INTENT-1 §3.4: dual-brace named slots ({name} == {{name}})

[JarbasAl]

What

INTENT-1 §3.4: a named slot MAY be written either {name} or {{name}}. The two forms are exactly equivalent — a conformant tool folds {{name}} to {name} and treats them identically. The double-brace spelling is a slot, not a brace-escaping form; the grammar still provides no way to write a literal brace (§2 makes brace characters impossible as literal input, so none is needed). The slot-name charset and no-whitespace-inside-braces rules apply to both forms.

The implementation already landed in ovos-spec-tools #38; this PR is the matching spec text.

Sections changed (intent-1.md)

• §3.4 "Named slots { }" — both equivalent forms documented; fold rule; slot-name rules stated to apply to both; example gains a {{item}} line.
• §3 grammar-token table — the Named slot row now reads {name} or {{name}}.
• §3 "no brace-escaping form" sentence — rewritten: two equivalent spellings exist, double-brace is a slot not an escape.
• CHANGELOG.md — a bullet appended to the existing OVOS-INTENT-1 ### 2 section.

Version

INTENT-1 is already Version 2; the header/class are unchanged. The dual-brace form is additive within the existing version.

Stacking note

architecture #56 (INTENT-1 union slot sets) is also open against intent-1.md + CHANGELOG.md. This PR will conflict with #56 on both files; that is expected. This PR stacks after #56 and will need a rebase once #56 merges. #56's branch is untouched.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@JarbasAl, we couldn't start this review because you've reached your PR review rate limit.

More reviews will be available in 54 minutes and 52 seconds. Learn how PR review limits work.

Your organization has run out of usage credits. Purchase more credits in the billing tab to continue.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

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 credits.

🚦 How do rate 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 see our Fair Usage Limits Policy for further information.

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 84a4f629-2c58-48d9-925d-eaadcd51b27d

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between bcaa32b and 2818aba.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)

• CHANGELOG.md
• README.md
• intent-1.md

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch spec/intent-1-dual-brace

---

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.}