Skip to content

docs: re-render llms-full after the #395 README table update - #396

Merged
jphein merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/llms-full-rerender
Aug 9, 2026
Merged

docs: re-render llms-full after the #395 README table update#396
jphein merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/llms-full-rerender

Conversation

@jphein

@jphein jphein commented Aug 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

check-docs went red on #395 (my gate slip — merged before the check finished): the hash backfill re-rendered README, an llms-full source, without running render-llms-full.py. This re-render restores parity; local check-docs.sh → docs clean 7/7.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Copilot AI lite review requested due to automatic review settings August 9, 2026 21:19

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Aug 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Warning

Review limit reached

@jphein, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 26 minutes

You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository.

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 9a5db831-7875-4d44-a9fc-77ac700f051c

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 5e17774 and 5e2ed73.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • website/public/llms-full.txt

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

jphein added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 9, 2026
…sher race (#397)

Post-v3.7.0-sync CI intermittently fails
test_reset_releases_sqlite_lock_for_reopen with 'Directory not empty':
the new chromadb flushes segment files from a background thread, and on
slow runners a flush lands mid-rmtree. The lock-release proof is the
REOPEN (a held sqlite lock fails there), not the delete — so retry the
delete briefly instead of failing on the flusher race. Passed 3.11 on
rerun, failed 3.10/3.13 twice each (#396 runs).
The hash backfill re-rendered README (an llms-full source) without the
follow-on render-llms-full.py — caught by check-docs on #395, which I
merged before the check finished (gate slip, repaired here).
@jphein
jphein force-pushed the docs/llms-full-rerender branch from 9c356bc to 5e2ed73 Compare August 9, 2026 21:48
@jphein
jphein merged commit b033c10 into main Aug 9, 2026
13 checks passed
@jphein
jphein deleted the docs/llms-full-rerender branch August 9, 2026 21:53
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants