Add planning traceability families - #75
Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 47 minutes 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 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 configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (21)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: a072d05884
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| .command('assumption <id>') | ||
| .description('Create an assumption node (assumption:*)') | ||
| .requiredOption('--description <text>', 'Assumption description (min 5 chars)') | ||
| .option('--validated', 'Mark the assumption as validated') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When users create the common open assumption without --validated, Commander leaves opts.validated undefined (Commander README: boolean options are undefined unless specified), but the projection only accepts assumptions whose validated prop is a boolean. Those CLI-created open assumptions are therefore omitted from snapshots and never show up in the new planning-gap counts; default this flag to false before writing/returning it.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| onProgress({ | ||
| stage: 'neighbors', | ||
| message: 'Scanning workflow, narrative, and comment node families.', | ||
| message: 'Scanning workflow, narrative, planning, and comment node families.', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When the audit snapshot contains the new constraint/assumption/risk/spike nodes, this now claims the doctor is scanning planning families, but the allKnownIds set used by collectDanglingEdges still never adds snapshot.constraints, snapshot.assumptions, snapshot.risks, or snapshot.spikes. In graphs where one of these planning nodes points at a deleted req/task, doctor reports the planning count but never visits that node's neighbors, so the dangling planning edge is missed and the report can stay healthy.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| typeof likelihood !== 'number' || | ||
| !Number.isFinite(likelihood) || | ||
| typeof impact !== 'number' || | ||
| !Number.isFinite(impact) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The new risk schema and CLI define likelihood and impact as normalized values from 0 to 1, but this projection accepts any finite number. When a malformed risk comes from graph history or a non-CLI writer, computeRiskHotspots multiplies it directly, so status --view trace can surface impossible scores and let them dominate hotspot ordering; reject values outside [0, 1] here like the write path does.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
Summary
Validation
npx tsc --noEmitnpx vitest run test/unit/TraceabilityAnalysis.test.ts test/unit/TraceabilityCommands.test.ts test/unit/DashboardTraceCommand.test.ts test/unit/DiagnosticService.test.ts test/unit/AgentBriefingService.test.ts test/unit/AgentActionService.test.ts test/unit/AgentContextService.test.ts test/unit/DoctorCommands.test.tsnpm run lintnpm run test:localGraph closeout