Repository navigation
ci: reword deep-review dedupe comment to match the relabel exception - #568
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🟢 Approval recommended
The comment now accurately describes the existing workflow logic.
Pull request overview
Clarifies the deep-review workflow documentation to resolve #439 without changing workflow behavior.
Changes:
- Documents the automatic review cap.
- Identifies triage+ relabeling as the deliberate rerun path.
File summaries
| File | Description |
|---|---|
.github/workflows/claude-review.yml |
Aligns the security header with the dedupe exception. |
Review details
- Files reviewed: 1/1 changed files
- Comments generated: 0
- Review effort level: Balanced
💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
Included review availability: Your plan provides up to 1 included review per hour; 0 remain after this review. WalkthroughThe workflow documentation now states that automatic deep reviews run once per pull request. It also documents the deliberate re-run path when a verified triage+ user reapplies the ChangesDeep review documentation
Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~2 minutes Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to This is a localized documentation-only workflow change with no trigger, permission, allowlist, or execution-logic changes; no actionable merge-blocking risk remains. 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
Full details: Description checkExplanation The description clearly explains the change, rationale, affected workflow file, scope, and linked issue. It does not reproduce every template section, but it provides the critical information needed to review this small documentation-only change. Full details: Docstring CoverageExplanation No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 0 functions across 0 files. (1 skipped: 1 unsupported.) ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
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. Comment |
Preview DeploymentPreview URL: https://008ef220.bestax.pages.dev |
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 5.11.3 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 1.1.2 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 2.1.4 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 4.2.2 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
What
Comment-only change to
.github/workflows/claude-review.yml. The security-posture paragraph in the header claimed the dedupe marker "caps usage at one review per PR ever — re-labeling never re-fires it", which the dedupe step's own EXCEPTION contradicts: a triage+-verified re-application ofdeep-reviewdeliberately skips the probe and runs a fresh review (verified live on #417).The reword states what the mechanism actually delivers: the cap applies to automatic usage, and a verified triage+ re-label is the one deliberate re-run path. Root
CLAUDE.mdalready described this correctly; the workflow header was the stale copy.Why it matters
This file gates who can spend opus usage, so its header carries more weight than average — and it reads top-down, so the wrong sentence lands before the correct EXCEPTION comment 80 lines later. Per the
.github/CLAUDE.mdreview checklist, security comments must claim exactly what the mechanism delivers.No triggers, permissions, allowlists, or step logic change — the diff touches
#comment lines only.Fixes #439
Summary by CodeRabbit
deep-reviewlabel.