[WRONG BRANCH] fix(router): reject ambiguous provider model selectors

[luvs01]

Motivation

• A seeded Command Code preset used the native id deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash, whose vendor prefix collides with the built-in deepseek provider and can cause the router to send Command Code prompts to DeepSeek instead.
• The change fails closed on this ambiguity to avoid leaking prompts or consuming the wrong provider credential when both providers are configured.

Description

• Add a routing guard in routeModelInternal (src/router.ts) that detects when a slash-containing model selector matches a configured provider namespace while another enabled provider has that exact full id as its defaultModel, and throw a descriptive Ambiguous model selector error instructing callers to use the encoded provider slug.
• Add a regression test in tests/commandcode-provider.test.ts that reproduces the Command Code / DeepSeek collision and verifies the ambiguous native selector is rejected while the encoded commandcode/deepseek-deepseek-v4-flash selector still routes to Command Code.
• Preserve existing decoding and encoded-slug behavior so callers can continue to choose the correct upstream explicitly.

Testing

• Ran the focused provider test with the repository Bun binary: OCX_TEST_NO_QUEUE=1 node_modules/bun/bin/bun.exe test tests/commandcode-provider.test.ts and the updated file's tests passed (8 tests).
• Ran bun run typecheck and the full bun run test suite; the suite completed successfully in the environment used for the run.
• Ran bun run privacy:scan as part of validation and it completed successfully.
• Note: an older system Bun (1.2.14) lacks node:zlib.zstdDecompressSync and can cause bun test failures when invoked from the system bun; the focused tests were validated with the repository-provided Bun binary that matches expected runtime features.

---

Codex Task

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.
To continue using code reviews, add credits to your account and enable them for code reviews in your settings.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@luvs01, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 58 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

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 configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: b8a3c256-bd41-4680-aab6-d356148df39b

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 2468502 and 469dfaa.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• src/router.ts
• tests/commandcode-provider.test.ts

---

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

[github-actions]

✅ Deterministic PR hygiene checks passed.

[github-actions]

⏳ DRAFT

• wrong target branch (main); retarget to dev.

What to do

• Retarget this PR to dev — all contributions go to dev.

Its title has been prefixed with [WRONG BRANCH].
This pull request is being kept as a draft automatically. Once every issue above is resolved, it will be marked ready for review again.