chore: bootstrap setup baseline#1
Merged
Merged
Conversation
|
You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard. |
|
Note Reviews pausedUse the following commands to manage reviews:
Use the checkboxes below for quick actions:
📝 WalkthroughWalkthrough리포지토리에 부트스트랩을 추가합니다: 에디터·린트·타입 설정, GitHub 소유자·이슈/PR 템플릿, 다수의 CI·보안·릴리스 워크플로우, React+Tauri 데스크톱 스캐폴드, Python 분석 엔진, 공유 타입·설정, 검증 스크립트, 릴리스 패키징 및 공급망 인벤토리, 광범위한 문서·정책 추가. Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Dev as 개발자
participant GitHub as GitHub Actions
participant Win as Windows Runner
participant Mac as macOS Runner
participant SBOM as SBOM Action
participant Release as GitHub Release
Dev->>GitHub: PR 또는 push (develop/main)
GitHub->>Win: build-baseline (windows) 트리거
GitHub->>Mac: build-baseline (macos) 트리거
Win->>GitHub: 빌드 산출물 업로드 (artifact)
Mac->>GitHub: 빌드 산출물 업로드 (artifact)
GitHub->>SBOM: sbom.yml 실행 → CycloneDX 생성
SBOM->>GitHub: SBOM 아티팩트 업로드
GitHub->>Release: 릴리스 이벤트 시 아티팩트·SBOM 첨부
Release->>Dev: 릴리스(아티팩트+SBOM) 게시
Estimated code review effort🎯 4 (Complex) | ⏱️ ~60 minutes Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 2 | ❌ 1❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
✅ Passed checks (2 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
|
You are seeing this message because GitHub Code Scanning has recently been set up for this repository, or this pull request contains the workflow file for the Code Scanning tool. What Enabling Code Scanning Means:
For more information about GitHub Code Scanning, check out the documentation. |
|
Note Unit test generation is a public access feature. Expect some limitations and changes as we gather feedback and continue to improve it. Generating unit tests... This may take up to 20 minutes. |
|
✅ Created PR with unit tests: #2 |
|
Note Unit test generation is a public access feature. Expect some limitations and changes as we gather feedback and continue to improve it. Generating unit tests... This may take up to 20 minutes. |
|
✅ Created PR with unit tests: #3 |
seonghobae
force-pushed
the
bootstrap/setup
branch
from
0149f8a to
d07b2cd
Compare
Owner
Author
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Actions performedReview triggered.
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 41
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Inline comments:
In @.github/dependabot.yml:
- Around line 2-37: The Dependabot config currently relies on the repository
default branch; add an explicit target branch to ensure PRs open against develop
by adding target-branch: "develop" inside each update block (e.g., the entries
with package-ecosystem: "npm", "pip", "cargo", and "github-actions") so every
update entry specifies target-branch: "develop" rather than inheriting the repo
default.
In @.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml:
- Around line 1-24: Add two optional textarea fields to the bug report template:
an "environment" field (id: environment, label: Environment — request OS,
Node/Electron/Tauri versions and system specs) and an "actual" field (id:
actual, label: Actual behavior) so reporters can supply runtime/context details
and the observed behavior; update the body array alongside existing entries
(summary, steps, expected) by inserting these new entries with attributes and no
required validation to preserve current mandatory fields.
In @.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.yml:
- Around line 19-22: Make the security textarea mandatory by updating the field
with id "security" (type "textarea") to include a validations block that sets
required: true and optionally update the attributes.label to indicate it is
mandatory; specifically, add validations: required: true under the existing
security field so submitters must enter either impact details or explicitly
write "없음".
In @.github/pull_request_template.md:
- Line 1: 템플릿의 첫 줄이 "## Summary"로 H2라 MD041 경고가 발생하니 첫 줄 제목을 H1으로 변경하거나 상단에 H1
제목을 추가하세요; 구체적으로 파일의 "## Summary" 항목을 "# Summary"로 바꾸거나 그 위에 한 줄짜리 H1(예: "# Pull
Request Template")을 추가해 마크다운 최상위 헤딩 규칙을 만족시키세요.
In @.github/workflows/build-baseline.yml:
- Around line 18-19: The workflow currently grants repository write access via
the top-level permissions key and leaves credential persistence on; update the
top-level permissions to "contents: read", set "persist-credentials: false" on
any actions/checkout steps that run PR-modified scripts (refer to
actions/checkout usages), and move any release asset upload steps into a
separate "release" job that alone is granted "contents: write" so only that job
has push rights; ensure the jobs that run postinstall/build hooks run with the
reduced permissions and disabled credential persistence.
In @.github/workflows/ci.yml:
- Around line 28-29: The CI step running the command "uv sync --project
services/analysis-engine --group dev" is missing the --frozen flag; update that
step to include --frozen so the uv sync invocation enforces the lockfile
(matching the pattern used in release.yml, build-baseline.yml, and
security-audit.yml) to prevent dependency drift.
In @.github/workflows/dependency-review.yml:
- Around line 17-20: The workflow is missing a checkout step before running the
dependency review action; add a step that uses actions/checkout (e.g., uses:
actions/checkout@v4) immediately before the existing step that uses
actions/dependency-review-action@2031cfc080254a8a887f58cffee85186f0e49e48 so the
repository files are available (and to maintain consistency and future support
for local config-file parameters).
In @.github/workflows/release.yml:
- Around line 16-17: 현재 워크플로의 권한 블록에서 "permissions: contents: write"는 불필요하니 최소
권한 원칙에 따라 "permissions: contents: read"로 변경하세요; 파일 내의 permissions 섹션(특히 the
literal "permissions: contents: write")을 찾아 "write"를 "read"로 교체하고 커밋/태그/릴리즈를
생성하거나 저장소 쓰기를 실제로 수행하는 단계가 추가될 경우에만 다시 "write"로 올리도록 주석이나 PR 설명에 메모를 남기세요.
In @.github/workflows/sbom.yml:
- Around line 18-19: 현재 워크플로 전체에 설정된 permissions: contents: write 권한이 과하므로 최상단
permissions 값을 contents: read로 낮추고, 쓰기 권한이 실제로 필요한 곳만 넘기세요: 변경할 파일의 최상단
permissions 블록을 contents: read로 수정한 뒤, sbom job 블록(이름: sbom)에 job 수준
permissions: contents: write를 추가해 gh release upload(step around lines with "gh
release upload")가 실행될 때만 쓰기 권한을 갖도록 하세요(해당 step은 if: github.event_name ==
'release'로 이미 보호되어 있으므로 안전합니다).
In @.github/workflows/secret-scan-gate.yml:
- Around line 22-24: The git grep pattern is matching the workflow file itself
because the pattern 'BEGIN (RSA|EC|OPENSSH|PGP) PRIVATE KEY' appears in
.github/workflows/secret-scan-gate.yml; update the scan step that runs git grep
to exclude the workflows directory (or this specific file) from the search so
the workflow won't self-match — e.g., add an exclude like
':(exclude).github/workflows/**' (or
':(exclude).github/workflows/secret-scan-gate.yml') to the git grep invocation
that currently contains the pattern and the 'Scan for common hardcoded secrets'
step.
In @.github/workflows/security-audit.yml:
- Around line 29-31: Update the pinned uv action usage so it installs the
current uv release: change the input version value from "0.8.6" to "0.10.9" (and
optionally update the action reference from the commit hash in the uses: line to
the action's latest tag) so the workflow installs uv v0.10.9 instead of v0.8.6.
In `@AGENTS.md`:
- Around line 3-13: Several Markdown headings (e.g., "## Project overview" and
the subsequent section titles) are missing a blank line beneath them, triggering
markdownlint rule MD022; edit the document to insert a single blank line after
every Markdown heading (all lines starting with '#' or '##') so each heading is
followed by one empty line, apply this consistently across the file, and re-run
the linter to confirm MD022 is resolved.
In `@apps/desktop/package.json`:
- Line 14: 현재 apps/desktop/package.json에 있는 종속성 "@bandscope/shared-types":
"0.1.0"을 모노레포 내부 패키지임을 반영하여 고정 버전 대신 workspace 프로토콜로 변경하세요; 즉 package.json의
dependencies 항목에서 "@bandscope/shared-types" 값을 "workspace:*" 또는 원하는
범위("workspace:^0.1.0")로 바꿔 버전 동기화를 자동화하고 로컬 워크스페이스 패키지를 참조하도록 수정하십시오.
In `@apps/desktop/src-tauri/Cargo.toml`:
- Around line 6-10: Update the tauri-build dependency in Cargo.toml to a version
compatible with tauri = "2.3.1": change tauri-build = "2.0.3" to either
tauri-build = "2" or at minimum tauri-build = "2.0.6" so the tauri-build and
tauri dependency versions are compatible (refer to the tauri-build and tauri
entries in the Cargo.toml snippet).
In `@apps/desktop/src-tauri/src/main.rs`:
- Around line 3-7: Create the missing Tauri icons directory and add default icon
assets so app bundling succeeds: create the directory
apps/desktop/src-tauri/icons and place platform-required icon files (e.g.,
icon.icns for mac, icon.ico for Windows, and a set of PNGs at common sizes such
as 16x16, 32x32, 128x128, 256x256, 512x512) and ensure the bootstrap/build step
that runs before tauri::Builder::default() (main) writes or verifies these files
exist; ensure filenames match any references in tauri.conf.json so the bundle
process can find them.
In `@apps/desktop/src-tauri/tauri.conf.json`:
- Around line 18-20: The tauri.conf.json currently disables WebView CSP with
"security": { "csp": null }, which violates the BandScope security policy;
either replace the null with a restrictive CSP (example suggestions: default-src
'self' asset:; script-src 'self'; connect-src ipc: http://ipc.localhost) or, if
csp: null is absolutely required, add a Security Notes entry documenting the
risk assessment, justification, mitigation measures, and a re-review timeline
referencing the app-security.md requirements (lines mentioned in the review) so
reviewers can validate the exception.
In `@apps/desktop/src/App.test.tsx`:
- Around line 8-10: Replace the three assertions using toBeTruthy() with the
jest-dom matcher toBeInTheDocument() (i.e., change
expect(screen.getByRole(...)).toBeTruthy() and the two
expect(screen.getByText(...)).toBeTruthy() to use toBeInTheDocument()), and
ensure your test setup imports '@testing-library/jest-dom' (add the import in
your test setup file such as setupTests.ts or vitest.setup.ts) so the matcher is
available at runtime.
In `@apps/desktop/src/App.tsx`:
- Around line 9-10: The App currently hardcodes createTranslator("en") which
prevents using other locale resources; change App to obtain the runtime locale
(e.g., from app settings, a getLocale/getUserLocale helper, or
navigator.language) and pass that dynamic locale into createTranslator instead
of the literal "en" so translations like "ko" are used; update the App function
where createTranslator is called (and the t variable initialization) to accept a
configurable locale and fall back to "en" if none is available.
In `@apps/desktop/tsconfig.json`:
- Around line 3-13: The root tsconfig (apps/desktop/tsconfig.json) wrongly
includes test-only globals under compilerOptions.types which leaks Vitest/Jest
DOM globals into prod typechecks; create a new tsconfig.test.json containing the
test types (vitest/globals and `@testing-library/jest-dom`) and any test-specific
include settings, remove those test entries from apps/desktop/tsconfig.json
leaving only "vite/client" under compilerOptions.types, and update
vite.config.ts (the Vitest setup) to extend or reference tsconfig.test.json so
tests use the test config while the package.json typecheck script (which runs
tsc --noEmit) continues to use the clean base tsconfig.
In `@apps/desktop/vite.config.ts`:
- Around line 1-20: The Vite config is using vite's defineConfig but includes a
Vitest-only `test` field; update the config to use Vitest's type-aware helper by
importing and calling defineConfig from "vitest/config" (or add a triple-slash
`/// <reference types="vitest" />` at the top) so the `test` property is typed
correctly and editor tooling works; also add a TODO comment or create an issue
to broaden the coverage `include: ["src/App.tsx"]` scope (e.g., note to expand
coverage patterns as the app grows) so the narrow coverage setting is tracked.
In `@ARCHITECTURE.md`:
- Around line 51-52: Document that Content Security Policy is currently disabled
(tauri.conf.json sets csp: null) and add a remediation plan in the
"Cross-cutting security constraints" section: state the reason for temporary
disablement, target timeline to re-enable CSP, the owner(s)/tasks required to
implement CSP in the desktop app scaffold (Tauri + Vite + React), and interim
mitigations (e.g., strict input validation, CSP-compatible resource hosting).
Reference tauri.conf.json and ensure the entry explicitly mentions csp: null,
the planned CSP policy shape, and acceptance criteria for re-enabling CSP.
In `@docs/plans/2026-03-10-bandscope-cross-platform-build.md`:
- Around line 13-35: The Markdown headings "Attack surface", "Trust boundary",
"Mitigations", and "Test points" are currently at level ### and should be
promoted to level ## to satisfy markdownlint and maintain proper heading
hierarchy; update those four headings in the document (look for the exact
strings "Attack surface", "Trust boundary", "Mitigations", "Test points") by
changing their leading hashes from ### to ## so they become top-level sections
under the document title.
In `@docs/plans/2026-03-10-bandscope-harness-design.md`:
- Around line 44-57: Add missing blank lines around the markdown headings:
insert a blank line before and after each of the three section headings "### 1.
Minimal single-package harness", "### 2. Monorepo harness with shared
contracts", and "### 3. Full product scaffold including packaging automation" so
that each heading is separated from surrounding paragraphs per markdownlint
rules; update the block shown in the diff to include the empty lines immediately
above and below those headings and re-run markdownlint to confirm no further
spacing warnings.
In `@docs/plans/2026-03-10-bandscope-harness.md`:
- Line 13: 문서의 제목 계층이 깨져 `### Attack surface`가 최상위 제목 `# BandScope Harness
Implementation Plan` 바로 다음에 와서 h2를 건너뛰고 있으니, `### Attack surface`를 `## Attack
surface`로 올려서 h1→h2→h3 순서를 유지하거나(권장) 해당 섹션을 `## Security Notes` 아래로 옮겨 `###
Attack surface`로 중첩시켜 구조를 일관되게 만드세요; 참조 대상: "# BandScope Harness Implementation
Plan", "### Attack surface", "## Security Notes" 또는 "**Security Notes:**".
In `@docs/plans/2026-03-10-bandscope-supply-chain-design.md`:
- Around line 19-21: 제목 레벨이 순차적으로 증가하지 않는 문제로 markdownlint가 "Security Notes"와 하위
제목 "Attack surface" 사이의 레벨 불일치를 보고했습니다; 파일 내 "Security Notes" 헤더(현재 "## Security
Notes")와 하위 섹션 "Attack surface"를 찾아 두 가지 중 하나로 수정하세요: 1) "Security Notes"는 h2로
유지하고 모든 하위 섹션(예: "Attack surface")를 h3로 맞추거나, 2) "Security Notes"를 h3로 낮추고 해당 하위
항목들을 h4로 올려 문서 전체의 제목 계층이 순차적으로 증가하도록 일관되게 정렬하세요.
In `@docs/plans/2026-03-10-bandscope-supply-chain.md`:
- Around line 13-37: Update the Markdown heading levels for the sections named
"Attack surface", "Trust boundary", "Mitigations", and "Test points" from H3
(###) to H2 (##) so they match the other plan files and satisfy markdownlint
MD001; locate the headings by their exact text and replace the leading "###"
with "##" for each of those four section titles.
In `@package.json`:
- Around line 1-19: Add an "engines" field to package.json to pin the Node.js
version used by the project (e.g., "node": ">=22 <23" or an exact semver like
"22.x") so local and CI environments match the workflow; update the root
package.json (the file containing the "name": "bandscope" and "workspaces" keys)
and ensure any workspace-specific packages override or align if needed, and
include a clear semver range that matches the GitHub Actions workflow which uses
Node.js 22.
- Around line 10-18: The "lint" npm script is too long and mixes many steps;
split it into smaller named scripts and have "lint" orchestrate them. Add new
scripts for the Python checks (e.g., "check:docs" -> python3
scripts/checks/verify_docs.py, "check:security_notes", "check:security_gates",
"check:supply_chain", "check:github_bootstrap_policy"), a script for the
analysis-engine ruff checks (e.g., "ruff:check" -> sh -c 'cd
services/analysis-engine && uv run ruff check src tests' and "ruff:format:check"
-> uv run ruff format --check src tests'), then replace the long "lint" value
with a sequence that runs the smaller scripts (e.g., "npm run lint --workspaces
--if-present && npm run check:docs && npm run check:security_notes && ... && npm
run ruff:check && npm run ruff:format:check") so each failing step is
identifiable by name; ensure exit codes are preserved so failures stop the
pipeline.
In `@packages/shared-config/eslint/base.mjs`:
- Around line 1-3: The flat ESLint config currently exports an object with an
extends array which is invalid; replace it by either importing and re-exporting
the root config (import rootConfig from "../../eslint.config.js"; export default
rootConfig) or wrap the config with defineConfig from
"eslint/use-at-your-own-risk" and pass the rootConfig in an array (import {
defineConfig } from "eslint/use-at-your-own-risk"; import rootConfig from
"../../eslint.config.js"; export default defineConfig([{ extends: [rootConfig]
}])). Use the rootConfig symbol or defineConfig symbol to locate where to update
the export.
In `@packages/shared-types/src/index.ts`:
- Around line 1-8: ProjectSummary currently declares supportedAudioFormats as
readonly string[], which is too loose; change it to use the literal union
derived from SUPPORTED_AUDIO_FORMATS so the field is type-safe. Update
ProjectSummary.supportedAudioFormats to readonly (typeof
SUPPORTED_AUDIO_FORMATS)[number][] or ReadonlyArray<(typeof
SUPPORTED_AUDIO_FORMATS)[number]> and reference SUPPORTED_AUDIO_FORMATS in the
type so only "wav" | "mp3" | "flac" | "m4a" values are allowed.
In `@packages/shared-types/tsconfig.json`:
- Around line 3-11: Change the package tsconfig so production typechecking only
includes src: modify packages/shared-types/tsconfig.json to extend
../../tsconfig.base.json and have "include": ["src"] (primary tsconfig), then
add a new packages/shared-types/tsconfig.test.json that extends ./tsconfig.json,
adds compilerOptions.types ["vitest/globals"], and includes ["src","test"];
finally update vitest.config.ts to point its tsconfig via the "extends" (or
test-specific tsconfig) so test globals are only visible to the test config.
In `@scripts/checks/check_rust.sh`:
- Line 11: Update the cargo invocation in scripts/checks/check_rust.sh so the
cargo check command includes the --locked flag (change the existing cargo check
--manifest-path apps/desktop/src-tauri/Cargo.toml invocation to use --locked) to
ensure dependency resolution matches the committed Cargo.lock; also make the
same change in the CI job named rust-check in .github/workflows/ci.yml so both
local script and workflow use --locked consistently.
In `@scripts/checks/security_gates.py`:
- Around line 29-30: The TARGET_EXTENSIONS set currently omits YAML file
extensions so GitHub Actions workflow files under .github/workflows are not
scanned; update TARGET_EXTENSIONS (the constant named TARGET_EXTENSIONS) to
include ".yml" and ".yaml" so workflow run: blocks are scanned for unsafe
patterns like curl | sh, and ensure EXCLUDED_PARTS remains unchanged to avoid
excluding required directories.
In `@scripts/checks/verify_github_bootstrap_policy.py`:
- Around line 31-36: The loop over REQUIRED_REFERENCES currently calls
path.read_text() without checking the file exists, causing a traceback instead
of a reported violation when README/AGENTS/ARCHITECTURE are missing; modify the
code that iterates REQUIRED_REFERENCES (the missing_refs list and the for path,
refs in REQUIRED_REFERENCES.items() block) to first check path.exists() (or
path.is_file()) and, if missing, append a clear violation like f"{path} missing
file" to missing_refs, then only call path.read_text() when the file exists and
continue to append missing reference messages when refs are not found in the
body—mirroring the safe existence-first pattern used in verify_docs.py.
In `@scripts/checks/verify_security_notes.py`:
- Around line 5-12: REQUIRED_SUBSECTIONS is missing "realistic threats" and
"remaining risk" and the current checks scan the whole document instead of just
the "Security Notes" section; update REQUIRED_SUBSECTIONS to include "realistic
threats" and "remaining risk" and change the logic that scans files (look for
SECURITY_NOTES_TEXT heading) to extract only the Security Notes section body
(e.g., find the heading text stored in SECURITY_NOTES_TEXT and capture until the
next same-level heading or EOF) before searching for the subsections, so checks
like the ones using PLAN_DIR and SECURITY_NOTES_TEXT only validate subsections
inside that section.
In `@scripts/checks/verify_supply_chain.py`:
- Around line 5-23: The script verify_supply_chain.py currently lists
REQUIRED_FILES but omits the repository CI workflow and does not validate that
the CI job/token required by our policy exists; update REQUIRED_FILES to include
the CI workflow filename and add a validation step in verify_supply_chain.py
that opens and parses the CI workflow YAML to confirm it defines the required
job/trigger (e.g., a job named "build-and-test" or the documented workflow
trigger/token), failing the check if the workflow file is missing or the
expected job/trigger/token is not present.
- Around line 115-120: In main(), you're collecting "missing file" violations
from verify_required_files() but then still calling verify_pinned_actions(),
verify_dependabot_coverage(), and verify_workflow_coverage(), which can raise
FileNotFoundError when those files are absent; update main() to either (A) after
violations.extend(f"missing file: {item}" for item in verify_required_files())
immediately return non-zero if any missing files were found (short-circuit and
report them), or (B) modify the downstream readers inside
verify_pinned_actions(), verify_dependabot_coverage(), and
verify_workflow_coverage() to check file existence (Path.exists()) before
attempting read_text(), adding a clear violation message if the file is missing;
reference the main() function and the verify_* functions to locate where to
implement the short-circuit or existence checks.
In `@scripts/harness/quickcheck.sh`:
- Around line 4-15: The harness script quickcheck.sh assumes the current working
directory is the repo root which breaks when invoked from other locations; at
the top of quickcheck.sh, change the working directory to the repository root
before invoking any relative paths (e.g., cd to the script's parent repo root
using the script location) so subsequent calls to scripts/checks/verify_docs.py,
scripts/checks/check_rust.sh and npm commands resolve correctly; ensure any
exit-on-failure behavior and the existing BANDSCOPE_ENABLE_RUST_CHECK
conditional remain unchanged.
In `@scripts/release/package_desktop_artifact.py`:
- Around line 61-67: The loop that writes metadata files to the archive
currently calls archive.write(extra_path, ...) without checking existence,
causing FileNotFoundError; update the loop in package_desktop_artifact.py (the
for extra_path ... block that calls archive.write) to first verify
extra_path.exists() (or is_file()), and if missing either (a) raise a clear,
descriptive error listing the missing paths or (b) log a warning and skip adding
that file depending on desired behavior; ensure the chosen behavior is
consistent with how binaries/dist are validated elsewhere and use the same
logging/exit pattern so the failure message is informative instead of an
unhandled FileNotFoundError.
In `@services/analysis-engine/src/bandscope_analysis/health.py`:
- Around line 4-10: The current build_health_report() returns a loose dict[str,
object] losing the public payload shape; define a concrete TypedDict (e.g.
HealthPayload with keys service: str, status: Literal["ready"], pipeline_stages:
list[str]) and update the function signature to return that TypedDict type,
import TypedDict and Literal from typing, and ensure the returned literal values
match the TypedDict so type checkers and tests (and api.py) see the exact
contract.
In `@supply-chain/supplemental-component-inventory.json`:
- Line 2: The JSON `version` field is currently a number (version: 1); change it
to a string to support semantic-style values (e.g., "1", "1.0", "1.1"). Update
the `version` value in the JSON to a quoted string ("1") and, if any code reads
this field (parsers/validators), ensure the reader accepts string versions or
normalizes them (e.g., parse or cast to a semantic-version string) so consumers
of the `version` field continue to work.
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 537ecc58-86fd-491b-89ab-fd1993d33e81
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (3)
apps/desktop/src-tauri/Cargo.lockis excluded by!**/*.lockpackage-lock.jsonis excluded by!**/package-lock.jsonservices/analysis-engine/uv.lockis excluded by!**/*.lock
📒 Files selected for processing (93)
.editorconfig.gitattributes.github/CODEOWNERS.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.yml.github/dependabot.yml.github/pull_request_template.md.github/workflows/build-baseline.yml.github/workflows/ci.yml.github/workflows/codeql.yml.github/workflows/dependency-review.yml.github/workflows/release.yml.github/workflows/sbom.yml.github/workflows/secret-scan-gate.yml.github/workflows/security-audit.yml.gitignoreAGENTS.mdARCHITECTURE.mdCODE_OF_CONDUCT.mdCONTRIBUTING.mdLICENSEREADME.mdSECURITY.mdapps/desktop/index.htmlapps/desktop/package.jsonapps/desktop/src-tauri/Cargo.tomlapps/desktop/src-tauri/build.rsapps/desktop/src-tauri/src/main.rsapps/desktop/src-tauri/tauri.conf.jsonapps/desktop/src/App.test.tsxapps/desktop/src/App.tsxapps/desktop/src/env.d.tsapps/desktop/src/features/chords/index.tsxapps/desktop/src/features/home/index.tsxapps/desktop/src/features/player/index.tsxapps/desktop/src/features/ranges/index.tsxapps/desktop/src/features/settings/index.tsxapps/desktop/src/i18n/index.tsapps/desktop/src/locales/en/common.jsonapps/desktop/src/locales/ko/common.jsonapps/desktop/src/main.tsxapps/desktop/tsconfig.jsonapps/desktop/vite.config.tsdocs/architecture/overview.mddocs/brand-story.mddocs/i18n/i18n-policy.mddocs/plans/2026-03-10-bandscope-cross-platform-build-design.mddocs/plans/2026-03-10-bandscope-cross-platform-build.mddocs/plans/2026-03-10-bandscope-harness-design.mddocs/plans/2026-03-10-bandscope-harness.mddocs/plans/2026-03-10-bandscope-supply-chain-design.mddocs/plans/2026-03-10-bandscope-supply-chain.mddocs/release/release-policy.mddocs/repository/bootstrap-plan.mddocs/repository/gitflow.mddocs/repository/governance.mddocs/security/app-security.mddocs/security/code-security.mddocs/security/cross-platform-build-policy.mddocs/security/dependency-policy.mddocs/security/github-required-checks.mddocs/security/sbom-policy.mddocs/workflow/github-bootstrap-execution-policy.mdeslint.config.jspackage.jsonpackages/shared-config/eslint/base.mjspackages/shared-config/typescript/base.jsonpackages/shared-types/package.jsonpackages/shared-types/src/index.tspackages/shared-types/test/index.test.tspackages/shared-types/tsconfig.jsonpackages/shared-types/vitest.config.tspyproject.tomlscripts/checks/check_rust.shscripts/checks/security_gates.pyscripts/checks/verify_docs.pyscripts/checks/verify_github_bootstrap_policy.pyscripts/checks/verify_security_notes.pyscripts/checks/verify_supply_chain.pyscripts/harness/quickcheck.shscripts/release/package_desktop_artifact.pyservices/analysis-engine/pyproject.tomlservices/analysis-engine/src/bandscope_analysis/__init__.pyservices/analysis-engine/src/bandscope_analysis/api.pyservices/analysis-engine/src/bandscope_analysis/chords/__init__.pyservices/analysis-engine/src/bandscope_analysis/health.pyservices/analysis-engine/src/bandscope_analysis/ranges/__init__.pyservices/analysis-engine/src/bandscope_analysis/separation/__init__.pyservices/analysis-engine/tests/test_api.pyservices/analysis-engine/tests/test_health.pysupply-chain/supplemental-component-inventory.jsontsconfig.base.json
Owner
Author
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Actions performedReview triggered.
|
Owner
Author
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Actions performedReview triggered.
|
Owner
Author
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Actions performedReview triggered.
|
Owner
Author
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Actions performedReview triggered.
|
✅ Actions performedFull review triggered. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
♻️ Duplicate comments (1)
docs/security/github-required-checks.md (1)
7-29:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major
secret-scan-gate를 intended required check에 포함해야 합니다.
develop/main의 intended required checks와 workflow-managed baseline 둘 다secret-scan-gate가 빠져 있습니다. 이 PR에는 해당 워크플로가 이미 추가되어 있으므로, 현재 문서대로 보호 규칙을 연결하면 secret scan이 필수 merge gate로 승격되지 않습니다.🛠️ 제안 수정
### `develop` - `CodeRabbit` - `ci / build-and-test` +- `secret-scan-gate` - `dependency-review` - `security-audit` - `CodeQL` - `sbom` - `release-preflight` - `gate / build / windows` - `gate / build / macos` ### `main` - `CodeRabbit` - `ci / build-and-test` +- `secret-scan-gate` - `dependency-review` - `security-audit` - `CodeQL` - `sbom` - `release-preflight` - `gate / build / windows` - `gate / build / macos` @@ - `supply-chain-inventory`: supplemental validation baseline +- `secret-scan-gate`: intended required check - `gate / build / windows`: intended required check - `gate / build / macos`: intended required checkAlso applies to: 42-50
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@docs/security/github-required-checks.md` around lines 7 - 29, Add the missing "secret-scan-gate" required check to the documented intended required checks: insert `secret-scan-gate` into the bullet lists under the `develop` and `main` headings and also update the workflow-managed baseline section referenced around lines 42-50 so it includes `secret-scan-gate`; look for the `develop` and `main` headings and the symbol `secret-scan-gate` to locate where to add the entry.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Inline comments:
In `@docs/repository/governance.md`:
- Around line 16-19: 문서의 "CodeRabbit 체크가 비작성자 승인 요건을 대체한다" 문구는 실제 PR 상태와 맞지 않으니
governance.md의 해당 문장(CodeRabbit) 내용을 삭제하거나 수정하여 CodeRabbit이 비작성자 승인 또는
CODEOWNERS 승인을 대체하지 않음을 명시하고, 대신 "비작성자 승인 또는 코드오너 리뷰가 필수"임을 분명히 하세요; 또한
CODEOWNERS가 단일 사용자에 집중된 경우 별도 추가 승인자(예: 팀 소유자 또는 교차 검토자)를 요구하도록 CODEOWNERS
라우팅만으로는 충족되지 않음을 명시해 문서 내 `CodeRabbit`, `CODEOWNERS`, `main`/`develop` 및 PR 병합
블록 상태와의 불일치를 제거하세요.
In `@docs/workflow/github-bootstrap-execution-policy.md`:
- Around line 38-47: The branch-protection required checks list is missing the
secret scanning gate; update the “required checks” enumeration to include the
secret-scan gate (e.g. add "secret-scan-gate" alongside dependency-review,
security-audit, CodeQL, sbom, release-preflight, gate/build/windows,
gate/build/macos) and also call out ensuring the corresponding secret-scanning
workflow (.github/workflows/secret-scan.yml) is committed and configured so
branch protection will enforce it rather than leaving it advisory.
---
Duplicate comments:
In `@docs/security/github-required-checks.md`:
- Around line 7-29: Add the missing "secret-scan-gate" required check to the
documented intended required checks: insert `secret-scan-gate` into the bullet
lists under the `develop` and `main` headings and also update the
workflow-managed baseline section referenced around lines 42-50 so it includes
`secret-scan-gate`; look for the `develop` and `main` headings and the symbol
`secret-scan-gate` to locate where to add the entry.
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 0eec010c-dc27-4ae5-8fda-c3e9dc12c113
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
CONTRIBUTING.mddocs/repository/bootstrap-plan.mddocs/repository/gitflow.mddocs/repository/governance.mddocs/security/github-required-checks.mddocs/workflow/github-bootstrap-execution-policy.md
Owner
Author
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Actions performedReview triggered.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
♻️ Duplicate comments (3)
docs/repository/bootstrap-plan.md (2)
12-14:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major첫 부트스트랩 PR이 승인자 부재로 막힐 수 있습니다.
리뷰어를 지정하는 단계만으로는 비작성자 승인/code owner 승인 요건이 충족되지 않습니다. 현재 기준선처럼 소유권이 단일 사용자에 집중되면
bootstrap/setup -> developPR이 영구 대기될 수 있으니, 이 단계 전에 별도의 비작성자 승인자 또는 교차 CODEOWNERS를 먼저 구성하는 순서를 추가해야 합니다.🛠️ 제안 수정
7. Add the bootstrap baseline files, workflows, templates, docs, i18n seed files, and app skeleton. -8. Open `bootstrap/setup -> develop` and assign a reviewer. -9. After merge, tighten protections by connecting required checks. -10. Open `develop -> main` as `release/bootstrap-initial`. +8. Ensure at least one non-author approver / code owner is configured for protected branches. +9. Open `bootstrap/setup -> develop` and assign that reviewer. +10. After merge, tighten protections by connecting required checks. +11. Open `develop -> main` as `release/bootstrap-initial`.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@docs/repository/bootstrap-plan.md` around lines 12 - 14, 현재 단계 8의 "Open `bootstrap/setup -> develop` and assign a reviewer."만으로는 비작성자 승인이나 CODEOWNER 요구를 보장하지 못해 PR이 승인자 부재로 대기될 수 있으니, `bootstrap/setup -> develop`을 열기 전에 별도의 비작성자(또는 교차 프로젝트) 승인자 그룹을 구성하고 CODEOWNERS 파일을 업데이트해 비작성자 승인 또는 교차 CODEOWNERS 규칙이 적용되도록 하는 절차를 추가하세요; 즉, 문서에 "먼저 CODEOWNERS에 다수의 리뷰어(또는 팀)를 추가/교차등록하고 비작성자 승인 요구를 설정한 후 `bootstrap/setup -> develop` PR을 생성"하도록 순서를 명시하고 관련 항목(예: CODEOWNERS, bootstrap/setup -> develop PR step)을 업데이트하세요.
49-52:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major리뷰 대체 규칙이 실제 보호 설정과 불일치합니다.
CodeRabbit체크는 추가 필수 게이트일 수는 있어도, GitHub의 비작성자 승인 요건을 대체하지 않습니다. 이 문장은 현재 저장소 운영 방식과 충돌하므로 승인/code owner 리뷰가 별도로 필요하다고 수정해야 합니다.🛠️ 제안 수정
## Review substitution rule -For this harness baseline, a passing `CodeRabbit` check replaces GitHub's built-in approving-review gate. Protected branches still require PRs, conversation resolution, and all required checks. +For this harness baseline, a passing `CodeRabbit` check is required in addition to GitHub's non-author approving-review and code owner review requirements. Protected branches still require PRs, conversation resolution, and all required checks.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@docs/repository/bootstrap-plan.md` around lines 49 - 52, Update the "## Review substitution rule" section so it no longer claims that the `CodeRabbit` check replaces GitHub's approving-review gate; instead state that `CodeRabbit` is an additional required check and that protected branch requirements (approvals, code-owner reviews, PRs, and conversation resolution) still apply and must be satisfied separately, revising the sentence under the "Review substitution rule" heading accordingly.docs/repository/governance.md (1)
16-19:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major실제 병합 규칙과 다른 리뷰 정책입니다.
Line 18의 설명은 현재 보호 규칙과 맞지 않습니다.
CodeRabbit통과만으로 비작성자 승인이나 CODEOWNERS 승인이 대체되지 않으므로, 이 문구대로 운영하면 부트스트랩 기준선을 잘못 안내하게 됩니다.🛠️ 제안 수정
- every merge into `main` or `develop` goes through a PR - CODEOWNERS routes review to the right owners -- a passing `CodeRabbit` check substitutes for GitHub's built-in approving-review gate in this harness baseline +- a passing `CodeRabbit` check is required in addition to GitHub's non-author approving-review and code owner review requirements - self-approval, direct push, and arbitrary rule weakening are out of policy🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@docs/repository/governance.md` around lines 16 - 19, 문서의 3번째 항목("a passing `CodeRabbit` check substitutes for GitHub's built-in approving-review gate")가 실제 보호 규칙과 다르므로 `CodeRabbit` 통과가 GitHub의 승인 또는 `CODEOWNERS` 승인을 대체하지 않는다고 명확히 고치고, PR 병합 규칙은 여전히 `main` 및 `develop` 보호 브랜치의 승인 요구사항(예: `CODEOWNERS` 승인, GitHub의 승인 게이트)을 충족해야 한다고 문구를 업데이트하거나 해당 문구를 삭제하여 오해를 제거하세요; 참조 대상은 문서의 `CodeRabbit`, `CODEOWNERS`, `main`/`develop` 용어입니다.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Inline comments:
In `@CONTRIBUTING.md`:
- Line 47: CONTRIBUTING.md의 "record dependency admission rationale for every new
direct dependency" 요구사항이 구체적이지 않으니, 해당 항목에 의존성 승인 절차 문서 또는 PR 템플릿의 관련 섹션 링크를
추가하세요; 예를 들어 CONTRIBUTING.md에 "Dependency approval procedure" 또는 "How to record
rationale" 같은 링크를 삽입하고, PR 템플릿(예: .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md)에는
"Dependency admission rationale" 제목의 체크리스트/입력란을 추가해 기여자가 어디에 어떤 형식으로 기록해야 하는지
명확히 안내하도록 수정하세요.
In `@docs/repository/bootstrap-plan.md`:
- Line 9: Phase-1 protection is contradictory because it claims to apply without
required checks but also lists CodeRabbit as mandatory; remove CodeRabbit from
the Phase-1 protection rules and instead add it explicitly under Phase-2 so
Phase-1 can be applied pre-workflow and CodeRabbit remains a Phase-2
requirement; update the document sections titled "Phase-1" and "Phase-2" (and
any mention of CodeRabbit in the Phase-1 paragraph) to reflect this separation.
---
Duplicate comments:
In `@docs/repository/bootstrap-plan.md`:
- Around line 12-14: 현재 단계 8의 "Open `bootstrap/setup -> develop` and assign a
reviewer."만으로는 비작성자 승인이나 CODEOWNER 요구를 보장하지 못해 PR이 승인자 부재로 대기될 수 있으니,
`bootstrap/setup -> develop`을 열기 전에 별도의 비작성자(또는 교차 프로젝트) 승인자 그룹을 구성하고 CODEOWNERS
파일을 업데이트해 비작성자 승인 또는 교차 CODEOWNERS 규칙이 적용되도록 하는 절차를 추가하세요; 즉, 문서에 "먼저
CODEOWNERS에 다수의 리뷰어(또는 팀)를 추가/교차등록하고 비작성자 승인 요구를 설정한 후 `bootstrap/setup ->
develop` PR을 생성"하도록 순서를 명시하고 관련 항목(예: CODEOWNERS, bootstrap/setup -> develop PR
step)을 업데이트하세요.
- Around line 49-52: Update the "## Review substitution rule" section so it no
longer claims that the `CodeRabbit` check replaces GitHub's approving-review
gate; instead state that `CodeRabbit` is an additional required check and that
protected branch requirements (approvals, code-owner reviews, PRs, and
conversation resolution) still apply and must be satisfied separately, revising
the sentence under the "Review substitution rule" heading accordingly.
In `@docs/repository/governance.md`:
- Around line 16-19: 문서의 3번째 항목("a passing `CodeRabbit` check substitutes for
GitHub's built-in approving-review gate")가 실제 보호 규칙과 다르므로 `CodeRabbit` 통과가
GitHub의 승인 또는 `CODEOWNERS` 승인을 대체하지 않는다고 명확히 고치고, PR 병합 규칙은 여전히 `main` 및
`develop` 보호 브랜치의 승인 요구사항(예: `CODEOWNERS` 승인, GitHub의 승인 게이트)을 충족해야 한다고 문구를
업데이트하거나 해당 문구를 삭제하여 오해를 제거하세요; 참조 대상은 문서의 `CodeRabbit`, `CODEOWNERS`,
`main`/`develop` 용어입니다.
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro
Run ID: fa0e1137-b424-4d02-879d-eaf6d4082bac
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
CONTRIBUTING.mddocs/repository/bootstrap-plan.mddocs/repository/governance.md
Owner
Author
|
@coderabbitai pause |
Owner
Author
|
@coderabbitai resume |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
♻️ Duplicate comments (3)
docs/repository/governance.md (1)
16-18:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major리뷰 정책 설명이 실제 병합 조건과 불일치합니다.
Line 18의 “
CodeRabbit가 approving-review gate를 대체한다”는 설명은 현재 보호 규칙과 맞지 않습니다. 지금도 비작성자 승인과 코드오너 리뷰가 병합 조건으로 남아 있으니, 정책 문구를 그 사실에 맞게 수정해야 합니다.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@docs/repository/governance.md` around lines 16 - 18, Update the governance wording to remove the claim that "CodeRabbit substitutes for GitHub's built-in approving-review gate" and instead state the actual merge conditions: merges into main or develop require a PR, non-author approvals and CODEOWNERS reviews are enforced, and CodeRabbit is an additional CI check (not a replacement for the approving-review gate). Edit the lines referencing `CodeRabbit`, `approving-review gate`, `CODEOWNERS`, `main`, and `develop` so the policy explicitly reflects that CodeRabbit is supplemental and that GitHub protection rules (non-author approval and CODEOWNERS) remain required.docs/repository/bootstrap-plan.md (1)
9-13:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 MajorPhase-1 보호 규칙이 실행 순서와 모순됩니다.
Line 9에서는 phase-1을 required checks 없이 적용한다고 했는데, Line 20은 phase-1에서 이미
CodeRabbit통과를 요구합니다. 워크플로우 연결 전 단계라면 이 요구는 충족할 수 없으니CodeRabbit는 phase-2로만 분리해야 합니다.Also applies to: 16-20
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@docs/repository/bootstrap-plan.md` around lines 9 - 13, The Phase-1 protection description contradicts later text that requires the CodeRabbit check; update the bootstrap-plan so Phase-1 (the step that applies protections to main and develop and creates bootstrap/setup -> develop) does NOT list or require the CodeRabbit check and instead document that CodeRabbit is enforced only in Phase-2 (the step that "tightens protections by connecting required checks"); specifically edit the entries around "Apply phase-1 protection to `main` and `develop`", "Create `bootstrap/setup` from `develop`", and the later lines that reference CodeRabbit so that CodeRabbit is removed from Phase-1 and clearly assigned to Phase-2 (also apply the same change in the duplicated block covering lines 16-20).CONTRIBUTING.md (1)
45-48:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor의존성 승인 근거를 어디에 기록하는지 명시하세요.
Line 47은 근거 기록을 요구하지만 PR 템플릿이나 절차 문서 위치가 없어 기여자가 일관되게 따르기 어렵습니다. 기록 위치나 링크를 같이 적어 두는 편이 좋겠습니다.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@CONTRIBUTING.md` around lines 45 - 48, Line 47 asks contributors to "record dependency admission rationale for every new direct dependency" but doesn't say where to put that rationale; update the CONTRIBUTING.md to specify the exact location and link (e.g., the PR template section titled "Dependency admission rationale" or a dedicated file/section) where contributors must record this rationale, and add a short example or checklist item showing the required fields (reason, risk, alternatives, reviewer) so authors can follow it consistently.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Inline comments:
In `@docs/repository/bootstrap-plan.md`:
- Around line 49-51: Edit the "Review substitution rule" section to remove the
claim that `CodeRabbit` replaces GitHub's approving-review gate and instead
state that `CodeRabbit` is an additional required check (or, if a true exception
is being planned, explicitly document the exception's scope, affected
branches/teams, and duration). Update the sentence that mentions `CodeRabbit`
replacing built-in approvals so it clearly reads that protected branches still
require PRs, conversation resolution, and required code-owner or non-author
approvals unless a documented, timebound exception is enacted; if you opt for an
exception, add a succinct subsection describing its exact boundaries and
expiration.
---
Duplicate comments:
In `@CONTRIBUTING.md`:
- Around line 45-48: Line 47 asks contributors to "record dependency admission
rationale for every new direct dependency" but doesn't say where to put that
rationale; update the CONTRIBUTING.md to specify the exact location and link
(e.g., the PR template section titled "Dependency admission rationale" or a
dedicated file/section) where contributors must record this rationale, and add a
short example or checklist item showing the required fields (reason, risk,
alternatives, reviewer) so authors can follow it consistently.
In `@docs/repository/bootstrap-plan.md`:
- Around line 9-13: The Phase-1 protection description contradicts later text
that requires the CodeRabbit check; update the bootstrap-plan so Phase-1 (the
step that applies protections to main and develop and creates bootstrap/setup ->
develop) does NOT list or require the CodeRabbit check and instead document that
CodeRabbit is enforced only in Phase-2 (the step that "tightens protections by
connecting required checks"); specifically edit the entries around "Apply
phase-1 protection to `main` and `develop`", "Create `bootstrap/setup` from
`develop`", and the later lines that reference CodeRabbit so that CodeRabbit is
removed from Phase-1 and clearly assigned to Phase-2 (also apply the same change
in the duplicated block covering lines 16-20).
In `@docs/repository/governance.md`:
- Around line 16-18: Update the governance wording to remove the claim that
"CodeRabbit substitutes for GitHub's built-in approving-review gate" and instead
state the actual merge conditions: merges into main or develop require a PR,
non-author approvals and CODEOWNERS reviews are enforced, and CodeRabbit is an
additional CI check (not a replacement for the approving-review gate). Edit the
lines referencing `CodeRabbit`, `approving-review gate`, `CODEOWNERS`, `main`,
and `develop` so the policy explicitly reflects that CodeRabbit is supplemental
and that GitHub protection rules (non-author approval and CODEOWNERS) remain
required.
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 4af89546-4a3a-4d75-b2ca-13dc13e66fe6
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
CONTRIBUTING.mddocs/repository/bootstrap-plan.mddocs/repository/governance.md
✅ Actions performedReviews resumed. |
✅ Actions performedReviews paused. |
Owner
Author
|
@coderabbitai resolve |
✅ Actions performedComments resolved and changes approved. |
This was referenced Mar 11, 2026
This was referenced Mar 26, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
developas the repository default branch after bootstrap while keepingmainas the protected release branchIncluded baseline
Verification
📝 Walkthrough
Walkthrough
리포지토리에 부트스트랩을 추가합니다: 에디터·린트·타입 설정, GitHub 소유자·이슈/PR 템플릿, 다수의 CI·보안·릴리스 워크플로우, React+Tauri 데스크톱 스캐폴드, Python 분석 엔진, 공유 타입·설정, 검증 스크립트, 릴리스 패키징 및 공급망 인벤토리, 광범위한 문서·정책 추가.
Changes
.editorconfig,.gitattributes,.gitignore,tsconfig.base.json,eslint.config.js,package.json,pyproject.toml.github/CODEOWNERS,.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md,.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/*,.github/dependabot.yml.github/workflows/...ci.yml,build-baseline.yml,release.yml,security-audit.yml,codeql.yml,dependency-review.yml,sbom.yml,secret-scan-gate.yml,dependency-review.yml,attachment-*apps/desktop/...,apps/desktop/src-tauri/...packages/shared-types/*,packages/shared-config/*@bandscope/shared-types)와 ESLint/TS 재사용 구성 래퍼를 추가.services/analysis-engine/pyproject.toml,services/analysis-engine/src/...,services/analysis-engine/tests/*scripts/checks/*,scripts/harness/quickcheck.shscripts/release/package_desktop_artifact.pysupply-chain/supplemental-component-inventory.jsonREADME.md,CONTRIBUTING.md,SECURITY.md,ARCHITECTURE.md,AGENTS.md,docs/**Sequence Diagram(s)
Estimated code review effort
🎯 4 (Complex) | ⏱️ ~60 minutes
Poem