Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
no-issue-linked
configuration
size/L
first-time-contributor
labels
|
Warning Ignoring CodeRabbit configuration file changes. For security, only the configuration from the base branch is applied for open source repositories. 📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughA new CodeRabbit YAML configuration file is introduced, establishing IDE autocompletion, automated issue enrichment with labeling and planning, and a comprehensive review workflow. The configuration integrates 12+ analysis tools, defines review profiles with per-PR controls, establishes labeling and review instructions for various programming languages, and sets path-based filters. Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ 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 |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
.coderabbit.yaml (3)
7-8: Early access enabled without clear justification.The comment says "currently not using any specific early_access features," yet it's set to
true. Enabling early access opts into potentially unstable, breaking features as they roll out. Consider setting this tofalseuntil a specific early-access feature is actually needed, or update the comment to reflect which feature you intend to use.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In @.coderabbit.yaml around lines 7 - 8, The early access flag "early_access" is enabled without justification; either disable it or document the specific feature in use: change the "early_access" value to false to avoid opting into unstable features, or update the surrounding comment to name the exact early-access feature(s) you intend to use so the rationale is clear (refer to the "early_access" entry in the .coderabbit.yaml file).
88-123: LGTM — tools section is valid per schema.All tools are properly structured. Consider whether all of these are relevant to the project's actual tech stack (e.g.,
swiftlint,phpstan,golangci-lint,detektfor a project that may not use Swift/PHP/Go/Kotlin). Leaving them enabled is harmless (they simply won't trigger on unmatched files), but it does add noise to the configuration.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In @.coderabbit.yaml around lines 88 - 123, The tools list in the .coderabbit.yaml includes many linters (tools, swiftlint, phpstan, golangci-lint, detekt) that may be irrelevant to the repository's tech stack and can cause noise; update the tools mapping to disable or remove linters not used by the project (e.g., remove or set enabled: false for swiftlint, phpstan, golangci-lint, detekt) so only applicable tools remain enabled, keeping the configuration minimal and easier to maintain.
273-280: Asset review instructions reference mobile-specific concerns (@2x/@3xvariants).The instructions mention
@2xand@3ximage variants, which are iOS/React Native conventions. If this is a web-only project, these aren't applicable. This is consistent with the mixed Expo/NextJS guidance seen earlier — worth clarifying the project's target platform(s) to keep instructions relevant.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In @.coderabbit.yaml around lines 273 - 280, The asset review text references mobile-specific image variants (`@2x/`@3x) which aren't applicable for web-only projects; update the asset review block so it’s platform-aware: either remove the `@2x/`@3x bullet and replace it with web-focused guidance (responsive sizes, srcset/1x/2x, modern formats, and responsive breakpoints) when the project is web-only, or make the checklist conditional/explicit about mobile targets if the repo supports Expo/React Native; look for the bullets mentioning "@2x" and "@3x" and adjust them to mention web alternatives (srcset, density descriptors) or gate them behind a mobile-platform flag.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Inline comments:
In @.coderabbit.yaml:
- Around line 170-197: The NextJS guidance block currently enforces "Ensure that
\"use client\" is being used" and "only features that allow pure client-side
rendering are used" which conflicts with Next.js App Router defaults; update the
NextJS instructions (the NextJS bullet under the path "**/*.{ts,tsx,js,jsx}") to
recommend preferring server components by default and only using "use client"
when component requires client-only features (state, effects, browser APIs);
also split or remove Expo/React Native specific security items (the Security
bullets referencing "expo-secure-store" and "Validate deep linking
configurations") from this path and instead create separate path-instruction
entries for React Native/Expo files (e.g., matching mobile-specific file
patterns) or clearly mark platform-specific guidance so web Next.js reviews do
not get mobile-specific checks.
- Around line 67-68: The inline comment is misleading relative to the setting
request_changes_workflow: update the configuration or the comment so they match:
either set request_changes_workflow to false if you want only non-blocking
comments, or keep it true and change the parenthetical note to explain that it
will submit blocking "Request Changes" reviews and will auto-approve when
comments are resolved; modify the line containing request_changes_workflow to
reflect the chosen behavior and update the adjacent comment text accordingly.
- Around line 152-165: The reviews.instructions key is invalid and must be moved
into reviews.path_instructions using a catch-all glob; remove or rename
reviews.instructions and create reviews.path_instructions with the glob "**"
mapping to the same instruction block so the rules apply across all files (refer
to the reviews.instructions entry in the current .coderabbit.yaml and replace it
with reviews.path_instructions: { "**": <your instruction list> } while
preserving the original instruction text).
---
Nitpick comments:
In @.coderabbit.yaml:
- Around line 7-8: The early access flag "early_access" is enabled without
justification; either disable it or document the specific feature in use: change
the "early_access" value to false to avoid opting into unstable features, or
update the surrounding comment to name the exact early-access feature(s) you
intend to use so the rationale is clear (refer to the "early_access" entry in
the .coderabbit.yaml file).
- Around line 88-123: The tools list in the .coderabbit.yaml includes many
linters (tools, swiftlint, phpstan, golangci-lint, detekt) that may be
irrelevant to the repository's tech stack and can cause noise; update the tools
mapping to disable or remove linters not used by the project (e.g., remove or
set enabled: false for swiftlint, phpstan, golangci-lint, detekt) so only
applicable tools remain enabled, keeping the configuration minimal and easier to
maintain.
- Around line 273-280: The asset review text references mobile-specific image
variants (`@2x/`@3x) which aren't applicable for web-only projects; update the
asset review block so it’s platform-aware: either remove the `@2x/`@3x bullet and
replace it with web-focused guidance (responsive sizes, srcset/1x/2x, modern
formats, and responsive breakpoints) when the project is web-only, or make the
checklist conditional/explicit about mobile targets if the repo supports
Expo/React Native; look for the bullets mentioning "@2x" and "@3x" and adjust
them to mention web alternatives (srcset, density descriptors) or gate them
behind a mobile-platform flag.
| # Automatically request changes on the PR (just leave comments) | ||
| request_changes_workflow: true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Misleading comment contradicts the actual behavior.
The inline comment says "(just leave comments)", but request_changes_workflow: true does the opposite — it submits Request Changes reviews that block the PR, then auto-approves once all comments are resolved. Either flip the value to false if you only want non-blocking comments, or fix the comment.
Proposed fix (if intent is to document correctly)
- # Automatically request changes on the PR (just leave comments)
- request_changes_workflow: true
+ # Submit "Request Changes" reviews; auto-approve once all comments are resolved
+ request_changes_workflow: true📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| # Automatically request changes on the PR (just leave comments) | |
| request_changes_workflow: true | |
| # Submit "Request Changes" reviews; auto-approve once all comments are resolved | |
| request_changes_workflow: true |
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
In @.coderabbit.yaml around lines 67 - 68, The inline comment is misleading
relative to the setting request_changes_workflow: update the configuration or
the comment so they match: either set request_changes_workflow to false if you
want only non-blocking comments, or keep it true and change the parenthetical
note to explain that it will submit blocking "Request Changes" reviews and will
auto-approve when comments are resolved; modify the line containing
request_changes_workflow to reflect the chosen behavior and update the adjacent
comment text accordingly.
| # Review instructions that apply to all files | ||
| instructions: >- | ||
| - Verify that documentation and comments are free of spelling mistakes | ||
| - Ensure that test code is automated, comprehensive, and follows testing best practices | ||
| - Verify that all critical functionality is covered by tests | ||
| - Confirm that the code meets the project's requirements and objectives | ||
| - Confirm that copyright years are up-to date whenever a file is changed | ||
| - Point out redundant obvious comments that do not add clarity to the code | ||
| - Ensure that comments are concise and suggest more concise comment statements if possible | ||
| - Discourage usage of verbose comment styles such as NatSpec | ||
| - Look for code duplication | ||
| - Suggest code completions when: | ||
| - seeing a TODO comment | ||
| - seeing a FIXME comment |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧩 Analysis chain
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash
# First, let's look at the file structure to understand the repo
echo "=== Repository structure ==="
git ls-files | head -20
echo -e "\n=== Looking for schema definitions or documentation ==="
fd -t f '\.(schema|md|yaml|yml|json)$' | grep -iE '(schema|config|coderabbit|doc)' | head -20
echo -e "\n=== Checking the actual .coderabbit.yaml file ==="
if [ -f ".coderabbit.yaml" ]; then
wc -l .coderabbit.yaml
echo "--- File exists, checking around lines 152-165 ---"
sed -n '145,170p' .coderabbit.yaml
fiRepository: AOSSIE-Org/OrgExplorer
Length of output: 2036
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any schema definition or documentation about reviews properties
echo "=== Searching for schema definitions ==="
find . -type f \( -name "*.json" -o -name "*.md" \) | xargs grep -l "additionalProperties" 2>/dev/null | head -10
echo -e "\n=== Searching for examples of reviews configuration ==="
rg -A 5 'reviews\s*:' --type yaml --type md 2>/dev/null | head -40
echo -e "\n=== Searching for path_instructions usage ==="
rg 'path_instructions' --type yaml --type md 2>/dev/null | head -20Repository: AOSSIE-Org/OrgExplorer
Length of output: 631
🌐 Web query:
CodeRabbit .coderabbit.yaml schema reviews instructions property
💡 Result:
In CodeRabbit’s .coderabbit.yaml (schema: https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json), there is no top-level reviews.instructions field; instead, “instructions” appears in these reviews properties: [1][2]
reviews.high_level_summary_instructions: string (defaults to"") — customizes the high-level summary content/format. [1]reviews.auto_title_instructions: string (defaults to"") — customizes PR title generation. [1]reviews.labeling_instructions: array of objects (defaults to[]) where each item has:label: stringinstructions: string (max length 3000) [1]
reviews.path_instructions: array of objects (defaults to[]) where each item has:path: string (glob)instructions: string (max length 20000) [1]
Sources: CodeRabbit YAML config (schema URL) [2], CodeRabbit configuration reference (updated 2026-02-11) [1].
reviews.instructions is not a valid configuration key — these review instructions will be silently ignored.
CodeRabbit's schema does not recognize instructions as a direct property under reviews. The valid properties are high_level_summary_instructions, auto_title_instructions, labeling_instructions, and path_instructions. To apply general review instructions across all files, move this configuration to path_instructions with a catch-all glob pattern **:
Proposed fix
- # Review instructions that apply to all files
- instructions: >-
- - Verify that documentation and comments are free of spelling mistakes
- - Ensure that test code is automated, comprehensive, and follows testing best practices
- - Verify that all critical functionality is covered by tests
- - Confirm that the code meets the project's requirements and objectives
- - Confirm that copyright years are up-to date whenever a file is changed
- - Point out redundant obvious comments that do not add clarity to the code
- - Ensure that comments are concise and suggest more concise comment statements if possible
- - Discourage usage of verbose comment styles such as NatSpec
- - Look for code duplication
- - Suggest code completions when:
- - seeing a TODO comment
- - seeing a FIXME comment
-
# Custom review instructions for specific file patterns
path_instructions:
+ # General instructions for all files
+ - path: "**"
+ instructions: |
+ - Verify that documentation and comments are free of spelling mistakes
+ - Ensure that test code is automated, comprehensive, and follows testing best practices
+ - Verify that all critical functionality is covered by tests
+ - Confirm that the code meets the project's requirements and objectives
+ - Confirm that copyright years are up-to date whenever a file is changed
+ - Point out redundant obvious comments that do not add clarity to the code
+ - Ensure that comments are concise and suggest more concise comment statements if possible
+ - Discourage usage of verbose comment styles such as NatSpec
+ - Look for code duplication
+ - Suggest code completions when:
+ - seeing a TODO comment
+ - seeing a FIXME comment
+
# TypeScript/JavaScript files
- path: "**/*.{ts,tsx,js,jsx}"🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
In @.coderabbit.yaml around lines 152 - 165, The reviews.instructions key is
invalid and must be moved into reviews.path_instructions using a catch-all glob;
remove or rename reviews.instructions and create reviews.path_instructions with
the glob "**" mapping to the same instruction block so the rules apply across
all files (refer to the reviews.instructions entry in the current
.coderabbit.yaml and replace it with reviews.path_instructions: { "**": <your
instruction list> } while preserving the original instruction text).
| - path: "**/*.{ts,tsx,js,jsx}" | ||
| instructions: | | ||
| NextJS: | ||
| - Ensure that "use client" is being used | ||
| - Ensure that only features that allow pure client-side rendering are used | ||
| - NextJS best practices (including file structure, API routes, and static generation methods) are used. | ||
| TypeScript: | ||
| - Avoid 'any', use explicit types | ||
| - Prefer 'import type' for type imports | ||
| - Review for significant deviations from Google JavaScript style guide. Minor style issues are not a priority | ||
| - The code adheres to best practices associated with React | ||
| - The code adheres to best practices associated with React PWA | ||
| - The code adheres to best practices associated with SPA | ||
| - The code adheres to best practices recommended by lighthouse or similar tools for performance | ||
| - The code adheres to best practices associated with Node.js | ||
| - The code adheres to best practices recommended for performance | ||
| Security: | ||
| - No exposed API keys or sensitive data | ||
| - Use expo-secure-store for sensitive storage | ||
| - Validate deep linking configurations | ||
| - Check for common security vulnerabilities such as: | ||
| - SQL Injection | ||
| - XSS (Cross-Site Scripting) | ||
| - CSRF (Cross-Site Request Forgery) | ||
| - Insecure dependencies | ||
| - Sensitive data exposure |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Contradictory NextJS guidance — enforcing "use client" everywhere undermines server components.
Lines 173–174 instruct the reviewer to ensure "use client" is always used and that only pure client-side rendering features are used. This contradicts Next.js App Router best practices, where server components are the default and preferred for performance. Blanket "use client" guidance will produce false-positive review comments on every server component.
Additionally, this block mixes Expo/React Native concerns (Line 190: expo-secure-store, Line 191: deep linking) with Next.js web concerns, which are distinct platforms. Consider splitting these into separate path-instruction entries or clarifying the project's actual stack.
Suggested revision for the NextJS section
NextJS:
- - Ensure that "use client" is being used
- - Ensure that only features that allow pure client-side rendering are used
- - NextJS best practices (including file structure, API routes, and static generation methods) are used.
+ - Ensure "use client" is only added to components that require client-side interactivity (e.g., hooks, event handlers, browser APIs).
+ - Prefer server components where possible for better performance.
+ - Follow NextJS best practices (file structure, API routes, static generation methods).📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| - path: "**/*.{ts,tsx,js,jsx}" | |
| instructions: | | |
| NextJS: | |
| - Ensure that "use client" is being used | |
| - Ensure that only features that allow pure client-side rendering are used | |
| - NextJS best practices (including file structure, API routes, and static generation methods) are used. | |
| TypeScript: | |
| - Avoid 'any', use explicit types | |
| - Prefer 'import type' for type imports | |
| - Review for significant deviations from Google JavaScript style guide. Minor style issues are not a priority | |
| - The code adheres to best practices associated with React | |
| - The code adheres to best practices associated with React PWA | |
| - The code adheres to best practices associated with SPA | |
| - The code adheres to best practices recommended by lighthouse or similar tools for performance | |
| - The code adheres to best practices associated with Node.js | |
| - The code adheres to best practices recommended for performance | |
| Security: | |
| - No exposed API keys or sensitive data | |
| - Use expo-secure-store for sensitive storage | |
| - Validate deep linking configurations | |
| - Check for common security vulnerabilities such as: | |
| - SQL Injection | |
| - XSS (Cross-Site Scripting) | |
| - CSRF (Cross-Site Request Forgery) | |
| - Insecure dependencies | |
| - Sensitive data exposure | |
| - path: "**/*.{ts,tsx,js,jsx}" | |
| instructions: | | |
| NextJS: | |
| - Ensure "use client" is only added to components that require client-side interactivity (e.g., hooks, event handlers, browser APIs). | |
| - Prefer server components where possible for better performance. | |
| - Follow NextJS best practices (file structure, API routes, static generation methods). | |
| TypeScript: | |
| - Avoid 'any', use explicit types | |
| - Prefer 'import type' for type imports | |
| - Review for significant deviations from Google JavaScript style guide. Minor style issues are not a priority | |
| - The code adheres to best practices associated with React | |
| - The code adheres to best practices associated with React PWA | |
| - The code adheres to best practices associated with SPA | |
| - The code adheres to best practices recommended by lighthouse or similar tools for performance | |
| - The code adheres to best practices associated with Node.js | |
| - The code adheres to best practices recommended for performance | |
| Security: | |
| - No exposed API keys or sensitive data | |
| - Use expo-secure-store for sensitive storage | |
| - Validate deep linking configurations | |
| - Check for common security vulnerabilities such as: | |
| - SQL Injection | |
| - XSS (Cross-Site Scripting) | |
| - CSRF (Cross-Site Request Forgery) | |
| - Insecure dependencies | |
| - Sensitive data exposure |
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
In @.coderabbit.yaml around lines 170 - 197, The NextJS guidance block currently
enforces "Ensure that \"use client\" is being used" and "only features that
allow pure client-side rendering are used" which conflicts with Next.js App
Router defaults; update the NextJS instructions (the NextJS bullet under the
path "**/*.{ts,tsx,js,jsx}") to recommend preferring server components by
default and only using "use client" when component requires client-only features
(state, effects, browser APIs); also split or remove Expo/React Native specific
security items (the Security bullets referencing "expo-secure-store" and
"Validate deep linking configurations") from this path and instead create
separate path-instruction entries for React Native/Expo files (e.g., matching
mobile-specific file patterns) or clearly mark platform-specific guidance so web
Next.js reviews do not get mobile-specific checks.
|
Sir @Zahnentferner , I would appreciate your review whenever you’re free. Please let me know if any further improvements are needed. |
1 participant
Adds the standardized CodeRabbit configuration file
as discussed here :https://discord.com/channels/1022871757289422898/1235508903450775622/1474646668183081010