docs(evidence): re-verify structured-data finding 975fdb784275 against current main and live - #78
Conversation
…t current main and live
![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: 50 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 |
![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: 0d0e76633f
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".
| 2. Fresh live measurement of the deployed site (2026-08-11, headless | ||
| Chromium, same method as the receipt above, `domcontentloaded` wait, | ||
| blocks counted in `document.head` and the full document, each block parsed | ||
| and checked against the same contract as the CI guard, console/page errors |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For the documented live state, this cannot have been checked successfully against the same contract as the current CI guard: scripts/check-site.mjs:1257-1262 hardcodes the audit URL as https://tinystudio.io/audit, and its checks at lines 1363-1368 require that exact value for both @id and url, while the table below reports the live value as https://tinystudio.io/audit.html#webpage. Consequently the assertion that every live page passed that contract is false; describe this as validation against the deployed page's historical metadata or report the audit-page mismatch against the current guard.
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: 6faf57ff38
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 (8b42e0a, "docs(evidence): | ||
| close out apple touch icon finding 98a7bf8e08fc against current main and | ||
| live (#77)") after five commits touched the public surface since the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This receipt identifies 8b42e0a as the current origin/main, but the reviewed commit's first parent is already 6f24bff, with both 16efd20 and 6f24bff after the named revision. Even though those intervening commits are documentation-only, this makes the provenance of a document whose purpose is to record checks against the current head inaccurate; either record/re-run against 6f24bff or describe 8b42e0a as the last public-surface revision rather than the current main head.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
|
You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard. |
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.
|
You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard. |
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.
1 participant
Re-verifies dogfood finding 975fdb784275 ("Structured data opportunity on home") against current origin/main and the live deployment, matching the re-verification closeouts the other findings from audit run 20260808T074205Z-msk2fl3n already received (canonical #66-ish, heading-hierarchy, meta-description, sitemap, render-blocking, social-share-image, apple-touch-icon).
What was checked
npm run checkpasses — the "Structured data (dogfood 975fdb784275)" guard inscripts/check-site.mjsstill requires exactly one valid schema.org@graphblock in the head of each of the five public pages, bound to each page's own metadata — and the fullnpm testsuite passes (check, headings 6/6, sitemap 7/7, worker 53, ui 16, contract 8).application/ld+jsonblock in<head>(one across the full document) whose graph carries exactly oneOrganization, oneWebSiteand oneWebPagenode with unique@ids, and log zero console/page errors. The home page's served block is byte-identical topublic/index.htmlon this head.1cc7a4e(PR fix(public): point appraisal-page canonicals and JSON-LD @ids at the clean /audit URL #56) touched a JSON-LD block — the audit page'sWebPage@id/urlmoved from the redirecting/audit.htmlto the clean/audit, with the CI guard updated in the same commit. The home block the finding flagged is untouched./audit.htmlform — the same lag this lane's canonical re-verification documented. Neither lagging commit touches home; the page the finding flagged is identical on main and live.Verdict
Finding 975fdb784275 remains closed on the code side (PR #32), in CI, and against the deployed site; nothing further to change on the finding's page. This PR appends the re-verification receipt to
docs/evidence/structured-data-2026-08-09.md.