feat(evi): add the daily content pass with its review and rewrite subagents - #587
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
|
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 25 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: Organization UI Review profile: ASSERTIVE Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (21)
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 |
|
Thank you for following the naming conventions! 🙏 |
5014e01 to
342054f
Compare
commit: |
342054f to
dddfbcc
Compare
dddfbcc to
14ae8cf
Compare
6fd2812 to
435aa96
Compare
435aa96 to
7319743
Compare
d9cf32b to
d9efd7a
Compare
|
@coderabbitai review |
|
Stacked on #586.
The loop that uses the doctrine: a daily pass that ranks the corpus, fixes what is derivable, reviews what is left, applies what holds, and opens one draft PR whose body is the report.
Two subagents, not one
content_reviewreports.content_rewriteapplies. They never share a context, and that separation is the mechanism rather than tidiness.A reviewer that can edit stops producing findings it cannot fix, and those are the valuable ones: a landing claim no page keeps, a skill procedure that needs a decision, a comparison that contradicts its dossier. A rewriter that re-judges its own output passes it, every time.
content_reviewalso carriescontent_scan, so it can scan a file the pass did not pick, a passage on its own, or an external URL when the candidates it was handed are not enough.What the pass may change, and where it stops
A skill or an
AGENTS.mdgoverns the agent running the pass. It may fix a house rule there and nothing else; procedure, bounds, and a skill'sdescriptioncome back as findings.content__targetsenforces that mechanically by returning those files with modereport, andgoverned-surfaces.eval.tschecks the agent honours it.The landing page is
reporttoo, absent a critical finding.Order of operations
content__targetsranks the corpus and picks one group--fixapplies the derivable findings, committed on its ownEvals
Three, against the fixtures from #585: the saturated page must not pass, the clean page must not be flagged, and a request to reword a skill's procedure must come back as a proposal.
They only work once merged, since sandboxes check out
origin/mainand the fixtures have to exist there. None is taggedfastfor that reason.Schedule
Daily at 06:00 UTC, after the digest and before upstream-sync, cost-watchdog, repo-health-sweep, linear-maintenance and self-review.
The first firing will be the first end-to-end run. It opens a draft PR and reports one line to the thread, so the failure mode is a draft to close, not a merge. Worth reading that first one closely.
Checks
129 evi tests, typecheck clean. No changeset:
apps/*only.