copy-artifacts: regenerate meta via consumer-provided build-meta.sh hook

[thedavidmeister]

Summary

• Add a script/build-meta.sh hook step to rainix-copy-artifacts.yaml (if: hashFiles(...) != ''), running between soldeer install and BuildPointers.sol via #sol-shell, so the reusable currency-checks committed authoring-meta artifacts the same way it already checks pointers and ABIs.
• Script is consumer-provided because rain meta build's invocation (input/output filenames, meta type) varies per repo — same shape as the existing BuildPointers.sol / CopyArtifacts.sol hooks.
• Updates the rationale comment and the failure-error message to match.

Resolves #207. Once this lands, raindex#2600 can resolve by dropping its bespoke git-clean workflow (its only unique coverage was meta currency).

Test plan

• CI green on this PR (the test/fixture repo doesn't ship a build-meta.sh, so the new step is a no-op there — verifies the if: hashFiles(...) guard works and nothing regresses).
• Smoke-test downstream by pointing raindex's copy-artifacts.yaml at this branch with an added script/build-meta.sh; expect green on raindex CI.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores
  • Updated build workflow to regenerate meta artifacts with improved script detection and refined failure messages for artifact management.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 7775602e-2730-4156-b0df-c9e553f2a387

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 15b98f4 and 953d80e.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• .github/workflows/rainix-copy-artifacts.yaml

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The workflow rainix-copy-artifacts.yaml now includes a step to regenerate "meta" artifacts by invoking ./script/build-meta.sh when present. The failure message that reports stale artifacts was updated to reference this new regeneration step instead of the prior .#prelude reference.

Changes

Meta Artifact Regeneration Workflow

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Meta regeneration step and currency check messaging .github/workflows/rainix-copy-artifacts.yaml	A conditional workflow step runs ./script/build-meta.sh to regenerate meta artifacts when the script exists, guarded by hashFiles('script/build-meta.sh') != ''. The stale-artifacts failure message is updated to reference script/build-meta.sh in the regeneration instructions.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

Possibly related issues

• Consolidate git-clean and copy-artifacts CI jobs (+ restore meta currency check) raindex#2600: This PR directly addresses the missing CI meta regeneration check by adding the Regenerate meta artifacts step to the reusable workflow, enabling downstream repositories to drop their custom meta-specific jobs.

Poem

🐰 A meta script joins the dance,
Each artifact checked at last,
No stale shadows left to chance,
Currency flowing smooth and fast!

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately describes the main change: adding a consumer-provided build-meta.sh hook to regenerate meta artifacts in the copy-artifacts workflow.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	The PR implements all core requirements from issue #207: adds hashFiles-guarded build-meta.sh hook step between soldeer install and BuildPointers.sol, uses existing pattern for consumer hooks, and relies on forge fmt + git diff for verification.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	All changes are scoped to the objectives: workflow step addition, comment updates, and error message corrections directly address the meta build integration goal without introducing unrelated modifications.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch 2026-05-30-copy-artifacts-meta

---

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.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[github-actions]

@coderabbitai assess this PR size classification for the totality of the PR with the following criterias and report it in your comment:

S/M/L PR Classification Guidelines:

This guide helps classify merged pull requests by effort and complexity rather than just line count. The goal is to assess the difficulty and scope of changes after they have been completed.

Small (S)

Characteristics:

• Simple bug fixes, typos, or minor refactoring
• Single-purpose changes affecting 1-2 files
• Documentation updates
• Configuration tweaks
• Changes that require minimal context to review

Review Effort: Would have taken 5-10 minutes

Examples:

• Fix typo in variable name
• Update README with new instructions
• Adjust configuration values
• Simple one-line bug fixes
• Import statement cleanup

Medium (M)

Characteristics:

• Feature additions or enhancements
• Refactoring that touches multiple files but maintains existing behavior
• Breaking changes with backward compatibility
• Changes requiring some domain knowledge to review

Review Effort: Would have taken 15-30 minutes

Examples:

• Add new feature or component
• Refactor common utility functions
• Update dependencies with minor breaking changes
• Add new component with tests
• Performance optimizations
• More complex bug fixes

Large (L)

Characteristics:

• Major feature implementations
• Breaking changes or API redesigns
• Complex refactoring across multiple modules
• New architectural patterns or significant design changes
• Changes requiring deep context and multiple review rounds

Review Effort: Would have taken 45+ minutes

Examples:

• Complete new feature with frontend/backend changes
• Protocol upgrades or breaking changes
• Major architectural refactoring
• Framework or technology upgrades

Additional Factors to Consider

When deciding between sizes, also consider:

• Test coverage impact: More comprehensive test changes lean toward larger classification
• Risk level: Changes to critical systems bump up a size category
• Team familiarity: Novel patterns or technologies increase complexity

Notes:

• the assessment must be for the totality of the PR, that means comparing the base branch to the last commit of the PR
• the assessment output must be exactly one of: S, M or L (single-line comment) in format of: SIZE={S/M/L}
• do not include any additional text, only the size classification
• your assessment comment must not include tips or additional sections
• do NOT tag me or anyone else on your comment

[coderabbitai]

Tip

For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes.

SIZE=S