chore(review): focus CodeRabbit on material evidence gaps

[tt-a1i]

Problem and value

Recent CodeRabbit summaries on #421, #422, and #434 retained an inconclusive evidence result solely because required CI was still running, even after those same heads passed. On #435, the inline review requested a redundant documentation link without identifying a concrete missing requirement.

Narrow the Validation evidence check to coverage and claim accuracy, leaving final-head CI enforcement to GitHub required checks. Sufficient existing evidence can satisfy this advisory check while CI runs; a pending run that is the only evidence for a material claim still leaves that claim unresolved. Failed or skipped checks cannot be reported as passes, and access failures remain Inconclusive.

Use the repository's new English archify-review skill for value, cost, and impact judgments, add it to CodeRabbit's guidance files, and consolidate duplicate procedural instructions. Inline findings should identify a concrete consequence and useful correction rather than demand repeated links or template entries.

Stability impact

One configuration file changes. Automatic reviews, the chill profile, draft exclusions, both advisory custom checks, runtime-specific instructions, required CI, and branch protection retain their existing settings. No runtime or generated-artifact inputs change.

Tests run

Base: bc8cdc854c8046e281222a7018ab10fbe623d0d3
Candidate: e5e28df7bfe017531ccdba103e745a15d6982565

• Final YAML validated against the official CodeRabbit schema.v2.json using PyYAML and jsonschema.
• All five guidance-file paths exist; advisory and automatic-review settings inspected.
• node --test archify/test/community-proof-intake.test.mjs: 3 passed. These unchanged guide/template checks remain applicable after the final configuration wording edit.
• git diff --check: passed.
• Manual instruction review covered sufficient evidence plus pending CI, pending CI as sole evidence, unsupported success claims, inaccessible evidence, and indirect documentation references. This checks instruction consistency, not actual model behavior.

The full renderer suite was not run locally for this configuration-only change. Effectiveness still needs observation on subsequent CodeRabbit reviews; no claim is made that prompt edits guarantee fewer false positives.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Advanced

Run ID: 2f569eb1-fe18-43fa-abd1-8f079a271832

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between bc8cdc8 and e5e28df.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• .coderabbit.yaml

Included review availability: Your plan provides up to 10 included reviews per hour; 8 remain after this review.

---

📝 Summary

CodeRabbit now focuses Validation evidence on coverage, claim accuracy, and material gaps. The guidance adds archify-review, clarifies CI and evidence handling, and requires concrete consequences and corrections. Existing review profiles, checks, and branch protection remain unchanged. Author-reported validation covered schemas, guidance, tests, and diff checks; full renderer coverage was not run. Repository inspection failed, so base/head revisions, reused evidence revisions, and observed CI revision could not be verified.

Walkthrough

The .coderabbit.yaml configuration updates global review wording and path-specific review guidance. It adds .agents/skills/archify-review/SKILL.md for value, cost, and impact judgments. The validation evidence check now evaluates current PR evidence, source changes, and relevant results, while handling pending checks, access limits, evidence revisions, and remaining gaps. The skill file is also added to the knowledge-base code-guideline patterns.

Priority: ⬇️ Low

Estimated code review effort: 3 (Moderate) | ~20 minutes

Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to e5e28

The updated review guidance does not show an actionable merge risk in the supplied evidence.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ❌ 2

❌ Failed checks (2 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Contribution Scope	❓ Inconclusive	Repository clone failed, so this custom check could not run with code access.	Retry the review run. If this persists, inspect pre-merge custom-check logs for infrastructure or agent runtime failures.
Validation Evidence	❓ Inconclusive	Repository clone failed, so this custom check could not run with code access.	Retry the review run. If this persists, inspect pre-merge custom-check logs for infrastructure or agent runtime failures.

Warning

Git: CodeRabbit could not clone the repository, so clone-backed analysis was skipped and this review may be incomplete. Verify repository clone access, such as SSH credentials, before requesting another full review. If clone access is intentionally unavailable, use path_filters to narrow the review scope.

---

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

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

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