docs(plan): Phase 79 residual authority — MASTER sole live index#1340
Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 53 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 Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe documentation shifts live tracking to post-polish residual Phases 79–80, marks the cleanup baseline historical, adds residual planning artifacts, and updates MASTER and the roadmap with current status, gate evidence, and scope boundaries. ChangesPost-polish residual hardening
Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~10 minutes Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers: 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ 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: 5
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@docs/plan/post-polish-milestones.md`:
- Around line 3-6: Update the milestone table in post-polish-milestones.md to
distinguish phase numbers from GitHub milestone numbers: add explicit Phase and
GH milestone columns, mapping phases 79 and 80 to GitHub milestones 98 and 99
respectively, while preserving the existing milestone names, criteria, and
statuses.
In `@docs/plan/post-polish-task-breakdown.md`:
- Around line 3-6: Remove trailing whitespace from the metadata lines and the
additionally referenced lines in the document, preserving any intended Markdown
line breaks by using blank lines or explicit Markdown/HTML breaks where needed.
In `@docs/plan/task-breakdown.md`:
- Line 10: Update the tracking note in task-breakdown.md to state that MASTER is
the sole live index, while the post-polish documents are linked plan SSOT
artifacts rather than a second live tracker.
In `@docs/progress/MASTER.md`:
- Around line 73-79: Make the perf/leak evidence boundary explicit in both live
summaries: update docs/progress/MASTER.md lines 73-79 to state that behavior and
microbenchmark evidence proves neither leak absence nor production capacity, and
mirror the same limitation in docs/roadmap.md lines 46-47 acceptance text.
Preserve the existing evidence classifications and capacity status.
- Line 5: Replace the future document timestamps with the actual publication
date in docs/progress/MASTER.md lines 5-5, docs/plan/milestones.md lines 33-35,
docs/plan/task-breakdown.md lines 8-8, and docs/roadmap.md lines 3-3; keep each
document’s existing timestamp label and formatting unchanged.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: d74a7077-cbac-4a4a-bfc9-1258536c4643
📒 Files selected for processing (8)
docs/plan/dependency-graph.mddocs/plan/milestones.mddocs/plan/post-polish-dependency-graph.mddocs/plan/post-polish-milestones.mddocs/plan/post-polish-task-breakdown.mddocs/plan/task-breakdown.mddocs/progress/MASTER.mddocs/roadmap.md
| | # | Milestone | Criteria | Status | | ||
| |---|---|---|---| | ||
| | 79 | Docs Authority + Gates Hygiene | plan/* non-live; MASTER sole index; doc SSOT green; perf gate noted | open | | ||
| | 80 | Mobile hubClient Strangler | thin re-export; typecheck green; RN Hub-only boundary documented | open | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🗄️ Data Integrity & Integration | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win
Keep phase numbers separate from GitHub milestone numbers.
This artifact labels 79 and 80 as milestones, while docs/progress/MASTER.md and docs/plan/milestones.md define GitHub milestones 98 and 99 for Phases 79–80. Add explicit Phase and GH milestone columns, or change the identifiers to 98/99.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@docs/plan/post-polish-milestones.md` around lines 3 - 6, Update the milestone
table in post-polish-milestones.md to distinguish phase numbers from GitHub
milestone numbers: add explicit Phase and GH milestone columns, mapping phases
79 and 80 to GitHub milestones 98 and 99 respectively, while preserving the
existing milestone names, criteria, and statuses.
| > tracking: GITHUB_FULL (Issues + Milestones + Project board) | ||
| > last-updated: 2026-07-21 | ||
| > program: knowledge-first strangler cleanup + lightweight wiki (non-SSOT) — **CLOSED** | ||
| > tracking: historical only; live tracking is GITHUB_FULL via MASTER + post-polish plan |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🗄️ Data Integrity & Integration | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win
Preserve MASTER as the sole live index.
“Live tracking is GITHUB_FULL via MASTER + post-polish plan” makes the plan appear to be a second live tracker. Clarify that MASTER is the sole live index and the post-polish documents are linked plan SSOT artifacts.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@docs/plan/task-breakdown.md` at line 10, Update the tracking note in
task-breakdown.md to state that MASTER is the sole live index, while the
post-polish documents are linked plan SSOT artifacts rather than a second live
tracker.
| > **Last Updated**: 2026-07-20 | ||
| > **Task**: post-polish residual hardening (docs authority + mobile hubClient strangler) | ||
| > **Started**: 2026-07-16 (Visual polish); residual program 2026-07-20 | ||
| > **Last Updated**: 2026-07-21 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🟡 Minor | ⚡ Quick win
Align all document timestamps with the actual publication date.
docs/progress/MASTER.md#L5-L5: replace the futureLast Updateddate.docs/plan/milestones.md#L33-L35: replace the future Reality sync date.docs/plan/task-breakdown.md#L8-L8: replace the futurelast-updateddate.docs/roadmap.md#L3-L3: replace the future last-updated date.
📍 Affects 4 files
docs/progress/MASTER.md#L5-L5(this comment)docs/plan/milestones.md#L33-L35docs/plan/task-breakdown.md#L8-L8docs/roadmap.md#L3-L3
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@docs/progress/MASTER.md` at line 5, Replace the future document timestamps
with the actual publication date in docs/progress/MASTER.md lines 5-5,
docs/plan/milestones.md lines 33-35, docs/plan/task-breakdown.md lines 8-8, and
docs/roadmap.md lines 3-3; keep each document’s existing timestamp label and
formatting unchanged.
| ### Backend perf / leak gates (T79.2 evidence) | ||
|
|
||
| | Item | State | Note | | ||
| |---|---|---| | ||
| | `scripts/verify/verify-backend-perf-leak-gates.ps1` | **PASS** (behavior + short microbench) | Not production capacity | | ||
| | [backend-performance-gates.md](../reference/backend-performance-gates.md) | Active owner (dated 2026-06-27) | Evidence classes: behavior / microbench / load smoke / pprof | | ||
| | Capacity claim | **Not claimed** | Load smoke / pprof still path-specific; no “production capacity proven” language | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🗄️ Data Integrity & Integration | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win
Make the perf/leak evidence boundary explicit in every live summary.
docs/progress/MASTER.md#L73-L79: state that behavior/microbenchmark evidence proves neither leak absence nor production capacity.docs/roadmap.md#L46-L47: mirror the same explicit limitation in the roadmap acceptance text.
📍 Affects 2 files
docs/progress/MASTER.md#L73-L79(this comment)docs/roadmap.md#L46-L47
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@docs/progress/MASTER.md` around lines 73 - 79, Make the perf/leak evidence
boundary explicit in both live summaries: update docs/progress/MASTER.md lines
73-79 to state that behavior and microbenchmark evidence proves neither leak
absence nor production capacity, and mirror the same limitation in
docs/roadmap.md lines 46-47 acceptance text. Preserve the existing evidence
classifications and capacity status.
Summary
docs/plan/*(remove stale “Phase 61 / milestone 82” live pointers)docs/progress/MASTER.mdas sole live index for Post-Polish Residual Hardening (Phases 79–80 · docs: strengthen HISTORICAL banners on cleanup plan/*; MASTER sole live index (T79.1) #1335–docs: RN Hub-only boundary note for Mobile (T80.3) #1339)post-polish-task-breakdown|dependency-graph|milestones)docs/roadmap.mdcurrent SPEC to residual programIssues
Closes #1335
Closes #1336
Verify
pwsh ./scripts/verify/verify-doc-ssot.ps1→ okOut of scope
Summary by CodeRabbit