🎨 Palette: 빈 디렉토리 상태의 시각적 메타포 일관성 개선

[seonghobae]

💡 What (무엇을 변경했는가): 생성된 index.html 파일에서 빈 디렉토리를 나타내는 텍스트 요소(<div class="empty-dir">)에 다른 디렉토리 링크와 일관된 여백(flexbox 레이아웃)을 적용하고, 열린 폴더 아이콘(📂)을 추가했습니다.
🎯 Why (왜 변경했는가): 기존의 빈 디렉토리 표시는 단순한 기울임꼴 텍스트로만 렌더링되어 다른 디렉토리나 파일 목록과의 시각적 일관성이 부족했습니다. flex 레이아웃과 아이콘을 추가하여 사용자가 빈 디렉토리 상태임을 직관적이고 빠르게 인지할 수 있도록 시각적 메타포를 맞췄습니다.
📸 Before/After (시각적 변경 사항): 일반 텍스트 문구에서 빈 폴더 이모지 아이콘이 포함된 레이아웃으로 변경.
♿ Accessibility (접근성): 추가된 장식용 폴더 아이콘(📂)에는 aria-hidden="true"를 적용하여 스크린 리더에서 아이콘의 유니코드 이름을 중복해서 읽지 않도록(접근성 저하 방지) 처리했습니다.

---

PR created automatically by Jules for task 10656366845750777001 started by @seonghobae

[google-labs-jules]

👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down.

I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job!

For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with @jules. You can find this option in the Pull Request section of your global Jules UI settings. You can always switch back!

New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs.

---

For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task.

[opencode-agent]

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

• Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

• Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

• Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

• Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head 7a237894e28724f8743b66ab1a62e8deaa24f8c9.

• Head SHA: 7a237894e28724f8743b66ab1a62e8deaa24f8c9

• Workflow run: 30424224766

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file (2 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: 7a237894e28724f8743b66ab1a62e8deaa24f8c9
• Workflow run: 30424224766
• Workflow attempt: 1
• Gate result: REQUEST_CHANGES (approval step)

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

• Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

• Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

• Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

• Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head 7a237894e28724f8743b66ab1a62e8deaa24f8c9.

• Head SHA: 7a237894e28724f8743b66ab1a62e8deaa24f8c9

• Workflow run: 30424224766

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file (2 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]

Loading

[seonghobae]

Closing as superseded by the protected branch and draft #360. The generated empty state already has an assistive-technology-hidden decorative icon and flex alignment. #360 owns the remaining evidence-based post-#363 readability and focus contract. No evidence from this duplicate head is reused.

[google-labs-jules]

Closing as superseded by the protected branch and draft #360. The generated empty state already has an assistive-technology-hidden decorative icon and flex alignment. #360 owns the remaining evidence-based post-#363 readability and focus contract. No evidence from this duplicate head is reused.

Understood. Acknowledging that this work is now obsolete and stopping work on this task.