docs(rev): reconcile runtime-readiness planning#150
Merged
Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 18 minutes Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. 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: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (16)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughWS-REV-001 planning and lifecycle contracts were refreshed around trusted-main evidence, explicit child starts, CheckerRun-rooted remediation, immutable revision lineage, runtime gating, and non-executable parent splits. No product runtime, migration, or test implementation was added. ChangesWS-REV-001 planning authority
Estimated code review effort: 3 (Moderate) | ~25 minutes Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers: 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
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 |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 6
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In
@.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/chunks/WS-REV-001-03-review-queue-lease-persistence.md:
- Around line 12-14: Make WS-REV-001-03B the sole owner of normalized immutable
ReviewPacketManifest/item persistence, including its schema and migrations,
while preserving the exact packet-membership contract dependency. In
WS-REV-001-06-claims-preference-timers.md lines 9-10, remove or narrow manifest
ownership and explicitly consume 03B’s canonical contract; update both sites so
no duplicate persistence model or migration is implied.
In
@.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/chunks/WS-REV-001-08-immutable-decision-kernel.md:
- Around line 62-66: Update the Verification section of the executable chunk to
explicitly list the concrete focused-test, Ruff, coverage, stale-scan,
agent-gate, merge-intent, and git diff --check commands required before
implementation. Do not defer these commands to a future start contract;
alternatively, explicitly mark the record as non-executable if commands cannot
be defined.
In
@.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/chunks/WS-REV-001-10-contribution-integration-hidden-composition.md:
- Around line 141-146: Align the needs-revision branch’s preparation participant
with the allowed ownership boundary: either consume the task-owned participant
delivered by the 09A children, or add the required task-owned implementation
files and owner gate in this chunk. Update the contract wording and
implementation so it no longer claims a task-owned participant without an
allowed implementation path, while preserving the existing Review-rooted
preparation and rollback behavior.
In @.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/DECISIONS.md:
- Around line 157-161: Update the legacy-closure eligibility statement to
require that neither an unambiguous human Review root nor an exact final
needs_revision CheckerRun exists. Restrict the separately authorized legacy
closure to rootless human-review state, excluding valid CheckerRun-rooted tasks
even when no human Review is present; preserve the existing authorization,
evidence-linking, terminal reason, assignment release, and no-record outcomes.
In
@.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/reviews/WS-REV-001-PLAN2-pr-trust-bundle.md:
- Around line 59-61: The review scope claims are inconsistent with the
changed-file set because docs/spec_review_lifecycle.md changed. Update
.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/reviews/WS-REV-001-PLAN2-pr-trust-bundle.md
lines 59-61 to remove “reference specification” from the unchanged-file claim or
classify the specification among the four active product documents; update
.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/reviews/WS-REV-001-PLAN2-internal-review-evidence.md
lines 7-10 to use the same accurate candidate scope and changed-file
classification.
In `@docs/spec_review_lifecycle.md`:
- Line 761: Update the surrounding paragraph in docs/spec_review_lifecycle.md to
remove the executable ownership claim for REV-12A and assign implementation
ownership to REV-12A1 through REV-12A4, while preserving REV-12A as
non-executable. Ensure the release-control terminology matches CHUNK_MAP.md,
D19, README.md, docs/glossary.md, and docs/architecture_lockdown.md.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: e626d757-69b6-43ee-8623-470c1688857f
📒 Files selected for processing (36)
.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/CHUNK_MAP.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/CONFORMANCE_MATRIX.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/DECISIONS.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/DISCOVERY.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/INTENT.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/PLAN.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/REVIEW_LOG.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/RISKS.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/SOURCE_MANIFEST.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/STATUS.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/TEST_DESIGN_WS-REV-001-02.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/chunks/WS-REV-001-02A-guide-activation-sequence.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/chunks/WS-REV-001-02A2-prepared-guide-reactivation.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/chunks/WS-REV-001-02B-review-policy-task-lifecycle.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/chunks/WS-REV-001-02C-submission-attribution-lineage.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/chunks/WS-REV-001-03-review-queue-lease-persistence.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/chunks/WS-REV-001-04-review-chain-persistence.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/chunks/WS-REV-001-05-checker-routing-queue-views.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/chunks/WS-REV-001-06-claims-preference-timers.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/chunks/WS-REV-001-07-review-context-finding-evidence.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/chunks/WS-REV-001-08-immutable-decision-kernel.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/chunks/WS-REV-001-09A-revision-context-resubmission.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/chunks/WS-REV-001-09B-finding-replay-resolution-routing.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/chunks/WS-REV-001-10-contribution-integration-hidden-composition.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/chunks/WS-REV-001-11-admin-revocation-reconciliation.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/chunks/WS-REV-001-12-projection-observability.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/chunks/WS-REV-001-12A-joint-lifecycle-release-control.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/chunks/WS-REV-001-13-live-drill-docs-release.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/chunks/WS-REV-001-PLAN2-runtime-readiness-plan-refresh.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/reviews/WS-REV-001-PLAN2-internal-review-evidence.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-REV-001-review-revision-lifecycle/reviews/WS-REV-001-PLAN2-pr-trust-bundle.md.agent-loop/merge-intents/WS-REV-001-PLAN2.jsondocs/architecture_data_model.mddocs/architecture_lifecycle_state_machine.mddocs/operations_revision_replay.mddocs/spec_review_lifecycle.md
abiorh-claw
self-requested a review
July 18, 2026 21:49
abiorh-claw
approved these changes
Jul 18, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
PR Trust Bundle: WS-REV-001-PLAN2
Chunk
WS-REV-001-PLAN2- REV-02A Runtime Readiness Plan Refresh.Goal
Make the complete review/revision initiative implementation-ready against
trusted main without starting REV runtime or coding against the still-retired
task contributor fields.
Human-approved intent
Preserve one Project Guide task pipeline, immutable Review/finding/resolution
history, exact leased Submission review, accept-only FinalAcceptance, separate
checker remediation, Review-rooted human revision rebase, and no v0.1
adjudication implementation.
What changed
decisions, conformance, test design, and executable/proposed chunk boundaries.
XOR ownership to future 02C/09A4 contracts.
0026, and the live AUTHcatalogue while preserving the separate contributor foundation gate.
Why it changed
Merged AUTH, ART, CON, and cross-initiative contracts invalidated older planning
assumptions. The prior plan also combined runtime boundaries, mixed human and
checker revision rules, and lacked database-enforceable checker-remediation
causal lineage.
Design chosen
REV owns immutable review/revision lifecycle facts and orchestration. Task owns
guide context and Submission lineage. Checker remediation reuses CheckerRun and
stores
remediation_source_checker_run_id; human revision usesRevisionContextPreparation. CON participates flush-only in the REV-owned commit,
ART stays behind typed capability ports, and AUTH owns authorization plus the
separate contributor clean cut.
Alternatives rejected
checker remediation.
FinalAcceptance.
Scope control
Only the REV initiative, four allowed active product documents, and one PLAN2
merge intent changed. No backend, migration, test, workflow, dependency,
reference specification, AUTH/ART/CON owner plan, or handoff file changed.
Product behavior
This PR activates no product behavior. Planned v0.1 decisions remain
accept,needs_revision, andreject; every committed decision/finding/resolution isimmutable, accept alone creates FinalAcceptance, and checker remediation remains
distinct from Review-rooted human revision.
Acceptance criteria proof
The plan names exact dependencies, lock orders, transaction ownership,
database constraints, migration/backfill refusal, race tests, contribution and
artifact boundaries, child ownership, required reviewers, and explicit stops.
AUTH-09D-A is treated as merged; the contributor foundation remains fail-closed.
Tests/checks run
Diff integrity, four stale-contract scanners, Markdown links, 87 agent-gate
tests, one-head Alembic verification, merge-intent validation, catalogue
arithmetic, and changed-scope scans all pass.
Test delta
No executable test or runtime file changed. No assertion, skip, coverage floor,
or CI gate was weakened.
CI integrity
Current global 78 percent coverage remains unchanged. Future materially changed
task/checker/project areas require persistent focused 90 percent gates in their
own implementation chunks. PLAN2's schema-v2 merge intent validates uniquely.
Reviewer results
Senior engineering, QA/test, security/auth, product/ops, architecture, docs,
reuse/dedup, test delta, and CI integrity all pass after repairs on reviewed SHA
6985909ea83e74de22f1067777be0af2138b28de.External review
Pending GitHub CI, CodeRabbit, and human PR review.
Remaining risks
The contributor-field foundation has not merged, ART/CON runtime participants
remain future owner work, two duration defaults and human revision exhaustion
semantics require explicit approval, and later migration heads must be refreshed
from current main.
Follow-up work
After PLAN2 merges, automated memory names 02A but does not start it. AUTH must
merge the contributor foundation, then a human must explicitly start a refreshed
02A contract. Every later child follows its own gate.
Human review focus
Review the AUTH/REV ownership boundary, checker versus human revision lineage,
02A/02A2 sequencing, transaction/lock ownership, dormant adjudication boundary,
and absence of runtime changes.
Human merge ownership
Only the user may approve and merge this PR. Merge does not authorize 02A
implementation.
Summary by CodeRabbit