Conversation
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
ⓘ Qodo reviews are paused because your workspace is out of credits. Ask your workspace admin to add credits to resume reviews. Manage billing |
🤖 CodeAnt AI — Review Status
|
Thanks for using CodeAnt! 🎉We're free for open-source projects. if you're enjoying it, help us grow by sharing. Share on X · |
![sourcery-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/48477?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry @yakimoto, this account has used its review budget of 2,500,000 diff characters for the last 7 days.
You can request another review in 22 hours and 48 minutes by commenting @sourcery-ai review.
Bugbot couldn't run - usage limit reachedBugbot is counted against Cursor usage for this user or team, and this run hit a usage or spend limit. A user or team admin can review and increase usage limits in the Cursor dashboard. (requestId: serverGenReqId_c741038c-57b2-40ca-b335-c5aa585e98a1) |
Reviewer's GuideThe PR updates only the Platform Context section of AGENTS.md, replacing internal WAVE platform instructions with public-safe guidance for AI build agents while leaving the rest of the repository instructions unchanged. File-Level Changes
Tips and commandsInteracting with Sourcery
Customizing Your ExperienceAccess your dashboard to:
Getting Help
|
|
Note Reviews pausedIt looks like this branch is under active development. To avoid overwhelming you with review comments due to an influx of new commits, CodeRabbit has automatically paused this review. You can configure this behavior by changing the Use the following commands to manage reviews:
Use the checkboxes below for quick actions:
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: ASSERTIVE Plan: Advanced Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
Included review availability: 0 reviews are currently available. Your included PR review attempts over the past 7 days set your current allowance at 10 reviews per hour. 📜 Recent review details⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout. (3)
🧰 Additional context used🧠 Learnings (1)📓 Common learnings🔇 Additional comments (1)
📝 SummarySummary by CodeRabbit
WalkthroughAGENTS.md replaces internal platform guidance with rules for public-repository visibility, disclosures, approvals, personnel references, security details, and secrets. ChangesPublic repository guidance
Priority: ⬇️ Low Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~5 minutes Change: Other Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to The update only clarifies public-repository guidance and does not affect application behavior. 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches 💡 1🛠️ Fix failing CI checks 💡
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
✨ Simplify code
Comment |
codeant-ai
Bot
added
the
size:M
![gitar-bot[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/827041?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| **When in doubt, treat it as internal.** Ask before publishing anything borderline. | ||
| ## CONTENTS |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Quality: New section is a top-level H2 while old was H1; also missing blank line before next heading
The old Platform Context heading was # Platform Context (H1), but the new ## Public Repository Rules for Build Agents is H2, same level as ## CONTENTS, ## Security, etc. — this is likely intentional/fine for consistency, but note that line 68 (**When in doubt...**) runs directly into line 69 (## CONTENTS) with no blank line separating them, unlike every other section boundary in the file. Add a blank line after line 68 to keep consistent Markdown spacing.
Was this helpful? React with 👍 / 👎
|
Note Automatic reviews are paused because your team has used its included automatic processing for this billing period (headroom scales with your seat count). You can still comment "Gitar review" to run one anytime, and automatic reviews resume on their own by October 1. Add seats for more headroom. Code Review
|
| Compact |
|
Was this helpful? React with 👍 / 👎 | Gitar
ApprovabilityVerdict: Would Approve Macroscope's review found this PR approvable — This PR replaces internal agent context with public-safe guidance in a single AGENTS.md file. Its effect is limited to future agent-authored repository content, with no application runtime, data, deployment, or user-facing behavior changes. Not approved because:
Review your spending limits in Billing settings. You can add or adjust custom eligibility rules. Learn more. |
![codeant-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/646884?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| 5. **No internal operations detail.** Never describe an internal automation contract, a | ||
| permission rule, a secrets inventory, review-bot internals, an internal briefing document, a | ||
| local checkout or working-directory path, a session or lane identifier, or CI internals | ||
| beyond what any ordinary open-source project would publish. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggestion: This prohibition covers permission rules and automation contracts, so agents following it literally cannot update or explain this repository's public PERMISSIONS.md and machine contract. [api mismatch]
Assessment: 🟠 Major · 🔁 Occurrence: Sometimes
Prompt for AI Agent 🤖
This is a comment left during a code review.
**Path:** AGENTS.md
**Line:** 47:50
**Comment:**
*Api Mismatch: This prohibition covers permission rules and automation contracts, so agents following it literally cannot update or explain this repository's public `PERMISSIONS.md` and machine contract.
Validate the correctness of the flagged issue. If correct, How can I resolve this? If you propose a fix, implement it and please make it concise.
Once fix is implemented, also check other comments on the same PR, and ask user if the user wants to fix the rest of the comments as well. if said yes, then fetch all the comments validate the correctness and implement a minimal fix![cubic-dev-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1082092?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
1 issue found across 1 file
Confidence score: 4/5
AGENTS.mdcurrently makes the permission rule broad enough to prohibit documenting or updating the repository’s public permission contract, includingPERMISSIONS.md; qualify the rule as applying to internal permissions.
Prompt for AI agents (unresolved issues)
Check if these issues are valid — if so, understand the root cause of each and fix them. If appropriate, use sub-agents to investigate and fix each issue separately.
<file name="AGENTS.md">
<violation number="1" location="AGENTS.md:47">
P2: Qualify `permission rule` as internal. As written, this rule also bans agents from documenting or updating the repository's public permission contract, including `PERMISSIONS.md`.</violation>
</file>
Architecture diagram
sequenceDiagram
participant Agent as AI Build Agent
participant Repo as Public Repository (AGENTS.md)
participant GitHub as GitHub Public Surface
participant Internal as Internal WAVE Infrastructure
Note over Agent,Internal: Build Agent Runtime Bootstrapping and Public-Write Flow
Agent->>Repo: Read AGENTS.md
Repo-->>Agent: Public Repository Rules for Build Agents (9 rules)
Note over Agent: NEW: Repository is public, permanent, world-readable
Note over Agent: Any write = competitor, reporter, or attacker can read it
Agent->>Agent: Process task (PR, commit, issue, comment, doc)
alt Output is user-facing and public
Agent->>Repo: Draft content
Agent->>Agent: Apply 9 rules filter
alt Rule 2 violated (internal IDs)
Agent->>Agent: Remove ticket/tracking/decision IDs
else Rule 3 violated (internal topology)
Agent->>Agent: Strip private repo/hostname/tool references
else Rule 4 violated (approval status)
Agent->>Agent: Remove approval/sign-off state
else Rule 5 violated (ops detail)
Agent->>Agent: Remove automation/permission/path details
else Rule 6 violated (people)
Agent->>Agent: Strip personal names/emails
else Rule 7 violated (security internals)
Agent->>Agent: Report to SECURITY.md path
else Rule 8 violated (secrets)
Agent->>Agent: Remove credential material
end
Agent->>GitHub: Publish sanitized content
else Rule 9: Cannot describe without internal fact
Agent->>Agent: Recognize public-blocked content
Agent->>Internal: Route work to internal channel
Agent-->>Repo: Do not publish on public surface
end
Note over Agent,Internal: Security incident handling
Agent->>Repo: Check SECURITY.md policy
Agent->>Internal: Report vulnerability privately
Reply with feedback, questions, or to request a fix.
Re-trigger cubic
| confidence score, or that a change is waiting on someone's sign-off. Public PRs and issues | ||
| should stand on their own technical merits. | ||
|
|
||
| 5. **No internal operations detail.** Never describe an internal automation contract, a |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
P2: Qualify permission rule as internal. As written, this rule also bans agents from documenting or updating the repository's public permission contract, including PERMISSIONS.md.
Prompt for AI agents
Check if this issue is valid — if so, understand the root cause and fix it. At AGENTS.md, line 47:
<comment>Qualify `permission rule` as internal. As written, this rule also bans agents from documenting or updating the repository's public permission contract, including `PERMISSIONS.md`.</comment>
<file context>
@@ -17,18 +17,55 @@ See `README.md` for setup. Run the repo's lint / typecheck / test before opening
+ confidence score, or that a change is waiting on someone's sign-off. Public PRs and issues
+ should stand on their own technical merits.
+
+5. **No internal operations detail.** Never describe an internal automation contract, a
+ permission rule, a secrets inventory, review-bot internals, an internal briefing document, a
+ local checkout or working-directory path, a session or lane identifier, or CI internals
</file context>
| 5. **No internal operations detail.** Never describe an internal automation contract, a | |
| 5. **No internal operations detail.** Never describe an internal automation contract, an internal |
1 participant
User description
What changed
This PR replaces the
Platform Contextsection ofAGENTS.mdwith a newPublic Repository Rules for Build Agentssection. The old section described internal build infrastructure andreferences that only make sense inside the organization, which have no place in a public,
world-readable file. The new section
is a short, generic set of rules that any AI coding agent working in this repository should
follow when it writes anything that becomes public: pull request titles and bodies, commit
messages, code comments, issues, and documentation.
Why public repos need a scoped agent brief
AGENTS.mdis the entry point an automated coding agent reads before it starts working in arepository. In a public, open-source repository, everything an agent writes is permanent and
world-readable — including after an edit or a delete, since GitHub retains history. A brief
written for an internal, private codebase is the wrong brief for a public one: it can reference
things (internal tools, internal identifiers, internal process state) that make sense only to
people who already have private context, and that reveal more than intended once the file is
public. This change gives every public repository in this organization the same short, public-
safe brief, so an agent contributing here has clear, explicit guidance about the public/private
boundary before it opens its first pull request.
What an agent must not write in a public repo
The new section spells this out directly, but in short: no internal ticket, tracking, or
decision-record identifiers; no names of private repositories, internal hostnames, or internal
tooling; no description of approval status, pending decisions, or confidence scores; no internal
operational detail such as automation contracts, permission rules, or local working-directory
paths; no personal names tied to a process decision and no personal email addresses; no security
incident detail (vulnerabilities should be reported through the repository's normal security
process instead); and never a credential, key, or token — not even an example that looks
plausible. The guiding rule is simple: if something can't be described without an internal fact,
it isn't a public change, and the right move is to say so and route the work elsewhere rather
than write around it.
How to verify
AGENTS.mdonly, and only to thePlatform Contextsection — everyother section of the file (build/test instructions, contribution rules, the security policy
pointer, and the machine-readable index at the bottom) is untouched.
git diff --staton this branch shows a single file changed.Platform Contextsection, so it is easy to compare across repositories and confirm nothingrepository-specific was dropped by mistake.
pull requests; this change was verified locally by rendering the resulting
AGENTS.mdandconfirming the Markdown is well-formed and the surrounding sections are unchanged.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Need help on this PR? Tag
@codesmith-botwith what you need. Autofix is disabled.Note
Low Risk
Documentation-only change to agent guidance; no runtime, auth, or data-path impact.
Overview
Replaces internal agent brief with public-safe guidance in
AGENTS.md.The former Platform Context block (registry SSOT, fleet map, inference endpoints, internal CI “physics laws,” and similar org-only detail) is removed. A new Public Repository Rules for Build Agents section states that all agent-authored public text is permanent and world-readable, and lists nine constraints: write for outside developers, avoid internal IDs/topology/approval state/ops detail/people/security internals/secrets, and refuse to publish changes that cannot be described without private facts.
Build, contribution, security, CONTENTS, and GUIDELINES sections are unchanged aside from this swap.
Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 7d1f6b5. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.
Summary by Sourcery
Replace internal platform guidance with public-safe rules that keep build agents from publishing private or sensitive information.
New Features:
Enhancements:
Documentation:
CodeAnt-AI Description
Replace internal build-agent guidance with public-safe writing rules
What Changed
AGENTS.mdImpact
✅ Safer public documentation✅ Fewer accidental internal disclosures✅ Clearer guidance for build agents💡 Usage Guide
Checking Your Pull Request
Every time you make a pull request, our system automatically looks through it. We check for security issues, mistakes in how you're setting up your infrastructure, and common code problems. We do this to make sure your changes are solid and won't cause any trouble later.
Talking to CodeAnt AI
Got a question or need a hand with something in your pull request? You can easily get in touch with CodeAnt AI right here. Just type the following in a comment on your pull request, and replace "Your question here" with whatever you want to ask:
This lets you have a chat with CodeAnt AI about your pull request, making it easier to understand and improve your code.
Example
Preserve Org Learnings with CodeAnt
You can record team preferences so CodeAnt AI applies them in future reviews. Reply directly to the specific CodeAnt AI suggestion (in the same thread) and replace "Your feedback here" with your input:
This helps CodeAnt AI learn and adapt to your team's coding style and standards.
Example
Retrigger review
Ask CodeAnt AI to review the PR again, by typing:
Check Your Repository Health
To analyze the health of your code repository, visit our dashboard at https://app.codeant.ai. This tool helps you identify potential issues and areas for improvement in your codebase, ensuring your repository maintains high standards of code health.