docs(spec): scrub maintainer name and private quotes from design-pack-v1 - #206
Merged
Conversation
…tion from design-pack-v1 specs/modules/design-pack-v1.md carried the maintainer's first name in five places, two verbatim quotes from a private conversation, and several "an earlier draft said..." self-references. Public docs are role-neutral and don't narrate their own revision history — see .claude/rules/pr-verdict.md and .claude/rules/public-doc-voice.md. - Replace "TJ" with "the maintainer" throughout. - Replace private quotes with the file's existing "(maintainer decision, YYYY-MM-DD)" provenance convention; the underlying argument (broad component reuse is an accepted cost) is kept as a plain assertion. - Rephrase "earlier draft" narration forward, as the question a reader would ask, keeping the substantive argument and dropping the archaeology. No normative content changes.
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe design-pack specification assigns key decisions to the maintainer, makes provenance clearance a blocking release gate, clarifies brand-asset treatment, corrects package counting, and defines maintainer approval for UI deviations. ChangesDesign-pack specification
Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~5 minutes Possibly related PRs
🚥 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: 2
🤖 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 `@specs/modules/design-pack-v1.md`:
- Around line 119-122: Update the pack publish-workflow freshness rule described
in the clearance section to invalidate CLEARANCE.md when any published-path
manifest changes, including sources, generated, or static manifest sets. Either
compare CLEARANCE.md against the latest change across all three manifests or
validate a hash of the complete published path set, while preserving the
existing missing-or-stale clearance failure behavior.
- Line 167: Correct the published-file count explanation in the documentation so
it states that counting only .jsx files omits the 21 corresponding .d.ts sibling
files, not primitives-support.jsx. Preserve the surrounding file-count context
and do not imply that any listed .jsx file is excluded.
🪄 Autofix
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: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: c8c50a69-b294-4273-b219-9f513023302a
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
specs/modules/design-pack-v1.md
primitives-support.jsx is already one of the 17 core .jsx files, so counting only .jsx files does not additionally omit it — only the .d.ts siblings are omitted.
Contributor
Author
|
@coderabbitai full review |
✅ Action performedFull review finished. |
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
1 participant
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.
🟢 SAFE TO MERGE
Gates green on
09f5859. No new decisions. CodeRabbit + Codex: 3 findings, 1 real and fixed, 2 out of scope (tracked separately).What changed
specs/modules/design-pack-v1.md(merged inca569f8) named the maintainer by first name in five places, quoted a private conversation verbatim in two places, and narrated its own drafting history ("an earlier draft said...") in five places — three more than were originally flagged. All fixed:(maintainer decision, YYYY-MM-DD)convention, already used at 3 other spots in this file. The underlying argument (broad reuse of the design components is an accepted cost) is preserved as a plain assertion, not dropped.09f5859) — the sentence claimed counting only.jsxfiles would omit "the 21.d.tssiblings plus the shared helper."primitives-support.jsxis already one of the 17 core.jsxfiles, so it isn't additionally omitted — only the.d.tssiblings are. Corrected.No normative content changed — same license decision (MIT), same grantor, same scope, same gates.
Decision provenance
Verification
npm run typecheck/npm run lint— passReview, two passes on two different heads:
35dba799(before the file-count fix) and found the file-count error above — real, fixed in09f5859. It also raised a clearance-freshness suggestion in §2.1 — pre-existing text this PR doesn't touch; out of scope, not fixed here.35dba799(incremental review is off in this repo), so Codex (adversarial, in place of a second CodeRabbit pass) reviewed the current head09f5859directly: confirmed the file-count fix is now arithmetically consistent with the table, and re-scanned the full file for any remaining name/quote/drafting-narration — clean. It surfaced one pre-existing, untouched-by-this-diff issue (a stale component count in §5) and one borderline line citing another document's revision date (no name, no quote, not this spec's own draft history) — both out of scope for a name/quote scrub, tracked as a follow-up.No open findings block this PR.