feat(review): add service-owned data-rights contributor

[seonghobae]

Buyer/privacy outcome

Advance #55 with a bounded Review-owned implementation of the protected life-os.data-rights-contributor.v1 contract. Review remains the only owner of guided-review persistence; Identity orchestration receives deterministic export/erasure evidence rather than direct Review SQL authority.

Test-first state

The first branch commit is intentionally RED: review-data-rights.test.ts defines tenant-isolated export, privilege preflight, replay-safe erasure, conflicting-idempotency rejection, erasure verification, malformed-authority rejection and malformed-persistence fail-closed behavior before the production contributor exists. Subsequent commits must implement the smallest service-owned boundary and prove the exact head GREEN.

Scope

• deterministic bounded Review completion export with schema version, record count and SHA-256 evidence;
• explicit erase preflight against Review-owned persistence authority;
• workspace-scoped destructive erasure with durable idempotency receipt and exact replay semantics;
• post-erasure verification without deleting another tenant;
• no cross-service table access and no claim of whole-product data-rights completion.

Merge gate

Keep Draft until the unchanged exact head passes Review package formatting/lint/typecheck/tests/build, realistic PostgreSQL integration evidence, configured coverage/docstrings, CI, AppGuardrail, SAST Semgrep, Security Scan, Commercial Readiness, current automated review and live-base compatibility with zero actionable findings. No predecessor evidence transfers and no administrative bypass.

Refs #55, #21.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@seonghobae, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 9 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 @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 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 configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 4c01cd28-b138-4a43-9cd2-24f6c7e86915

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between c3f95d0 and c1bbaa8.

📒 Files selected for processing (8)

• apps/review-service/migrations/0002_data_rights_erasure_receipt.sql
• apps/review-service/package.json
• apps/review-service/src/review-data-rights-receipt-scope.integration.test.ts
• apps/review-service/src/review-data-rights.integration.test.ts
• apps/review-service/src/review-data-rights.test.ts
• apps/review-service/src/review-data-rights.ts
• apps/review-service/src/review-runtime.test.ts
• apps/review-service/src/review-runtime.ts

---

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.}

[opencode-agent]

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

• Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

• Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

• Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

• Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head c1bbaa88fa47fe750df43dd3479d3b4b28258484.

• Head SHA: c1bbaa88fa47fe750df43dd3479d3b4b28258484

• Workflow run: 31657409273

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (8 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (8 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: c1bbaa88fa47fe750df43dd3479d3b4b28258484
• Workflow run: 31657409273
• Workflow attempt: 1
• Gate result: REQUEST_CHANGES (approval step)

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

• Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

• Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

• Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

• Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head c1bbaa88fa47fe750df43dd3479d3b4b28258484.

• Head SHA: c1bbaa88fa47fe750df43dd3479d3b4b28258484

• Workflow run: 31657409273

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (8 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (8 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

Loading