fix: broken monitoring link & remove unused struct

[amilz]

• fix monitoring ling
• remove unused dep
• update readme w/ logo
• update kora.toml samples (w/ token 22 and cache)

---

Important

Fixes broken monitoring link, removes unused struct, updates README with logo, and updates sample configuration files.

• Fixes:
  • Corrects broken monitoring link in crates/lib/src/metrics/README.md.
• Removals:
  • Removes unused ValidationMode enum from transaction_validator.rs.
• Documentation:
  • Adds logo to README.md.
  • Updates kora.toml samples in docs/getting-started/demo/server/kora.toml and docs/operators/deploy/sample/kora.toml with token 22 and cache settings.

^{This description was created by for 442d5a7. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed everything up to 20117be in 37 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 12 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 1 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. crates/lib/src/metrics/README.md:89

• Draft comment:
  The monitoring link has been updated to a correct relative path. Verify that '../../../../docs/operators/MONITORING.md' correctly resolves from 'crates/lib/src/metrics'. Also, consider adding a newline at EOF if that fits the project style.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 50% <= threshold 50% The comment asks the author to verify the correctness of a file path, which is not allowed. However, it also suggests adding a newline at EOF, which is a specific code suggestion. The first part of the comment should be removed, but the second part is valid.

Workflow ID: wflow_LILd9CfDEqeSkPWr

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed 821d328 in 46 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 16 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 1 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. crates/lib/src/validator/transaction_validator.rs:26

• Draft comment:
  Removed unused public enum 'ValidationMode'. Confirm that its removal does not break any external API. If it was part of a public interface, consider deprecation instead.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50% None

Workflow ID: wflow_HWsx0nzPLCcfzZo3

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed 90c9833 in 37 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 32 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 1 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. README.md:1

• Draft comment:
  Using an HTML
  for header centering is acceptable, but consider removing extra
  tags for cleaner markup.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50% None

2. README.md:21

• Draft comment:
  The updated project description clearly reflects new branding. Ensure consistency with other documentation if this change is intentional.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 20% <= threshold 50% None

Workflow ID: wflow_cTqp2D3vko7aGHy7

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed 7467cf0 in 1 minute and 16 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 149 lines of code in 3 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 9 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. docs/getting-started/demo/server/kora.toml:6

• Draft comment:
  Added [kora.cache] configuration. Consider adding a comment to explain its purpose.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 30% <= threshold 50% None

2. docs/getting-started/demo/server/kora.toml:50

• Draft comment:
  Introduced [validation.price] block for margin settings. Looks clear.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 10% <= threshold 50% None

3. docs/getting-started/demo/server/kora.toml:57

• Draft comment:
  Added [validation.token2022] block with commented extension options. Verify integration with token2022 flows.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 30% <= threshold 50% None

4. docs/operators/deploy/sample/kora.toml:10

• Draft comment:
  Added [kora.cache] block to centralize caching settings. Consistent with other examples.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 10% <= threshold 50% None

5. docs/operators/deploy/sample/kora.toml:59

• Draft comment:
  Removed duplicate [kora.cache] block. Ensure only one instance remains to avoid confusion.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 10% <= threshold 50% None

6. docs/operators/deploy/sample/kora.toml:63

• Draft comment:
  Added [validation.token2022] block for controlling token extensions. Review default commented values if needed.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 30% <= threshold 50% None

7. docs/operators/deploy/sample/kora.toml:89

• Draft comment:
  Added [metrics] and [metrics.fee_payer_balance] sections. Confirm the chosen port and scrape interval suit your deployment.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 30% <= threshold 50% None

8. kora.toml:62

• Draft comment:
  Added [validation.token2022] block to the main config. Ensure the application parses this correctly.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 30% <= threshold 50% None

9. kora.toml:91

• Draft comment:
  Minor formatting update in [metrics.fee_payer_balance] (removed inline comment). No impact on functionality.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 10% <= threshold 50% None

Workflow ID: wflow_5iGa8fnshn4qdhKl

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[github-actions]

📊 TypeScript Coverage Report

Coverage: 82.0%

View detailed report

Coverage artifacts have been uploaded to this workflow run.
View Artifacts

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed 442d5a7 in 2 minutes and 14 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 189 lines of code in 3 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 6 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. docs/operators/deploy/sample/kora.toml:64

• Draft comment:
  The updated margin comment is clearer now. Ensure the description ("10% margin (0.1 = 10%, 1.0 = 100%)") meets user expectations.
• 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 the description meets user expectations, which falls under the rule of not asking the author to ensure or verify things. It does not provide a specific suggestion or point out a specific issue with the code.

2. kora.toml:60

• Draft comment:
  Margin comment update in the main config now matches the sample. The clarity is improved—confirm consistency across documentation.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is purely informative and asks the PR author to confirm consistency across documentation, which violates the rules. It doesn't provide a specific code suggestion or point out a potential issue.

3. sdks/ts/README.md:23

• Draft comment:
  Replacing 'make run' with an explicit kora CLI command improves clarity. Verify that the CLI supports these config flags.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 50% <= threshold 50% The comment suggests replacing a command with a more explicit one for clarity, which is a valid suggestion. However, it also asks the author to verify if the CLI supports certain flags, which is against the rules as it asks for verification. The first part of the comment is useful, but the second part is not allowed.

4. sdks/ts/README.md:31

• Draft comment:
  Renaming the test command to 'pnpm test:ci:integration' is clearer for CI contexts. Confirm that the package scripts reflect this change.
• 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 comment violates several rules: 1) It asks for verification/confirmation which is explicitly disallowed 2) It's about build/package configuration which should be caught by CI if incorrect 3) It's not clearly indicating a required code change, just asking for verification 4) If the scripts were actually mismatched, the tests would fail immediately. Maybe the comment is trying to prevent a documentation-code mismatch that could confuse users? Even if there was a mismatch, it would be immediately obvious when running the commands, and CI would catch it. This kind of verification comment adds noise without value. Delete this comment as it violates our rules by asking for verification and commenting on build configuration that would be caught by CI.

5. sdks/ts/README.md:59

• Draft comment:
  Removal of the inline environment configuration details declutters the README. Ensure detailed test configuration info is available via the linked API Reference and Quick Start docs.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is purely informative and suggests ensuring that detailed test configuration info is available elsewhere. It doesn't provide a specific code suggestion or point out a potential issue with the code itself.

6. docs/operators/deploy/sample/kora.toml:64

• Draft comment:
  Typo: There is a double '#' in the comment ('# #') which appears to be an accidental duplication. Please remove the extra '#' for 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 comment is technically correct about the double '#', this is an extremely minor formatting issue in a comment. Comments are not code and don't affect functionality. The rules specifically say not to make comments that are obvious or unimportant. This feels like unnecessary nitpicking that doesn't improve code quality. The double '#' could potentially make the config file look messy and might confuse future readers about whether it's a special comment syntax. While true, this is still an extremely minor formatting issue in documentation that doesn't impact functionality or readability significantly. The meaning is still clear. Delete this comment as it violates the rule about not making obvious or unimportant comments. A double '#' in a comment is too minor to warrant a PR comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_sr0NPG9osWnHna16

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[dev-jodee]

Blockhash check issue with test, not a problem will be fixed in other pr