Conversation
Document RNS vs LXMF-client vs mesh-client policy so automation is not mistaken for transport, and state that additional protocols need an RF mesh path while remaining open to everyone.
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 53 minutes You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: QUIET Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe PR adds protocol-scope guidance and documents ownership boundaries between RNS transport, LXMF sidecar behavior, and mesh-client policy. ChangesProtocol scope and Reticulum ownership
Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~5 minutes Possibly related PRs
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@README.md`:
- Line 40: Update README.md line 40 and docs/index.md line 21 to use one
canonical protocol-scope statement: require an RF mesh path, exclude
internet-only stacks, allow shipped protocols to supplement RF with internet
transports, consider additional protocols meeting the RF-mesh requirement,
welcome compatible ham protocols, and state that Mesh-Client is for everyone.
Preserve the existing audience wording in both documents.
🪄 Autofix
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: QUIET
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: f2ad345c-ad73-4214-a0a7-222cd5d7f33f
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
AGENTS.mdCONTRIBUTING.mdREADME.mddocs/agents/reticulum.mddocs/index.mddocs/reticulum.md
Use the same RF-mesh eligibility contract everywhere, including internet transports alongside RF for shipped protocols.
Summary
Test plan
Summary by CodeRabbit