audit and legal

[thedavidmeister]

Motivation

Solution

Checks

By submitting this for review, I'm confirming I've done the following:

• made this PR as small as possible
• unit-tested any new functionality
• linked any relevant issues or PRs
• included screenshots (if this involves a front-end change)

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores
  • Updated configuration for license scanning processes to expand path handling.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The pull request adds the audit/** path to the annotations.path list in REUSE.toml, expanding the set of paths that are excluded from license scanning. This is a single-line configuration update with no functional code changes.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
License Configuration REUSE.toml	Added audit/** path to annotations.path list for license scanning exclusion.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• fix copyright #128: Updates REUSE licensing metadata; related through shared focus on repository licensing configuration.

Suggested reviewers

• hardyjosh

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 2 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Title check	❓ Inconclusive	The title 'audit and legal' is vague and does not clearly describe the specific change made. While the change involves adding audit paths to REUSE.toml, the title does not convey this primary change or its purpose.	Use a more descriptive title that clearly explains the change, such as 'Add audit paths to REUSE.toml license scanning' or 'Exclude audit directory from license scanning'.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch 2026-02-10-audit

---

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

---

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 and usage tips.}

[github-actions]

@coderabbitai assess this PR size classification for the totality of the PR with the following criterias and report it in your comment:

S/M/L PR Classification Guidelines:

This guide helps classify merged pull requests by effort and complexity rather than just line count. The goal is to assess the difficulty and scope of changes after they have been completed.

Small (S)

Characteristics:

• Simple bug fixes, typos, or minor refactoring
• Single-purpose changes affecting 1-2 files
• Documentation updates
• Configuration tweaks
• Changes that require minimal context to review

Review Effort: Would have taken 5-10 minutes

Examples:

• Fix typo in variable name
• Update README with new instructions
• Adjust configuration values
• Simple one-line bug fixes
• Import statement cleanup

Medium (M)

Characteristics:

• Feature additions or enhancements
• Refactoring that touches multiple files but maintains existing behavior
• Breaking changes with backward compatibility
• Changes requiring some domain knowledge to review

Review Effort: Would have taken 15-30 minutes

Examples:

• Add new feature or component
• Refactor common utility functions
• Update dependencies with minor breaking changes
• Add new component with tests
• Performance optimizations
• More complex bug fixes

Large (L)

Characteristics:

• Major feature implementations
• Breaking changes or API redesigns
• Complex refactoring across multiple modules
• New architectural patterns or significant design changes
• Changes requiring deep context and multiple review rounds

Review Effort: Would have taken 45+ minutes

Examples:

• Complete new feature with frontend/backend changes
• Protocol upgrades or breaking changes
• Major architectural refactoring
• Framework or technology upgrades

Additional Factors to Consider

When deciding between sizes, also consider:

• Test coverage impact: More comprehensive test changes lean toward larger classification
• Risk level: Changes to critical systems bump up a size category
• Team familiarity: Novel patterns or technologies increase complexity

Notes:

• the assessment must be for the totality of the PR, that means comparing the base branch to the last commit of the PR
• the assessment output must be exactly one of: S, M or L (single-line comment) in format of: SIZE={S/M/L}
• do not include any additional text, only the size classification
• your assessment comment must not include tips or additional sections
• do NOT tag me or anyone else on your comment

[coderabbitai]

Tip

For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes.

🧩 Analysis chain

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Get the full diff for this PR to assess totality of changes
git fetch origin main 2>&1
git fetch origin 2026-02-10-audit 2>&1
git diff origin/main...origin/2026-02-10-audit --stat
git diff origin/main...origin/2026-02-10-audit

Length of output: 639

---

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Fetch and compare branches using different approach
git fetch origin main:main 2>&1 || true
git fetch origin 2026-02-10-audit:pr-branch 2>&1 || true

# Try to get the diff using commit references
git log --oneline main..pr-branch 2>&1 || true

# Get diff stats
git diff main..pr-branch --stat 2>&1 || true

# Get full diff
git diff main..pr-branch 2>&1 || true

Length of output: 103

---

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# List available branches
git branch -a

# Check current branch
git status

# Try using GitHub CLI to get the PR diff
gh pr view 166 --json files,additions,deletions

# Get the PR diff directly
gh pr diff 166

Length of output: 852

---

SIZE=S

---

🧠 Learnings used

Learnt from: 0xgleb
Repo: rainlanguage/rain.math.float PR: 46
File: .github/workflows/rainix.yaml:4-6
Timestamp: 2025-06-11T10:46:58.363Z
Learning: For GitHub Actions workflows in this repository, the maintainer prefers using `${{ github.ref }}` (full ref path) in the `concurrency.group` key to ensure correct run-cancellation behavior, even if it is less readable than `${{ github.ref_name }}`.

---

Learnt from: 0xgleb
Repo: rainlanguage/rain.math.float PR: 59
File: crates/float/src/lib.rs:233-242
Timestamp: 2025-06-17T10:17:56.205Z
Learning: In the rainlanguage/rain.math.float repository, the maintainer 0xgleb prefers to handle documentation additions and improvements in separate issues rather than inline with feature PRs.

---

Learnt from: thedavidmeister
Repo: rainlanguage/rain.math.float PR: 96
File: test/src/lib/implementation/LibDecimalFloatImplementation.maximize.t.sol:15-29
Timestamp: 2025-08-11T14:32:50.439Z
Learning: In test code for the rain.math.float repository, redundant checks may be intentionally kept for clarity and documentation purposes, even when they could be simplified. The maintainer (thedavidmeister) prefers explicit assertions in test code to make the test's intent clear to future readers, prioritizing readability over conciseness.

---

Learnt from: thedavidmeister
Repo: rainlanguage/rain.math.float PR: 99
File: src/lib/implementation/LibDecimalFloatImplementation.sol:309-325
Timestamp: 2025-08-14T16:32:05.932Z
Learning: In the rainlanguage/rain.math.float repository, maintainer thedavidmeister prefers to keep assembly-based overflow checks inline for gas optimization rather than extracting them into helper functions, even when it results in code duplication.