docs(evidence): re-verify sitemap finding against current main and live - #71
docs(evidence): re-verify sitemap finding against current main and live#71nish3451 wants to merge 5 commits into
Conversation
The round-5 candidate "Publish a complete sitemap covering the five human-facing pages" was already harvested and merged (PR #36, cd9184c, 2026-08-09) and closed out against current main and live (PR #44, 817a699). This lane re-verified the guarantee on the current head (f9f0b0f, 2026-08-11) after the commits that landed since the 2026-08-09 closeout (preferred source pages, Agent Desk de-index, tap targets, CI runners, render-blocking re-verify, contract doc, footer link) — none of which touched the sitemap, robots.txt, or the HTML page set: - npm run test:sitemap passes (7/7 subtests, known-bad-shape fixtures included) and npm run check passes on this head. - Fresh live measurement: sitemap.xml byte-identical to the committed file, all seven locs (five human-facing pages + offer.md + llms.txt) return 200, robots.txt still points at the sitemap, /brief-requested still noindex and excluded, /agent-desk excluded. The receipt now records the re-verification on the current head so the tracker item cannot re-open by drift. Nothing further to change.
![greptile-apps[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/867647?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nish3451 has reached the 50-credit limit for trial accounts. To continue receiving code reviews, upgrade your plan.
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 40 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)
Comment |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nish3451 has reached the 50-credit limit for trial accounts. To continue receiving code reviews, upgrade your plan.
![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: d64397c167
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".
| Re-verified against the current origin/main head (f9f0b0f, "fix: link Nish's | ||
| daily reads from the homepage footer", merged 2026-08-11) after the commits |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The asserted baseline is already stale for this commit: 86146c1 has parent ce02df9, not f9f0b0f, and that parent includes later commits 1cc7a4e and ce02df9, including changes to public/audit.html and scripts/check-site.mjs. Consequently, the subsequent claims that checks ran “on this head” and that all intervening commits were considered document an older tree rather than the tree receiving this evidence; rerun and record the verification against the actual parent or final head and include the omitted commits.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nish3451 has reached the 50-credit limit for trial accounts. To continue receiving code reviews, upgrade your plan.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 719fefc9b2
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".
| Re-verified against the current origin/main head (f9f0b0f, "fix: link Nish's | ||
| daily reads from the homepage footer", merged 2026-08-11) after the commits |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The re-verification still does not cover the tree on which this commit is based: fresh evidence after the rebase shows that f0b9727 has parent 6a914b6, while this paragraph calls f9f0b0f the current origin/main head and omits the intervening 1cc7a4e, ce02df9, and 6a914b6 commits. In particular, those commits modify public/audit.html and scripts/check-site.mjs, so the claims that the source checks ran “on this head” and that all subsequent page edits were considered remain unsupported; record checks against 6a914b6 or the final head and include the omitted commits.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nish3451 has reached the 50-credit limit for trial accounts. To continue receiving code reviews, upgrade your plan.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nish3451 has reached the 50-credit limit for trial accounts. To continue receiving code reviews, upgrade your plan.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 35ab3cb6d1
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".
| Re-verified against the current origin/main head (f9f0b0f, "fix: link Nish's | ||
| daily reads from the homepage footer", merged 2026-08-11) after the commits |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fresh evidence in this revision is that 08e57ba now has parent 6f24bff, but the added receipt still calls f9f0b0f the current origin/main head and later says the source checks ran on “this head.” The omitted intervening commits include 1cc7a4e, which changes both public/audit.html and scripts/check-site.mjs, so the receipt does not establish that the page surface and checker on the actual base were verified; rerun against 6f24bff or the final head and record the intervening commits.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
What and why
The round-5 candidate "Publish a complete sitemap covering the five human-facing pages" was already harvested and merged in PR #36 (cd9184c, 2026-08-09) and closed out against current main and live in PR #44 (817a699). This lane re-verified the guarantee on the current head (f9f0b0f, 2026-08-11) — same convention as the render-blocking re-verify (PR #69) — after the commits that landed since the closeout (preferred source pages, Agent Desk de-index, tap targets, CI-runner commits, render-blocking re-verify receipt, contract doc, footer link). None of them touched
public/sitemap.xml,public/robots.txt, or the HTML page set (still the same seven files), so no loc belongs in the sitemap that is not already there.Verification (2026-08-11)
npm run test:sitemap— 7/7 subtests pass on this head, including the known-bad-shape fixtures;npm run checkpasses (root-URL sitemap guard and all other site checks).https://tinystudio.io/sitemap.xmlreturns 200 and is byte-identical topublic/sitemap.xmlon this head; every loc probed over HTTPS returns 200 (five human-facing pages at clean URLs —/,/audit,/agents,/pricing,/specimen— plus/offer.mdand/llms.txt); liverobots.txtstill carriesSitemap: https://tinystudio.io/sitemap.xml;/brief-requestedstill servesnoindex, nofollowand is absent from the sitemap, as is legacy/agent-desk.Outcome
Nothing further to change. The candidate is fully delivered (code side PR #36, CI
test:sitemap, live); this receipt records the re-verification on the current head so the tracker item cannot re-open by drift.