[01/10] docs: refine contributor guidance

[IceCodeNew]

Summary

• keep AGENTS.md focused on durable development rules and invariants
• clarify structural refactoring, dependency, review, and coverage expectations
• remove duplicated workflow wording

Scope

Documentation-only layer. It is independently based on master.

Verification

• prek run --all-files
• 885 tests passed
• line coverage: 99.85% (master: 99.85%)
• branch coverage: 99.55% (master: 99.55%)

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

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

Next review available in: 55 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

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: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 0f323cf6-3eaf-4474-a583-cc17d7a6ce66

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 26dcad5 and 57dc4ed.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• AGENTS.md

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch codex/weather-refactor-01-guidance

---

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.}

[IceCodeNew]

/agentic_review

[qodo-code-review]

Code Review by Qodo

🐞 Bugs (1) 📘 Rule violations (0) 📜 Skill insights (0)

Context used

✅ Compliance rules (platform): 41 rules

✅ REVIEW.md

1. Ambiguous rebase guidance 🐞 Bug ⚙ Maintainability

Description

AGENTS.md combines “don’t rewrite published history” with “stabilize upstream changes before
rebasing stacked branches” without clarifying the intended scope (e.g., rebasing local/downstream
stack branches vs. avoiding rewrites of broadly shared/merged history). This can confuse
contributors about whether rebasing/force-pushing stacked branches is permitted under the same rule
set.

Code

AGENTS.md[102]

+- Keep follow-up review commits instead of rewriting published history. Stabilize upstream changes before rebasing and validating stacked branches.

Relevance

⭐⭐⭐ High

Team often accepts doc clarifications to prevent mismatched/ambiguous guidance; aligns with prior
accepted doc-consistency fixes.

PR-#81
PR-#82

ⓘ Recommendations generated based on similar findings in past PRs

Evidence

The new single bullet simultaneously discourages rewriting “published history” and instructs
rebasing stacked branches, but does not define what counts as “published” in this context, making
the policy ambiguous for stacked-branch workflows.

AGENTS.md[98-103]

Agent prompt

The issue below was found during a code review. Follow the provided context and guidance below and implement a solution

### Issue description
`AGENTS.md` now states to avoid rewriting published history while also recommending rebasing stacked branches, but it does not spell out *when* rebasing is acceptable (local branch vs. already-shared branch) and how that fits with the “published history” rule.

### Issue Context
Rebasing is itself a history rewrite, so this guidance should explicitly distinguish the allowed workflow for stacked PR branches (often rebased/force-pushed) from the disallowed practice (rewriting already-merged or broadly relied-upon history, or rewriting merely to hide fixes).

### Fix Focus Areas
- AGENTS.md[98-103]

Suggested wording direction (example):
- Keep follow-up review commits; avoid rewriting history solely to hide fixes.
- Rebasing downstream/stacked branches is acceptable *when upstream is stable*; validate each rewritten layer and obtain the required approval before force-pushing.

ⓘ Copy this prompt and use it to remediate the issue with your preferred AI generation tools

---

Previous review results

Review updated until commit 57dc4ed ⚖️ Balanced

Results up to commit 57dc4ed ⚖️ Balanced

No changes from previous review

[IceCodeNew]

/agentic_review

[qodo-code-review]

Code review by qodo was updated up to the latest commit 57dc4ed

[qodo-code-review]

PR Summary by Qodo

Docs: refine contributor guidance in AGENTS.md

📝 Documentation 🕐 10-20 Minutes

AI Description

• Refocus AGENTS.md on durable engineering invariants (not implementation plans or history).
• Clarify expectations for structural refactors, dependency additions, review handling, and
 verification.
• Consolidate and de-duplicate guidance around stacked PRs, pre-push checks, and coverage policy.

High-Level Assessment

The approach is appropriate for a docs-only change: keep AGENTS.md focused on stable contributor rules and invariants, while pushing decision-specific details to the owning docs alongside code changes. No materially better alternative stands out beyond minor wording preferences.

Files changed (1) +19 / -22

Documentation (1) +19 / -22

AGENTS.mdRefine contributor rules around invariants, review, verification, and coverage +19/-22

Refine contributor rules around invariants, review, verification, and coverage

• Rewrites several guidance bullets to emphasize durable development rules (module boundaries, refactoring invariants, transaction/validation boundaries) and simplifies Git/review/verification expectations. Updates the pre-push checklist to focus on reviewing the full diff, running hooks/tests, and enforcing coverage parity with master, including clearer guidance on exclusions.

AGENTS.md

[qodo-code-review]

1. Ambiguous rebase guidance 🐞 Bug ⚙ Maintainability

AGENTS.md combines “don’t rewrite published history” with “stabilize upstream changes before
rebasing stacked branches” without clarifying the intended scope (e.g., rebasing local/downstream
stack branches vs. avoiding rewrites of broadly shared/merged history). This can confuse
contributors about whether rebasing/force-pushing stacked branches is permitted under the same rule
set.

Agent Prompt

### Issue description
`AGENTS.md` now states to avoid rewriting published history while also recommending rebasing stacked branches, but it does not spell out *when* rebasing is acceptable (local branch vs. already-shared branch) and how that fits with the “published history” rule.

### Issue Context
Rebasing is itself a history rewrite, so this guidance should explicitly distinguish the allowed workflow for stacked PR branches (often rebased/force-pushed) from the disallowed practice (rewriting already-merged or broadly relied-upon history, or rewriting merely to hide fixes).

### Fix Focus Areas
- AGENTS.md[98-103]

Suggested wording direction (example):
- Keep follow-up review commits; avoid rewriting history solely to hide fixes.
- Rebasing downstream/stacked branches is acceptable *when upstream is stable*; validate each rewritten layer and obtain the required approval before force-pushing.

ⓘ Copy this prompt and use it to remediate the issue with your preferred AI generation tools

[qodo-code-review]

Code review by qodo was updated up to the latest commit 57dc4ed

[IceCodeNew]

@coderabbitai review

[coderabbitai]

✅ Action performed

Review finished.

Note: CodeRabbit is an incremental review system and does not re-review already reviewed commits. This command is applicable only when automatic reviews are paused.

[IceCodeNew]

@coderabbitai review

[coderabbitai]

✅ Action performed

Review finished.

Note: CodeRabbit is an incremental review system and does not re-review already reviewed commits. This command is applicable only when automatic reviews are paused.

[IceCodeNew]

@coderabbitai help

[coderabbitai]

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.

CodeRabbit commands

These commands are invoked using PR/Issue comments.

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai rate limit to show your current review rate limit status.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai evaluate custom pre-merge check --instructions <custom-checks-instructions> --name <custom-checks-title> [--mode <error|warning>] to validate the custom pre-merge checks instructions. Defaults to error when --mode is omitted.
• @coderabbitai ignore pre-merge checks to override pre-merge checks and get an approval on PR.
• @coderabbitai run pre-merge checks to run pre-merge checks on the pull request.
• @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR.
• @coderabbitai generate sequence diagram to generate a sequence diagram of the changes in this PR.
• @coderabbitai generate unit tests to generate unit tests for this PR.
• @coderabbitai emit path instructions to emit generated path-specific review instructions for this repository.
• @coderabbitai resolve merge conflict to automatically resolve merge conflicts.
• @coderabbitai autofix to automatically fix issues identified in unresolved review comments.
• @coderabbitai fix-ci to automatically fix failing CI checks by creating a stacked PR with fixes.
• @coderabbitai resolve to resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai generate configuration to create a PR that adds the current resolved configuration as .coderabbit.yaml (or show it if already present).
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore or @coderabbit ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit configuration file (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
• You can also validate your configuration using the online YAML validator.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Status, support, documentation and community

• Visit our status page to check the current availability of CodeRabbit.
• Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions.
• Visit our documentation site for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord community to connect with other users and get help from the community.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[IceCodeNew]

@coderabbitai full review

[coderabbitai]

✅ Action performed

Full review finished.

---

Your included review limit is currently reached under our Fair Usage Limits Policy. This review may still proceed through usage-based billing if eligible. Your next included review will be available in 56 minutes.