Centralize Socket validation and update roadmap completion records - #180
Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 23 minutes You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository. 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 (39)
✨ Finishing Touches📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 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 |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: dbf19b6e0c
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| Check( | ||
| "Cybersecurity Skills metadata", | ||
| ("uv", "run", "scripts/validate_repo_metadata.py"), | ||
| REPO_ROOT / "plugins" / "cybersecurity-skills", | ||
| ), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The full and release profiles run only metadata validation for these two children, so the behavior contracts in plugins/cybersecurity-skills/tests/test_macos_security_handoffs.py and plugins/reverse-engineering-skills/tests/test_research_macos_security_control.py are never exercised by the new consolidated release path. Add child-root uv run pytest checks for both repositories so a release cannot pass while those tested handoffs are broken.
AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L71-L73
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Addressed in the latest commit. The shared validator now requires a non-empty interface.default_prompt with the local $skill-name token, validates present display fields, adds invalid-metadata fixtures, and updates the 13 Model Lab prompts plus the generated Hermes export.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: dba589991e
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| openai_metadata = path.parent / "agents" / "openai.yaml" | ||
| if openai_metadata.exists(): | ||
| load_yaml(openai_metadata) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For plugins without a child-specific metadata validator, an existing agents/openai.yaml can omit required interface fields or reference the wrong skill in default_prompt and still pass every consolidated profile; the new test even treats interface: {} as valid. This lets Codex-facing discovery and invocation metadata drift while validation reports success, so validate the non-empty interface fields and require the $<directory-name> token instead of only parsing the YAML mapping.
AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L63-L65
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 4255e5bbfd
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| default_prompt = interface.get("default_prompt") | ||
| if not isinstance(default_prompt, str) or not default_prompt.strip(): | ||
| fail(f"{path.relative_to(REPO_ROOT)} must define a non-empty interface.default_prompt.") | ||
| if f"${skill_name}" not in default_prompt: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When one skill name prefixes another—as with the existing operate-hermes-agent and operate-hermes-agent-gateway skills—this substring check accepts $operate-hermes-agent-gateway while validating the shorter skill, even though that prompt invokes its sibling. Fresh evidence after the earlier fix is that the current implementation still uses plain substring membership without a token boundary; require the matched token to end before another skill-name character so validation enforces the local skill name consistently.
AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L63-L64
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
Summary
Testing
Not run (not requested).