docs(modules): reconcile marketplace v1 citations with merged HT-79 charter (HT-79) - #92
Conversation
…harter (HT-79) The HT-79 charter amendment merged as PR #86 (b528971), discharging the spec's sequencing note, which asked for a citation re-check against the merged text before acceptance. All CHARTER.md citations re-verified against merged §3/§4/§5: the launch-day Phase 3 claim, the marks-and-marketplace asset list, the amendment's verbatim counsel-items sentence, and the Phase 3 launch lineup all check out as written. One mis-citation corrected: the plugin exception's counsel deadline was attributed to "CHARTER.md §7," but CHARTER.md §7 is Governance — the deadline is set in §3's module boundary, where "§7" names the AGPL-3.0 §7 additional permission. Its parenthetical pointing at "this spec's §3" was dangling for the same reason. Replaced with a direct quote of the merged amendment. Docs-only; no substantive change. Status stays "draft for TJ review". Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 15 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 (1)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Action performedReview finished.
|
Our Pro Plus plan is not unlimited — it applies adaptive per-developer limits once recent activity reaches the 95th percentile among CodeRabbit users. We crossed that on 2026-07-19 (15 PRs merged in a day). PR #92 was never reviewed as a result, and its status check still reported "pass / Review completed": a skipped review is indistinguishable from a clean one. Usage-based billing is deliberately not enabled, so the lever is volume. Two changes, both narrow: - auto_incremental_review: false — the default re-runs a full review on every push, so our rebase-on-feedback loop burns three or four reviews per PR for one set of findings. One review per PR, no loss of coverage. - ignore_title_keywords: chore(ci), docs(status) — mechanical PRs with nothing for a reviewer to find. Deliberately narrow substring matches so chore(engine) and docs(modules) are still reviewed. Specs stay in scope on purpose: PR #87 was docs-only and CodeRabbit found nine real defects in it. Prose in this repo carries engineering substance. Config validated against CodeRabbit's published JSON schema (ajv, draft2020) rather than written from assumption. Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
1 participant
What
specs/modules/marketplace-v1.mdwas drafted while the HT-79 charter amendment was still an unmerged branch. It carried a sequencing note asking for a citation re-check against the merged text "before this spec is accepted." That amendment merged as PR #86 (b528971), so the re-check is now due — this PR does it.Docs-only. No spec substance, decisions, or design changed. Status deliberately stays draft for the maintainer review — accepting the spec is the maintainer's call, not this PR's.
Citations verified against merged CHARTER.md §3/§4/§5
All check out as written, no change needed:
Changes made
Sequencing note replaced with a "Citation basis" line recording the merged commit (
b528971, PR docs(charter): marketplace becomes a launch-day component of Phase 3 (HT-79) #86) and the date of the re-check.One mis-citation corrected (§8). The spec attributed the plugin exception's counsel deadline to "CHARTER.md §7" — but CHARTER.md §7 is Governance. The deadline is set in CHARTER.md §3's module boundary, and "§7" there names the AGPL-3.0 §7 additional permission, not a charter section. The same sentence's parenthetical pointed at "this spec's §3" for the reference, but this spec's §3 is Service architecture and never mentions the exception — dangling for the same reason. Both replaced with a direct quote of the merged amendment.
Note: the changelog's CodeRabbit entry claims this §7 numbering was "disambiguated" in an earlier pass. It was not — the mis-citation survived. The substance was always right (deadline unchanged; every v1 module is out-of-process and needs no exception); only the pointer was wrong.
One wording tightening (§10.4). The KB-plus-AI-modules launch lineup was described as what Phase 3 "currently implies." The amended text names those modules outright, which strengthens the conflict that decision point raises rather than weakening it. Changed "implies" → "names outright."
Changelog entry added recording this pass.
Open questions for the maintainer
None new. No merged charter text contradicts a spec decision — the reconciliation was purely citational.
Worth restating that the spec's own §10.4 remains open and unresolved by design: whether the content-as-code KB fits this spec's tarball-to-Vercel-deploy pipeline, or needs its own distribution mechanism. The merged Phase 3 text naming the KB as leading the catalog makes that decision slightly more pointed than the draft's "implies" wording suggested, but it was already flagged as charter-affecting and explicitly left to you.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code