🎨 Palette: 토글 버튼 및 요약 뱃지 접근성 개선

[seonghobae]

💡 What: 대시보드의 OverviewStats, ContextSection, SessionFiles 요약 버튼에 동적 aria-label을 추가했습니다.
🎯 Why: 시각적 변경(텍스트/아이콘)에 의존하는 토글 버튼의 경우, 스크린 리더 사용자가 현재 상태나 클릭 후의 결과를 명확히 알기 어렵기 때문에 목적과 액션을 명시해야 합니다.
📸 Before/After: 시각적 변경 없음. (aria-label 속성만 추가/수정됨)
♿ Accessibility: 스크린 리더 사용자를 위해 요소의 목적과 상태에 따른 행동(열기/닫기)을 명확하게 안내합니다.

---

PR created automatically by Jules for task 5305206125237997938 started by @seonghobae

[google-labs-jules]

👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down.

I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job!

For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with @jules. You can find this option in the Pull Request section of your global Jules UI settings. You can always switch back!

New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs.

---

For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@seonghobae, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 22 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

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 configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: f92559f1-e79a-47ea-9003-488d18449ff0

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 4f8796e and 06e6819.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)

• pnpm-lock.yaml is excluded by !**/pnpm-lock.yaml

📒 Files selected for processing (21)

• .Jules/palette.md
• .jules/sentinel.md
• AGENTS.md
• CHANGELOG.md
• docs/doctoring/bcrypt-password-input-boundary.md
• docs/doctoring/event-list-timestamp-parsing.md
• docs/doctoring/session-timeline-cumulative-merge.md
• osv-scanner.toml
• package.json
• packages/shared/src/schemas/auth.test.ts
• packages/shared/src/schemas/auth.ts
• packages/web/src/app/api/password-reset/[token]/route.ts
• packages/web/src/components/dashboard/event-list.tsx
• packages/web/src/components/dashboard/overview-stats.tsx
• packages/web/src/components/dashboard/reports/context-section.test.tsx
• packages/web/src/components/dashboard/reports/context-section.tsx
• packages/web/src/components/dashboard/session-files.tsx
• packages/web/src/components/dashboard/session-timeline-chart.test.tsx
• packages/web/src/components/dashboard/session-timeline-chart.tsx
• packages/web/src/lib/format.test.ts
• packages/web/src/lib/format.ts

---

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

[opencode-agent]

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

• Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

• Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

• Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

• Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head ef0dc3e85586b1d1c01a687635e5c682579ebb64.

• Head SHA: ef0dc3e85586b1d1c01a687635e5c682579ebb64

• Workflow run: 31080491453

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (5 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (5 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: 06e68192e2ca6d58618b9467d0d4aceb9cd2933d
• Workflow run: 31143963773
• Workflow attempt: 1
• Gate result: REQUEST_CHANGES (approval step)

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

• Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

• Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

• Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

• Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head 06e68192e2ca6d58618b9467d0d4aceb9cd2933d.

• Head SHA: 06e68192e2ca6d58618b9467d0d4aceb9cd2933d

• Workflow run: 31143963773

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (19 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (19 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Docs (3 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (3 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["docs review"]

Loading

[seonghobae]

@coderabbitai review
@cwl-noema-review
@opencode-agent

Review the exact live head only. Verify dynamic aria-labels for OverviewStats, ContextSection, and SessionFiles announce both current state and resulting action without duplicating visible names, remain localized, update synchronously with expansion state, and preserve keyboard/focus behavior. Require focused accessibility regressions, complete tests/coverage, production build, security gates, and zero unresolved threads. Review only; do not update the branch, merge, release, or alter protections.

[coderabbitai]

Rate Limit Exceeded

@seonghobae have exceeded the limit for the number of chat messages per hour. Please wait 3 minutes and 27 seconds before sending another message.

[opencode-agent]

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

• Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

• Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

• Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

• Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head 06e68192e2ca6d58618b9467d0d4aceb9cd2933d.

• Head SHA: 06e68192e2ca6d58618b9467d0d4aceb9cd2933d

• Workflow run: 31143963773

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (19 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (19 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Docs (3 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (3 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["docs review"]

Loading