feat: add regression checklist

[Minh141120]

This pull request adds a comprehensive pre-release and post-release QA checklist to the project documentation. The checklist covers data migration, feature validation, and end-to-end user flows to ensure stability and correctness before and after releases.

Key additions include:

Release QA Process Documentation:

• Added autoqa/checklist.md containing detailed step-by-step instructions and checklists for validating data migration, settings, model providers, threads, assistants, and overall application behavior before and after releases.
• Included specific tests for new features, regression checks, and platform-specific installation/uninstallation procedures.
• Documented verification steps for both upgrade scenarios and fresh installations, ensuring comprehensive coverage across user environments.

---

Important

Adds autoqa/checklist.md with comprehensive pre-release and post-release QA checklists for data migration, feature validation, and user flows.

• Documentation:
  • Adds autoqa/checklist.md with pre-release and post-release QA checklists.
  • Covers data migration, feature validation, and end-to-end user flows.
  • Includes tests for new features, regression checks, and installation procedures.
  • Details verification steps for upgrades and fresh installations.

^{This description was created by for b095d71. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Caution

Changes requested ❌

Reviewed everything up to b095d71 in 4 minutes and 31 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 271 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 42 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. autoqa/checklist.md:9

• Draft comment:
  Typo: Change '2 model downloaded' to '2 models downloaded'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50% While this is technically a grammatical error, our rules state not to make purely informative comments or comments about obvious issues. This is a minor grammatical issue in a checklist file, not a code logic issue. The meaning is perfectly clear even with the grammatical error. The error does make the text slightly less professional. Multiple people will read this checklist, so clarity and professionalism could be important. However, our rules explicitly state not to make purely informative comments or comments about obvious issues. This is exactly that kind of case - a minor grammatical fix that doesn't impact functionality. We should delete this comment as it violates our rules about not making purely informative comments about obvious issues.

2. autoqa/checklist.md:10

• Draft comment:
  Typo: Change '2 import on local provider' to '2 imports on local provider' (or clarify if referring to models).
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50% The rules state not to make purely informative comments or obvious changes. While this is a real grammatical error, it's a very minor one that doesn't affect understanding. The meaning is clear either way. The rules emphasize focusing on substantive issues that require code changes. The grammar could be technically incorrect and fixing it would make the text more proper. The suggestion is accurate. While accurate, this is exactly the kind of minor, purely informative comment that the rules tell us to avoid. The meaning is perfectly clear without the fix. This comment should be deleted as it's a minor grammatical suggestion that doesn't affect functionality or understanding.

3. autoqa/checklist.md:19

• Draft comment:
  Suggestion: Reword '[NEW] Change llama.cpp setting of 2 models' to 'Change llama.cpp settings for 2 models' for clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% This is a very minor grammatical suggestion that doesn't meaningfully improve clarity or fix any real issues. The original wording is perfectly understandable. PR comments should focus on substantive issues rather than minor wording preferences. The suggested wording is technically more grammatically correct, as "settings" should be plural when referring to multiple configuration options. While technically correct, this level of grammatical nitpicking in PR comments creates noise and doesn't add meaningful value. The original meaning is clear. Delete this comment as it's too minor and doesn't meet the bar for PR comments. We should focus on substantive issues.

4. autoqa/checklist.md:22

• Draft comment:
  Grammar: Change 'Previously used model and assistants is shown correctly' to use plural verb ('are shown') to match 'assistants'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is purely informative and focuses on grammar correction. It doesn't provide a code suggestion or address a potential issue in the code logic. It doesn't fit the criteria for useful comments as per the rules.

5. autoqa/checklist.md:58

• Draft comment:
  Typo: Replace 'un-standard' with 'non-standard' in the folder naming instruction.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% While 'non-standard' is indeed more correct than 'un-standard', this is a minor grammatical issue in a checklist file. The meaning is still clear with either wording. PR comments should focus on substantive issues that require code changes, not minor wording preferences in documentation. The suggestion is technically correct - 'non-standard' is the proper form. Documentation quality does matter for user-facing content. However, this is an internal QA checklist, not user-facing documentation. The current wording is understandable and the change is too minor to warrant a PR comment. Delete this comment as it suggests a minor wording change that doesn't materially impact the functionality or clarity of this internal checklist.

6. autoqa/checklist.md:77

• Draft comment:
  Grammar: Revise 'Ensure that when click on Reset in the Appearance section, it reset back to the default values' to 'Ensure that when clicking on the Reset button in the Appearance section, it resets to the default values'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is purely about grammar and does not provide any actionable feedback or code suggestions. It does not align with the rules as it is not a specific code suggestion or a request for a test. It is purely informative.

7. autoqa/checklist.md:110

• Draft comment:
  Grammar: Change 'Ollama set-up as a custom provider work with Jan' to 'Ollama set-up as a custom provider works with Jan'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is purely informative and suggests a grammatical correction. It does not provide a code suggestion or address a potential issue in the code.

8. autoqa/checklist.md:213

• Draft comment:
  Grammar: Change 'after each words' to 'after each word' and improve the phrasing regarding IME keyboard usage.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% While the grammar could be improved, this is a checklist file meant for internal QA testing. The meaning is clear enough despite the minor grammar issues. The suggested change doesn't materially improve understanding of what needs to be tested. PR comments should focus on substantive issues requiring code changes. The grammar issues do make the text slightly less professional. Better writing could make the checklist more maintainable long-term. However, this is an internal QA checklist where technical accuracy matters more than perfect grammar. The current text, while imperfect, is functional and clear enough for its purpose. Delete this comment as it suggests only minor grammatical improvements to an internal checklist without materially improving its function.

9. autoqa/checklist.md:243

• Draft comment:
  Grammar: Change 'all the folder is re-created' to 'all the folders are re-created'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is purely informative and suggests a grammatical change. It does not provide a code suggestion or address a potential issue in the code. Therefore, it should be removed according to the rules.

10. autoqa/checklist.md:246

• Draft comment:
  Grammar: Change 'all the left over folder' to 'all the leftover folders'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is purely informative and suggests a grammatical change. It doesn't provide a code suggestion or address a potential issue in the code logic.

11. autoqa/checklist.md:260

• Draft comment:
  Grammar: Revise 'Do some basic check to see that all function still behaved as expected' to 'Do a basic check to see that all functions behave as expected'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is purely about grammar and does not provide any actionable feedback or code suggestions. It does not align with the rules as it is not a specific code suggestion or a request for a test. It is purely informative.

12. autoqa/checklist.md:141

• Draft comment:
  Grammar: Change 'an user' to 'a user' and revise 'when enter in the correct information' to 'when entering the correct information' in the MCP server item.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50% While the grammar corrections are technically correct, the review rules state to focus on code logic issues and not make purely informative comments. Grammar fixes in documentation, while helpful, are not critical changes that require blocking the PR. The meaning is still clear despite the minor grammar issues. The grammar issues do make the text slightly less professional. Poor grammar in documentation could reflect badly on the project's quality. However, the review rules explicitly state not to make purely informative comments. Grammar fixes in documentation fall into this category since they don't affect functionality. The comment should be deleted as it only suggests grammar improvements and doesn't identify any functional issues requiring changes.

13. autoqa/checklist.md:258

• Draft comment:
  Grammar: Change 'Ensure that the fresh install of Jan launch' to 'Ensure that the fresh install of Jan launches'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is purely informative and suggests a grammatical change. It doesn't provide a code suggestion or ask for a specific test to be written. It doesn't address any potential issues with the code itself.

14. autoqa/checklist.md:96

• Draft comment:
  Grammar: Change 'providers are presence' to 'providers are present' in the checklist under Remote Model Providers.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50% While the grammar correction is technically accurate, the review rules state to only make comments that require code changes. Grammar/spelling fixes in documentation files like checklists are not critical changes that block the PR. The meaning is still clear despite the minor grammar error. The grammar error does make the checklist slightly less professional. Documentation quality could be considered important for user-facing checklists. The review rules are clear that we should only comment on issues that clearly require changes. Minor grammar fixes, while nice to have, don't meet this bar. Delete this comment as it points out a non-critical grammar issue in documentation rather than a required code change.

15. autoqa/checklist.md:107

• Draft comment:
  Typo: Change 'Modesl' to 'Models' in the checklist item regarding deleted models.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% While this is a legitimate typo, typo fixes in documentation/checklists are generally very low priority and not worth commenting on in PRs. The meaning is still clear despite the typo. This kind of minor documentation fix can be made directly without discussion. The typo does make the documentation look slightly less professional. Some might argue that maintaining high quality documentation includes fixing even minor typos. While documentation quality matters, this typo is so minor that it doesn't impact readability or understanding. The PR review process should focus on more substantial issues. Delete this comment as it points out a trivial typo that doesn't meaningfully impact the documentation's usefulness.

16. autoqa/checklist.md:108

• Draft comment:
  Grammar: Change 'Ensure that a deleted model also not selectable' to 'Ensure that a deleted model is not selectable'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is purely informative and suggests a grammatical change. It doesn't ask for any specific code changes or tests to be written. It doesn't fit the criteria for a useful comment according to the rules provided.

17. autoqa/checklist.md:169

• Draft comment:
  Grammar: Change 'the last used model is also automatically start' to 'the last used model is also automatically started' and 'users does not have to' to 'users do not have to'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is purely informative and focuses on grammar corrections. It does not provide a code suggestion or address a potential issue in the code logic. Therefore, it should be removed according to the rules.

18. autoqa/checklist.md:225

• Draft comment:
  Grammar/Consistency: Change 'within a Chat windows' to 'within a chat window' for consistency.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50% While this is technically correct (windows should be singular and Chat should be lowercase), the rules state not to make purely informative comments that don't require code changes. Grammar fixes in documentation are generally low priority and could be seen as nitpicky. The meaning is still clear despite the minor errors. The comment is technically accurate and would improve the document quality. Documentation clarity is important for maintainability. However, the rules explicitly state not to make purely informative comments or comments about obvious/unimportant issues. This grammatical fix, while correct, falls into that category. Delete this comment as it violates the rule about not making purely informative comments about minor issues.

19. autoqa/checklist.md:9

• Draft comment:
  Typo: Consider changing "Ensure there are 2 model downloaded" to "Ensure there are 2 models downloaded".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50% While the comment correctly identifies a grammatical error, the review rules state not to make purely informative comments or comments about obvious issues. This is a minor grammatical fix that doesn't impact functionality or code quality. The meaning is still clear even with the grammatical error. The error does make the checklist item slightly less professional. Multiple similar grammatical issues exist in the file that aren't being commented on, so this seems inconsistent. The review rules explicitly state not to make obvious or unimportant comments. A minor grammatical fix falls into this category, regardless of professionalism impact. Delete this comment as it violates the rule about not making obvious or unimportant comments. The grammatical error doesn't impact understanding or functionality.

20. autoqa/checklist.md:10

• Draft comment:
  Typo: Consider changing "Ensure there are 2 import on local provider" to "Ensure there are 2 imports on local provider".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% While the suggestion is technically correct, this is a very minor grammatical issue in a checklist file. The meaning is perfectly clear either way. The rules state not to make comments that are obvious or unimportant. Grammar fixes in documentation, unless they significantly impact clarity, fall into this category. The grammar error could theoretically make the checklist item slightly less professional or polished looking. Multiple small issues can add up to affect document quality. The meaning is completely clear despite the minor grammar issue. This type of nitpick creates noise in PR reviews and distracts from more important issues. Delete this comment as it's too minor and doesn't materially improve the document.

21. autoqa/checklist.md:18

• Draft comment:
  Typo: "Disabled some model providers" might be better as "Disable some model providers".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% Looking at the context, this is a checklist of setup steps. The other items in the list use similar past tense forms like "Changing", "Ensure", "Modify". The current "Disabled" form actually fits better with the overall style. The suggested change would make this item inconsistent with the others. Am I being too rigid about consistency? Maybe the imperative form would be clearer regardless of what other items use? No, in a checklist context, consistency in verb forms is important for readability. The current form matches the style of the surrounding items and changing just this one would create an inconsistency. The comment should be deleted. The current "Disabled" form is consistent with the style of the checklist and changing it would reduce consistency.

22. autoqa/checklist.md:22

• Draft comment:
  Typo: "Previously used model and assistants is shown correctly" may be better phrased as "... are shown correctly".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50% The rules state not to make purely informative comments and to only comment if there's clearly a code change required. While this is a grammatical error, it's in a markdown checklist file and the meaning is still clear. The error doesn't impact functionality or cause confusion. Grammar fixes in documentation are generally not critical enough to warrant a PR comment. The grammar is technically incorrect and fixing it would make the document more professional. Documentation quality does matter. While documentation quality matters, the rules explicitly state not to make purely informative comments. The meaning is clear despite the grammar error. Delete this comment as it's a minor grammar fix that doesn't impact functionality and falls under "purely informative comments" which should be avoided.

23. autoqa/checklist.md:58

• Draft comment:
  Typo: Consider replacing "un-standard character" with "non-standard character".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50% While "non-standard" is indeed more correct than "un-standard", this is a minor grammatical issue in a checklist file. The meaning is perfectly clear either way. The comment doesn't point out any technical or functional issues that need to be fixed. The suggestion is technically correct - "non-standard" is the proper form. And since this is a new file, now would be the time to fix it. However, our rules explicitly state not to make purely informative comments or comments about obvious/unimportant issues. This is a minor grammatical issue that doesn't impact functionality or understanding. Delete this comment as it's too minor and doesn't affect functionality or clarity.

24. autoqa/checklist.md:64

• Draft comment:
  Typo: "persisted across session" might be clearer as "persisted across sessions".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% While technically correct, this is an extremely minor grammatical fix in a checklist file. The meaning is perfectly clear either way. The rules state not to make comments that are obvious or unimportant. This seems to fall into that category. The change would make the text slightly more grammatically correct. Documentation quality does matter. The improvement is so minor that it doesn't justify the overhead of a PR comment. The current wording is perfectly understandable. Delete this comment as it suggests an extremely minor grammatical change that doesn't meaningfully improve the document.

25. autoqa/checklist.md:97

• Draft comment:
  Typo: Change "providers are presence:" to "providers are present:".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50% While this is a valid grammatical correction, the review rules specifically state not to make purely informative comments and to only comment if there is clearly a code change required. This is a documentation file and the meaning is perfectly clear despite the minor grammatical error. The comment doesn't affect functionality or code quality. The grammar error does make the documentation slightly less professional. Documentation quality could be considered part of code quality. However, the rules explicitly state to only comment if there is clearly a code change required. This is a minor documentation polish issue that doesn't affect understanding or functionality. The comment should be deleted as it violates the rule about only commenting when there is clearly a code change required.

26. autoqa/checklist.md:107

• Draft comment:
  Typo: "Modesl" should be corrected to "Models" in "Modesl list view".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% While this is technically a typo, the review rules emphasize not making trivial or purely informative comments. This is a checklist file, not code, and the meaning is still clear despite the typo. The typo doesn't affect functionality or cause any real issues. The typo could theoretically cause confusion for users following the checklist. And since this is a new file, now would be the time to fix it. However, the meaning is still completely clear from context, and this is just a documentation file. The rules specifically say not to make obvious or unimportant comments. This comment should be deleted as it's too trivial and doesn't affect functionality or clarity in any meaningful way.

27. autoqa/checklist.md:112

• Draft comment:
  Typo: Consider changing "create a new custom providers" to "create a new custom provider".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% While this is a valid grammatical error, the review rules state we should not make purely informative comments. Grammar fixes are generally considered minor unless they significantly impact understanding. The meaning is still clear despite the grammatical error. The error does make the text slightly less professional. Multiple similar grammar issues could add up to make the document look sloppy. However, this is a minor grammatical issue in an internal checklist file. The meaning is still perfectly clear and this type of comment creates noise in the review. Delete this comment as it is a minor grammatical fix that doesn't materially impact understanding of the checklist.

28. autoqa/checklist.md:141

• Draft comment:
  Typo: Change "an user" to "a user".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50% While the grammar correction is technically correct (we use "a" before consonant sounds and "an" before vowel sounds, and "user" starts with a consonant "y" sound), this is a minor issue in a checklist file. The meaning is perfectly clear either way. The rules say not to make comments that are obvious or unimportant. The grammar rule is correct, but is this really important enough to warrant a PR comment? The current text is perfectly understandable. You're right - this is a very minor issue that doesn't impact understanding or functionality. The rules specifically say not to make obvious or unimportant comments. Delete this comment. While technically correct, it's too minor of an issue to warrant a PR comment.

29. autoqa/checklist.md:145

• Draft comment:
  Typo: "it will be disable itself first" should be "it will disable itself first" or "it will be disabled first".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% This is a new file being added, so changes are relevant. The grammar error makes the text slightly harder to read. However, the meaning is still clear despite the grammatical error. Our rules say not to make purely informative comments that don't require code changes. While this is a documentation file, not code, the same principle should apply - we should focus on substantive issues rather than minor grammar fixes. The error is minor and doesn't impact understanding. The comment might be seen as nitpicking. While minor, this is a user-facing documentation file where clarity and professionalism matter. However, the meaning is still perfectly clear despite the grammar error. Delete the comment. While it points out a real grammar issue, it's too minor to warrant a comment given our guidelines about avoiding purely informative comments.

30. autoqa/checklist.md:158

• Draft comment:
  Typo: Remove the extraneous 'a' at the end of "pop-up.a".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

31. autoqa/checklist.md:168

• Draft comment:
  Typo: Change "changing all the parameter" to "changing all the parameters".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50% The rules state not to make purely informative comments or obvious corrections. This is a minor grammatical fix that doesn't affect code functionality or clarity. The meaning is perfectly clear either way. The comment doesn't suggest any actual code changes or quality improvements. Could incorrect grammar in documentation make it harder for non-native English speakers to understand the instructions? While good grammar is nice to have, this particular error is minor and the meaning remains completely clear. The rules explicitly say not to make purely informative comments. Delete this comment as it's a minor grammatical correction that doesn't affect functionality or clarity.

32. autoqa/checklist.md:169

• Draft comment:
  Typo: Change "automatically start" to "automatically starts".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% This is a checklist file, not code. While the grammar could be improved, this is a minor issue that doesn't affect functionality or understanding. The comment also only fixes one of several grammar issues in the sentence. The rules state not to make purely informative comments or obvious changes. The grammar is technically incorrect and fixing it would make the document more professional. Documentation quality matters. While documentation quality matters, this is an internal checklist file. The meaning is clear despite the minor grammar issues. Making small grammar corrections creates noise in the PR review process. Delete this comment. Grammar fixes in internal checklists are too minor to warrant a PR comment, especially when they don't comprehensively fix all issues in the sentence.

33. autoqa/checklist.md:182

• Draft comment:
  Typo: "model recommendation base on user hardware work" should be "model recommendation based on user hardware works".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% This is a new file being added, so it is about changes. The grammar issues are real but minor. The PR rules say not to make purely informative comments and to focus on logic rather than minor issues. This is a checklist file, so while clarity is important, small grammar issues don't impact functionality. The grammar errors could make the checklist item slightly less clear to readers. Poor grammar in documentation can appear unprofessional. While correct, the grammar issues are minor and don't significantly impact understanding. The meaning is clear despite the small errors. The PR rules specifically discourage purely informative comments. Delete this comment as it violates the rule about not making purely informative comments and focuses on minor grammar rather than substantive issues.

34. autoqa/checklist.md:198

• Draft comment:
  Typo: Change "without lost of data" to "without loss of data".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% While this is a legitimate grammatical error, we need to consider if grammar/typo fixes are worth keeping as PR comments. The file is a checklist for internal QA testing, not user-facing documentation. The meaning is still clear despite the minor grammatical error. Comments about pure grammar/spelling in internal docs generally add noise without much value. The grammar error does make the text slightly less professional. Since this is a new file being added, fixing it now would be better than letting the error persist. However, the error is minor and doesn't impact understanding. This is an internal QA checklist, not customer-facing documentation. The comment adds noise to the PR review process. While technically correct, this grammar fix comment on an internal document is not important enough to warrant inclusion in the PR review.

35. autoqa/checklist.md:200

• Draft comment:
  Typo: "get a new response base on" should be "get a new response based on".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% While this is technically a correct grammar fix, the review rules emphasize not making purely informative comments or obvious fixes. Grammar/typo fixes in documentation are generally considered low-value comments that distract from more important code review feedback. The grammar error could potentially cause confusion for non-native English speakers. Documentation quality does matter for user-facing content. This is a minor grammatical issue in an internal QA checklist file, not user-facing documentation. The meaning is still clear despite the minor error. Delete this comment as it's a minor grammatical fix that doesn't materially impact the functionality or clarity of this internal checklist.

36. autoqa/checklist.md:209

• Draft comment:
  Typo: Remove the duplicate "and" in "edit their old message and and user can regenerate".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

37. autoqa/checklist.md:212

• Draft comment:
  Typo: Change "The token speed appear" to "The token speed appears" and "is show" to "is shown".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50% While the grammar corrections are technically correct, the PR review rules state not to make purely informative comments. Grammar fixes in documentation, unless they significantly impact clarity, would fall into this category. The meaning is still clear despite the minor grammatical errors. The grammar errors could make the documentation look less professional. Poor grammar might reflect badly on the project's quality. The meaning is still perfectly clear despite the minor grammatical errors. The rules explicitly state not to make purely informative comments that don't require code changes. Delete the comment as it's a purely informative grammar correction that doesn't impact functionality or clarity.

38. autoqa/checklist.md:213

• Draft comment:
  Typo: Change "Chinese and Japanese character" to "Chinese and Japanese characters" and "after each words" to "after each word".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% While the grammar corrections are technically correct, the PR review rules emphasize focusing on substantive issues and avoiding purely informative comments. Grammar fixes in documentation, while nice to have, are not critical changes that require immediate attention. The meaning is still clear despite these minor grammatical errors. The grammar issues could affect readability and professionalism of the documentation. Documentation quality is important for user experience. While documentation quality matters, these are very minor grammar issues that don't impact understanding. The PR rules specifically discourage non-critical comments. Delete this comment as it's a minor grammatical suggestion that doesn't materially impact the functionality or understanding of the checklist.

39. autoqa/checklist.md:223

• Draft comment:
  Typo: Change "will be come" to "will become".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% While this is technically a valid grammatical correction, we need to consider if it's important enough to flag in a checklist file. The meaning is still clear despite the minor grammatical error. The rules state we should not make purely informative comments or obvious corrections. The error does affect readability slightly, and since this is a checklist that will be referenced frequently, clarity is important. But is a minor grammatical fix worth a PR comment? The rules clearly state not to make purely informative comments. The meaning is perfectly clear despite the minor grammatical error. This is exactly the kind of trivial comment we should avoid. Delete this comment. While technically correct, it's too minor and doesn't affect functionality or understanding.

40. autoqa/checklist.md:232

• Draft comment:
  Typo: Change "All Assistant deleted" to "All Assistants deleted".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% While this is technically a grammatical error, it's in a checklist file that's being newly added. The comment is about a real issue but it's extremely minor. According to the rules, we should not make purely informative comments or comments about obvious/unimportant issues. A small grammatical error in a checklist doesn't impact functionality or understanding. The error does make the text slightly less professional. Multiple small errors can add up to make documentation look sloppy. While professionalism matters, this is an internal checklist file, not user-facing documentation. The meaning is perfectly clear despite the minor grammatical error. Delete this comment as it's too minor of an issue to warrant a PR comment, especially for a new internal checklist file.

41. autoqa/checklist.md:246

• Draft comment:
  Typo: Change "all the left over folder" to "all the leftover folders".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% This is a new file being added, so it is about changes. The suggestion is technically correct - it fixes both the compound word "leftover" and makes "folder" plural to match the context. However, this is a minor grammatical issue in a checklist file that doesn't affect functionality or understanding. The rules say not to make purely informative comments or comments about obvious/unimportant issues. The grammar could be improved, but is this important enough to warrant a PR comment? The meaning is perfectly clear either way. While technically correct, this kind of minor grammatical nitpick in documentation is not important enough to warrant a PR comment. The current text is understandable and functional. Delete this comment as it's too minor of an issue to warrant a PR comment. The text is understandable as-is.

42. autoqa/checklist.md:259

• Draft comment:
  Typo: Consider changing "all function still behaved" to "all functions still behave".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% While the comment correctly identifies a grammatical error, this is a checklist/documentation file rather than code. The meaning is still clear despite the minor grammar issues. The rules state not to make purely informative comments or comments about obvious issues. Grammar fixes in documentation generally fall into this category unless they significantly impact clarity. The grammar error does make the text slightly less professional. Multiple small issues can add up to make documentation look sloppy. However, the meaning is still perfectly clear, and this is an internal checklist file rather than user-facing documentation. The rules specifically say not to make purely informative comments. Delete this comment as it's a minor grammar fix that doesn't impact the clarity or functionality of this internal checklist file.

Workflow ID: wflow_fkoMKl6AHk2V3uS2

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Grammar: Change 'create a new custom providers' to 'create a new custom provider'.

Suggested change

	- [ ] Ensure that user can create a new custom providers with the right baseURL and API key.
	- [ ] Ensure that user can create a new custom provider with the right baseURL and API key.

[ellipsis-dev]

Typo: Remove the stray 'a' at the end of 'pop-up.a' and consider using 'pop-up appears' instead of 'pop-up appear'.

Suggested change

	- [ ] When the pop-up appear, make sure that the `Tool Parameters` is also shown with detail in the pop-up.a
	- [ ] When the pop-up appears, make sure that the `Tool Parameters` is also shown with detail in the pop-up.

[ellipsis-dev]

Typo: Remove the duplicate 'and' in 'Users can edit their old message and and user can regenerate the answer...'.

Suggested change

	- [ ] Users can edit their old message and and user can regenerate the answer based on the new message
	- [ ] Users can edit their old message and user can regenerate the answer based on the new message

[ellipsis-dev]

Typo/Grammar: Change 'model recommendation base on user hardware work' to 'model recommendations based on user hardware work as expected' (use 'based' and 'works').

Suggested change

	- [ ] [0.6.9] Check that the model recommendation base on user hardware work as expected in the Model Hub
	- [ ] [0.6.9] Check that the model recommendations based on user hardware work as expected in the Model Hub