feat(chords): surface actionable rehearsal guidance

[seonghobae]

Buyer-visible gap

The Chords view exposed harmony and transposition but discarded three analysis outputs that musicians need before rehearsal: setup instructions, simplification guidance, and overlap warnings. The previous automation branch also rendered the legacy none sentinel as if it were real advice and carried unrelated npm lock drift.

Change

• render setup notes, simplification guidance, and overlap warnings for each role;
• normalize surrounding whitespace without mutating the analysis result;
• suppress empty, whitespace-only, and case-insensitive none sentinel values;
• filter empty warning entries while preserving meaningful warning order;
• expose each role card as a named article so assistive technology and tests can scope its guidance;
• remove the unused chord-collection pass rather than extending dead state;
• update CHANGELOG.md under Unreleased;
• introduce no dependency, lockfile, workflow, database, network, filesystem, model, or IPC change.

Test-first evidence

Commit df62f6ea4fb816b961e56f194528d2da83d8d452 added the role-scoped behavior contracts before production implementation. Commit d34b4e982f9750a5e6b4dcf5b2a17a3b37e2435e implemented the minimal presentation boundary. The branch differs from protected develop in exactly three files.

Merge gate

Require current-head desktop lint, strict typecheck, complete measured tests, production build, repository CI, Security Scan, SAST, central coverage/review, zero unresolved actionable threads, a qualifying independent non-author approval, and every branch-protection rule. No predecessor-head result or administrative bypass is accepted.

Supersedes #773.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

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

Next review available in: 26 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: 4bbadebe-9cb2-4bb6-8af3-79dc11c10604

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between acdbea6 and 63d7c10.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)

• CHANGELOG.md
• apps/desktop/src/features/chords/index.test.tsx
• apps/desktop/src/features/chords/index.tsx

---

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

[seonghobae]

@opencode-agent address

This feature is now Draft because exact head 63d7c10f8e5277939e846cb3e67d5d509ed3fb19 still has a failing required security-audit check and the new buyer-facing labels are hard-coded English. Keep the three-file product scope and preserve the normalization logic, but route Setup, Simplification, Overlap warnings, and any related accessible labels through the existing Korean/English translator contract. Add both-locale rendered tests, including empty/whitespace/case-insensitive none suppression and warning-order preservation.

Do not absorb the Undici update into this feature branch. After #751 merges, rebase onto the security-fixed develop, rerun the current head, and keep the diff free of package/lock/workflow changes. Replace generic style-only evidence with user-observable accessibility checks where possible. Require lint, strict typecheck, complete 100% measured tests, production build, npm audit, SBOM, SAST, Security Scan, current-head central coverage/reviews, and zero unresolved threads before marking Ready. No temporary writer workflow, permission/credential/model-routing change, merge, release, or protection change. Stop without mutation if the live head differs before writing.

[seonghobae]

@coderabbitai review

Please review exact current head 63d7c10f8e5277939e846cb3e67d5d509ed3fb19. Focus on role-scoped setup, simplification, and overlap guidance; whitespace and case-insensitive none suppression; accessible named articles; preservation of warning order; removal of dead chord collection; and the strict three-file scope with no authority or dependency expansion.

@opencode-agent Please review the same exact head after current-head checks complete. This is review-only: do not update branches, merge, release, or modify protection.

@cwl-noema-review Please independently review this exact head after required checks complete; do not reuse predecessor evidence.

[coderabbitai]

@seonghobae I will review pull request #776 at the requested head. I will verify the specified behavior and scope constraints.

⚠️ Action not completed

Review rate limited.

Note: CodeRabbit is an incremental review system and does not re-review already reviewed commits. This command is applicable only when automatic reviews are paused.

[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 63d7c10f8e5277939e846cb3e67d5d509ed3fb19.

• Head SHA: 63d7c10f8e5277939e846cb3e67d5d509ed3fb19

• Workflow run: 31198228227

• 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 (3 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: 63d7c10f8e5277939e846cb3e67d5d509ed3fb19
• Workflow run: 31198228227
• 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 63d7c10f8e5277939e846cb3e67d5d509ed3fb19.

• Head SHA: 63d7c10f8e5277939e846cb3e67d5d509ed3fb19

• Workflow run: 31198228227

• 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 (3 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

Loading