feat: repeatable production walk of the anonymous one-page check entry path - #93
Conversation
|
You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard. |
![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: 11 minutes Limit details: You’ve used the included review currently available. 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 within each organization. For paid Pro and Pro+ reviews, CodeRabbit uses a developer's included PR review attempts over the past 7 days to set the current hourly allowance. At typical activity levels, the full plan allowance applies. Higher sustained activity can lower the allowance until earlier attempts leave the 7-day window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Free Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (4)
Note 🎁 Summarized by CodeRabbit FreeYour organization is on the Free plan. CodeRabbit will generate a high-level summary and a walkthrough for each pull request. For a comprehensive line-by-line review, please upgrade your subscription to CodeRabbit Pro by visiting https://app.coderabbit.ai/login. 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.
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.
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.
Your trial has ended. Reactivate Greptile to resume code reviews.
…y path Rebased onto main (2c396c2). Only conflict was the single-line `check` script in package.json, resolved as a union: main's `test:access-events`, `test:access` and `test:indexnow` are all kept, and this branch's `test:public-check-walk` is inserted at the position it held on the branch. `check` now runs 34 suites and every named script resolves. README additions auto-merged.
560b843 to
1d5a1f3
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Your trial has ended. Reactivate Greptile to resume code reviews.
1 participant
Closes the verify half of the backlog item "Turn the public sample into a truthful, searchable proof-to-repair entry path" (research 2026-08-08, rank 1, risk amber).
What and why
The item's core accept was met on
/check(PR #66 + follow-ups #71/#82/#83/#85/#88/#90): the anonymous one-page check is live with rendered evidence, guarded false positives, findings when present, a next step, and a measured handoff into private access. The item's verify acceptance — "fresh production walk on a known test URL records proof fields, access conversion, and no unsupported result claims" — was never codified: the fleet journal shows it done ad-hoc only, and repeatedly skipped asneeds-quota(429). This PR makes that verify step repeatable and offline-locked.Changes
scripts/run-public-check-walk.mjs(new, opt-innpm run audit:public-check-walk): walks the deployedPOST /api/public-checkwith a known test URL (default: the product's own deterministic/fixture/rendered-page, which the engine test proves yields rendered evidence + one guarded false positive + an actionable finding). It records the proof fields verbatim (measured facts, issue counts, guard/finding titles, engine version, scan time), asserts the access-conversion copy (nextStep → private beta; boundary keeps the no-ranking promise), and scans for zero unsupported result claims (no affirmative ranking/traffic/indexing/revenue/AI-citation guarantees — truthful negated copy is not flagged).needs-quota(exit 3) instead of failing, mirroring the journal's skip state. Exit codes: 0 pass / 1 fail / 2 error / 3 needs-quota.scripts/run-public-check-walk.test.mjs(new, innpm run check): offline regression lock for the same assertions — pass against the exact payload shapebuildPublicCheckResponseemits, missing fields, broken handoff copy, unsupported claims, 429, unreachable endpoint, non-200 — so CI stays offline-only and the walk logic cannot drift from the API.audit:public-check-walk+test:public-check-walk.Verification
npm run checkfully green (exit 0), including the new test andvite build.needs-quota(daily per-network budget exhausted; reset 2026-08-11T00:00Z) — the script reports this correctly with exit 3.server/index.js, same route):POST /api/public-check→ 200 with measured static 3 / rendered 277 words, rendered H1, 3 guarded false positives, actionable critical/warning/notice findings, nextStep/boundary copy verified, zero unsupported claims. (Run log in PR description below this section is intentionally omitted; reproduce withSEOFIXKIT_BASE_URL=http://127.0.0.1:8787 node scripts/run-public-check-walk.mjs.)Rollback
Delete the two scripts, revert the README/package.json lines. No product route, copy, or engine behavior changed.