chore(tooling): finalize tooling follow-through notes (#150 #151)

[BigSimmo]

Summary

• Record the durable, bot-agnostic reviewer-cap decision for ledger item #150.
• Add the exact-head Actions-run fallback to the required review protocol, including the job-level PR required proof needed when Checks access is unavailable.
• Preserve the dated historical decision record at docs/tooling-follow-through-decisions-2026-08-12.md and archive completed ledger work.

Verification

• npm run check:branch-review-ledger — branch review ledger guard passed.
• npm run check:outstanding-issues — 306 unique ledger rows passed after the current-main merge.
• npm run docs:check-links — 1,721 repository path references resolve.
• npm run check:github-actions and npm run check:pr-policy — workflow pin and PR-policy guards passed.
• npm run format — repository formatting completed before push.

UI verification not run: documentation and review-policy changes only.

Risk and rollout

• Risk: Low; documentation and process metadata only.
• Rollback: Revert the merge commit.
• Provider or production effects: None.

Notes

• The CI fallback is observation-only: it must match the trusted PR head, find workflow CI, and require the PR required job before reporting hosted CI success.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

You’ve reached a temporary PR review limit under our Fair Usage Limits Policy.

Your recent review volume is higher than typical usage, so adaptive limits are currently applied.

Next review available in:47 minutes

Your organization has reached its usage spending cap. Adjust your spending cap in the billing tab.

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: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 407d3017-db4e-47e1-a20a-a0eef343bfc7

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 8972d0f and fcf37dd.

📒 Files selected for processing (4)

• docs/README.md
• docs/branch-review-ledger.md
• docs/codex-review-protocol.md
• docs/tooling-follow-through-decisions-2026-08-12.md

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The PR documents policies for unavailable reviewer bots and CI observation through the Actions API. It archives issues #150 and #151, updates the recommended execution queue, and adds the new decision record to the historical index.

Changes

Tooling follow-through records

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Decision records and issue ledger docs/tooling-follow-through-decisions.md, docs/outstanding-issues.md, docs/README.md	Documents the #150 reviewer-bot policy, archives #150 and #151, updates the execution queue, and adds the historical record to the index.
CI observation fallback docs/tooling-follow-through-decisions.md, docs/codex-review-protocol.md	Documents read-only Actions API checks that validate the PR head SHA and the required ci/PR required jobs when Checks access is unavailable.

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~5 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• BigSimmo/Database#445: Related to the documented handling of GitHub API permission failures during CI observation.
• BigSimmo/Database#1490: Introduced related CI-token and issue #151 documentation changes.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly identifies the tooling documentation change and the completed follow-through items #150 and #151.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description includes the summary, verification results, risk, rollback, production effects, and notes required for this documentation-only change.

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch codex/finalize-tooling-follow-through-documentation

---

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

[supabase]

This pull request has been ignored for the connected project sjrfecxgysukkwxsowpy because there are no changes detected in supabase directory. You can change this behaviour in Project Integrations Settings ↗︎.

---

Preview Branches by Supabase.
Learn more about Supabase Branching ↗︎.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit:890ea59b04

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Documents tooling policies for reviewer-cap notices and GitHub Actions observation, then archives the related ledger items.

Changes:

• Adds tooling follow-through decisions.
• Indexes the new document.
• Archives ledger items #150 and #151.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.

File	Description
docs/tooling-follow-through-decisions.md	Defines reviewer-cap and CI-observation policies.
docs/README.md	Indexes the decision document.
docs/outstanding-issues.md	Archives the addressed ledger items.

---

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

[BigSimmo]

@copilot Fix the code for all comments in this review thread.

When a review comment includes a suggested change, apply the suggestion exactly.

Do not make changes beyond what is described in the linked review thread.

[Copilot]

@copilot Fix the code for all comments in this review thread.

When a review comment includes a suggested change, apply t...

Fixed in commit fix(docs): address review feedback on tooling follow-through decisions:

1. #150 bot-agnostic rule (docs/tooling-follow-through-decisions.md line 13): Section renamed to "Reviewer-bot billing and review policy"; decision now explicitly covers CodeRabbit spending-cap comments and Codex quota/limit notices — neither counts as reviewer coverage. The rule is stated bot-agnostic at the end.

2. #151 job-level PR required check (docs/tooling-follow-through-decisions.md lines 27-28): Step 4 added to query GET /actions/runs/{run_id}/jobs, locate the PR required job, and require conclusion: success. A workflow run that completed without that job does not prove required CI passed.

3. #151 rule in operational doc (docs/codex-review-protocol.md): New "CI observation fallback (when Checks-read is unavailable)" section added at the end — satisfying #187's requirement that the durable rule land in docs/codex-review-protocol.md. The outstanding-issues.md#151 resolution line updated to point to both docs.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 2

🤖 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/codex-review-protocol.md`:
- Around line 68-77: Update the “CI observation fallback” instructions to
require a matching Actions workflow run named “CI” for the trusted PR head SHA;
if none exists, report CI as unobserved rather than passing, absent, or failed.
Require the run’s “PR required” job, and explicitly report whether that job is
missing or has a non-success conclusion.
In `@docs/README.md`:
- Line 131: Rename tooling-follow-through-decisions.md to a filename containing
2026-08-12, update the point-in-time record link at the README entry, and revise
every inbound reference to the old filename while preserving the record’s
content.

🪄 Autofix

❌ Autofix failed (check again to retry)

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

Run ID: 959f5204-dc47-46f0-a20d-4d6846ce3eb8

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between a73dccf and 8972d0f.

📒 Files selected for processing (4)

• docs/README.md
• docs/codex-review-protocol.md
• docs/outstanding-issues.md
• docs/tooling-follow-through-decisions.md

[coderabbitai]

❌ Cannot run autofix: This PR has merge conflicts.

Please resolve the conflicts with the base branch and try again.

Alternatively, use @coderabbitai resolve merge conflict to automatically resolve the conflicts.

[BigSimmo]

@cursoragent please resolve all conflicts for me and all comments and ensure this merges

[cursor]

You need to increase your spend limit or enable usage-based billing to run background agents. Go to Cursor