is used but it is non-standard; consider renaming it to 'ariaLabel' to follow accessibility conventions.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

9. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:480

• Draft comment:
  The component uses t('projects.prompt.crawl.input.ariaLabel') but the translation JSON key is 'arialLabel'. Update one to match the other.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50%
  While the comment identifies a potential issue with translation keys, we don't have access to the translation JSON files to verify if this is actually an issue. Without seeing the translation files, we can't be certain whether 'ariaLabel' or 'aria-label' is the correct key. The comment is speculative without evidence.
  The comment could be correct - there might be a mismatch. But we don't have enough context to verify this. We're making assumptions about the translation file structure.
  Given our rules state we must see STRONG EVIDENCE that a comment is correct to keep it, and we don't have access to the translation files, we cannot verify this potential issue.
  Delete the comment since we don't have strong evidence to confirm there's actually a translation key mismatch.

10. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:223

• Draft comment:
  Consider verifying that response.data has valid content before accessing [0]. This can prevent issues if the crawl returns an empty array.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

11. apps/studio/src/locales/en/translation.json:81

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error: In the 'crawl' section, the key 'arialLabel' appears to be a typo. Please change it to 'ariaLabel' to correctly reference the accessibility label.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  While 'ariaLabel' is indeed the more common convention in React, this is just a translation key in a JSON file. The actual React component implementation would determine the correct attribute name. The translation key name itself doesn't matter as long as it's consistent with how it's used in the code. Without seeing the React component that uses this translation, we can't be sure this is actually an issue.
  The comment assumes the translation key must match React's attribute naming, but that's not necessarily true. The key could be mapped to the correct attribute name in the component.
  Even if 'ariaLabel' is the more common convention, changing this key name would require corresponding changes in the component code, which we can't see. The current name is not necessarily wrong.
  We should delete this comment since we don't have enough context to know if this is actually an issue, and the translation key name itself is not inherently problematic.

12. apps/web/client/messages/en.json:81

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error: The key 'arialLabel' appears to be a typo. It should likely be changed to 'ariaLabel' to follow accessibility naming conventions.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

Workflow ID: wflow_JHV6koWBvPmhkAPF

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

Typo: The key 'arialLabel' is used but the component calls 'ariaLabel'. Please update for consistency.

Suggested change

	"arialLabel": "URL input for web page crawling",
	"ariaLabel": "URL input for web page crawling",

[ellipsis-dev]

For an empty URL input, consider showing a user-visible error via toast rather than just logging a warning.

Suggested change

	console.warn('URL input is empty');
	toast({ title: 'URL Required', description: 'Please enter a URL before submitting.', variant: 'destructive' });

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Reviewed everything up to 793342e in 2 minutes and 27 seconds

More details

• Looked at 341 lines of code in 7 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 14 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. apps/studio/.env.example:8

• Draft comment:
  Addition of VITE_FIRECRAWL_API_KEY is clear. Ensure users know to supply an actual key if using crawl features.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. apps/studio/package.json:56

• Draft comment:
  Dependency '@mendable/firecrawl-js' is added. Confirm that '^1.24.0' is compatible with your integration to avoid breaking changes.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 30% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. apps/studio/src/lib/projects/create.ts:93

• Draft comment:
  New parameter 'crawledContent' is added into sendPrompt. Ensure that the backend and analytics support this extra content.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 20% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. apps/studio/src/lib/services/crawler.ts:27

• Draft comment:
  Good validation for the API key, but consider clarifying in docs if key is missing. Error message is user‐friendly.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:189

• Draft comment:
  URL validation and error handling in handleCrawlSubmit is robust. Consider showing a visual error state as well as using toast for better UX.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 30% <= threshold 50%
  None

6. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:221

• Draft comment:
  The crawling response handling assumes response.data is an array; ensure the API’s structure remains consistent or add safe checks if changes occur.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

7. apps/web/client/messages/en.json:80

• Draft comment:
  Translation keys for crawling are consistent with the studio locale file. Ensure placeholders and keys (e.g. 'arialLabel') are updated in all locale files.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 30% <= threshold 50%
  None

8. apps/studio/src/lib/projects/create.ts:92

• Draft comment:
  Optional 'crawledContent' is now passed to sendPrompt. Ensure this content is validated/sanitized before being used in the LLM prompt.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  The comment makes assumptions about how crawledContent is used (in LLM prompts) but we can't see that in this code. The parameter is just passed through to other systems. Without seeing the implementation of MainChannels.CREATE_NEW_PROJECT_PROMPT, we can't verify if validation is actually needed. The comment is speculative.
  Maybe there are security implications I'm missing? Perhaps the reviewer has knowledge about the MainChannels implementation that would justify this concern.
  Even if there are security concerns, this comment is speculative without showing clear evidence of the risk. Any needed validation should be handled by the system actually processing the content.
  Delete the comment as it makes assumptions about implementation details we can't verify and is speculative about potential issues.

9. apps/studio/src/lib/projects/create.ts:41

• Draft comment:
  The individual setTimeouts for slow connection messages aren’t tracked for cleanup. Consider storing their timer IDs and clearing them in clearSlowConnectionTimer to avoid unwanted state updates.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

10. apps/studio/src/lib/services/crawler.ts:55

• Draft comment:
  Ensure the response structure from firecrawl API matches expectations. Consider validating that response.data is an array and contains the expected keys before accessing [0].
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  The code is already doing error handling. The comment seems speculative - it assumes there should be a response.data array but there's no evidence in the code that this is true. We don't know the FirecrawlApp API structure, and the code isn't trying to access response.data anywhere.
  Maybe there's API documentation somewhere that shows response.data should be validated? Maybe there are other files that use this response and expect certain properties?
  Without seeing API docs or other files, we can't make assumptions about the response structure. The code handles errors appropriately for what it's doing.
  Delete the comment. It's speculative and suggests validating properties that aren't even being accessed in this code.

11. apps/studio/src/locales/en/translation.json:80

• Draft comment:
  Translation key mismatch: The key is defined as 'arialLabel' but the component expects 'ariaLabel'. Update one for consistency.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  This is a valid concern since React's aria-label attribute is hyphenated in HTML but camelCased as ariaLabel in React props. The translation key should match what the component expects. However, without seeing the actual component code that uses this translation, we can't be 100% certain which format is correct. The comment is speculative without seeing the component code.
  I don't have access to the component code that uses this translation, so I can't verify if there's actually a mismatch. The current key might be intentional.
  While the concern is valid, keeping a speculative comment about potential issues violates our review rules. We should only keep comments when we have strong evidence of an actual problem.
  Delete the comment since we don't have concrete evidence of a mismatch in the actual component code, and speculative comments should be avoided.

12. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/PromptCreation/PromptingCard.tsx:480

• Draft comment:
  Using translation key 'projects.prompt.crawl.input.ariaLabel' here, but translations define 'arialLabel'. This discrepancy should be resolved.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%

1. The comment is about a real change in the diff - this is new code being added. 2. Translation key mismatches are real issues that can cause runtime problems. 3. However, we don't have access to the actual translation files, so we can't verify if there really is a mismatch. 4. The comment makes an assertion about what exists in the translations without showing evidence.
   I might be too quick to dismiss this - translation key mismatches can cause real user-facing issues. And the reviewer seems confident enough to make a specific suggestion.
   While translation issues are important, without seeing the translation files we can't verify this claim. We should err on the side of not making assumptions about external files we can't see.
   Delete the comment because we don't have enough context to verify if there really is a translation key mismatch. Making assumptions about content in unseen files violates our review principles.

13. apps/studio/src/locales/en/translation.json:81

• Draft comment:
  Typo: The key 'arialLabel' should likely be 'ariaLabel' to correctly support accessibility standards. Please fix this to ensure correct attribute naming.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

14. apps/web/client/messages/en.json:81

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error: The key 'arialLabel' appears to be a typo. It should likely be 'ariaLabel' (without the extra 'l') to conform with standard ARIA attribute naming conventions.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

Workflow ID: wflow_8fmK4MIaMLvNawy5

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[Kitenite]

This is awesome! Instead of adding a UI, what do you think about just making it a toolcall such that the agent can decide if it needs to go read a link or not? That way we don't change the UI and can reuse the tool in regular chat as well.

onlook/packages/ai/src/tools/index.ts

Line 133 in 663f12d

export const chatToolSet: ToolSet = {

[SoloDevAbu]

Thanks @Kitenite for the feedback, So I am going extract links if present in the prompt and then crawl data from the link

[Kitenite]

@SoloDevAbu no need to manually extract the link, the model can just call the tool with the url it decides on and does the extraction itself. We do the same thing with letting it decide what file it needs to read. Thanks!

[SoloDevAbu]

Thanks @Kitenite for the clarification, going to make it the changes

[SoloDevAbu]

@Kitenite Can you please review the changes