docs(agents): mark member-scoped guardrails as an open gap, not a design - #787

Merged
jarvis9443 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/guardrail-scope-known-gap
Jul 20, 2026
Merged

docs(agents): mark member-scoped guardrails as an open gap, not a design#787
jarvis9443 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/guardrail-scope-known-gap

Conversation

@jarvis9443

@jarvis9443jarvis9443 commented Jul 20, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

The per-model-gate rule added alongside #783/#786 listed guardrail attachment as a deliberate entry-scoped exception. That is wrong and actively misleading: a guardrail scoped to a member model silently never runs when the model is reached through a Model Group (measured — direct request 422, same request via the group 200, content forwarded upstream), and it stays unfixed only because the semantics are undecided, not because entry scope is correct.

Input guardrails resolve before a target is picked, and under failover there is no single "winning member" to resolve against — so the fix needs a product call (union of candidate members vs. entry scope) rather than the mechanical treatment allowed_cidrs and rate limits got. Tracked in api7/AISIX-Cloud#1090.

Left as written, the rule would tell the next author to scope a new gate to the requested entry and cite guardrails as precedent.

Ref api7/AISIX-Cloud#1090

@jarvis9443
docs(agents): mark member-scoped guardrails as an open gap, not a design
22c3df5
The per-model-gate rule listed guardrail attachment as a deliberate
entry-scoped exception. It is not: a guardrail scoped to a member
silently never runs for group traffic (measured: direct 422, via group
200), and it stays unfixed only because the input-guardrail semantics
under failover are undecided. Left as written, the rule would tell the
next author to scope a new gate to the entry and cite this as precedent.
Ref api7/AISIX-Cloud#1090
@coderabbitai

coderabbitaiBot commented Jul 20, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

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:17 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: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: fab69fe2-137c-4573-9755-f12f0bc3b1e8

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 71e6d29 and 22c3df5.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • crates/aisix-proxy/AGENTS.md
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Commit unit tests in branch docs/guardrail-scope-known-gap

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

@jarvis9443
jarvis9443 merged commit 9029e57 into mainJul 20, 2026
10 checks passed
@jarvis9443
jarvis9443 deleted the docs/guardrail-scope-known-gap branch July 20, 2026 09:55
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@jarvis9443
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Add copy buttons to all 
 blocks\n(function() {\n function addCopyButtons() {\n document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {\n if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;\n codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');\n \n var btn = document.createElement('button');\n btn.textContent = 'Copy';\n btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';\n btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };\n btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };\n btn.onclick = function() {\n navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {\n btn.textContent = 'Copied!';\n setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);\n });\n };\n codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';\n codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);\n });\n }\n \n addCopyButtons();\n \n // Re-run on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '

Skip to content
docs(agents): mark member-scoped guardrails as an open gap, not a design - #787
Merged
jarvis9443 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
docs/guardrail-scope-known-gap
Jul 20, 2026
Merged
docs(agents): mark member-scoped guardrails as an open gap, not a design#787
jarvis9443 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
docs/guardrail-scope-known-gap
Conversation
@jarvis9443
@jarvis9443jarvis9443
commented
Jul 20, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
The per-model-gate rule added alongside #783/#786 listed guardrail attachment as a deliberate entry-scoped exception. That is wrong and actively misleading: a guardrail scoped to a member model silently never runs when the model is reached through a Model Group (measured — direct request 422, same request via the group 200, content forwarded upstream), and it stays unfixed only because the semantics are undecided, not because entry scope is correct.
Input guardrails resolve before a target is picked, and under failover there is no single "winning member" to resolve against — so the fix needs a product call (union of candidate members vs. entry scope) rather than the mechanical treatment allowed_cidrs and rate limits got. Tracked in api7/AISIX-Cloud#1090.
Left as written, the rule would tell the next author to scope a new gate to the requested entry and cite guardrails as precedent.
Ref api7/AISIX-Cloud#1090
@jarvis9443
docs(agents): mark member-scoped guardrails as an open gap, not a design
22c3df5
The per-model-gate rule listed guardrail attachment as a deliberate
entry-scoped exception. It is not: a guardrail scoped to a member
silently never runs for group traffic (measured: direct 422, via group
200), and it stays unfixed only because the input-guardrail semantics
under failover are undecided. Left as written, the rule would tell the
next author to scope a new gate to the entry and cite this as precedent.
Ref api7/AISIX-Cloud#1090
@coderabbitai
coderabbitaiBot
commented
Jul 20, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

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:17 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: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: fab69fe2-137c-4573-9755-f12f0bc3b1e8
📥 Commits
Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 71e6d29 and 22c3df5.
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • crates/aisix-proxy/AGENTS.md
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  •  Create PR with unit tests
  •  Commit unit tests in branch docs/guardrail-scope-known-gap
Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.
@jarvis9443
jarvis9443
merged commit 9029e57
into
mainJul 20, 2026

10 checks passed

@jarvis9443
jarvis9443
deleted the

docs/guardrail-scope-known-gap

branch
July 20, 2026 09:55
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@jarvis9443

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode\n(function() {\n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '\n .markdown-body {\n color-scheme: dark light;\n }\n .markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }\n .markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }\n .markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }\n .markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }\n .markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }\n .markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }\n ';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n})();", "GitHub Dark Mode README Fix");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
docs(agents): mark member-scoped guardrails as an open gap, not a design - #787
Merged
jarvis9443 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
docs/guardrail-scope-known-gap
Jul 20, 2026
Merged
docs(agents): mark member-scoped guardrails as an open gap, not a design#787
jarvis9443 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
docs/guardrail-scope-known-gap
Conversation
@jarvis9443
@jarvis9443jarvis9443
commented
Jul 20, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
The per-model-gate rule added alongside #783/#786 listed guardrail attachment as a deliberate entry-scoped exception. That is wrong and actively misleading: a guardrail scoped to a member model silently never runs when the model is reached through a Model Group (measured — direct request 422, same request via the group 200, content forwarded upstream), and it stays unfixed only because the semantics are undecided, not because entry scope is correct.
Input guardrails resolve before a target is picked, and under failover there is no single "winning member" to resolve against — so the fix needs a product call (union of candidate members vs. entry scope) rather than the mechanical treatment allowed_cidrs and rate limits got. Tracked in api7/AISIX-Cloud#1090.
Left as written, the rule would tell the next author to scope a new gate to the requested entry and cite guardrails as precedent.
Ref api7/AISIX-Cloud#1090
@jarvis9443
docs(agents): mark member-scoped guardrails as an open gap, not a design
22c3df5
The per-model-gate rule listed guardrail attachment as a deliberate
entry-scoped exception. It is not: a guardrail scoped to a member
silently never runs for group traffic (measured: direct 422, via group
200), and it stays unfixed only because the input-guardrail semantics
under failover are undecided. Left as written, the rule would tell the
next author to scope a new gate to the entry and cite this as precedent.
Ref api7/AISIX-Cloud#1090
@coderabbitai
coderabbitaiBot
commented
Jul 20, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

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:17 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: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: fab69fe2-137c-4573-9755-f12f0bc3b1e8
📥 Commits
Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 71e6d29 and 22c3df5.
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • crates/aisix-proxy/AGENTS.md
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  •  Create PR with unit tests
  •  Commit unit tests in branch docs/guardrail-scope-known-gap
Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.
@jarvis9443
jarvis9443
merged commit 9029e57
into
mainJul 20, 2026

10 checks passed

@jarvis9443
jarvis9443
deleted the

docs/guardrail-scope-known-gap

branch
July 20, 2026 09:55
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@jarvis9443

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer\n(function() {\n var ref = document.referrer;\n var terms = [];\n \n if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {\n var url = new URL(ref);\n var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');\n if (q) {\n terms = q.split(/\\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });\n }\n }\n \n if (terms.length === 0) return;\n \n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n \n function highlight(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node\n var text = node.textContent;\n var found = false;\n terms.forEach(function(term) {\n var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\\]\\\\]/g, '\\\\') + ')', 'gi');\n if (regex.test(text)) {\n found = true;\n var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();\n var parts = text.split(regex);\n parts.forEach(function(part, i) {\n if (i % 2 === 0) {\n frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));\n } else {\n var span = document.createElement('span');\n span.className = 'userscript-highlight';\n span.textContent = part;\n frag.appendChild(span);\n }\n });\n node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);\n }\n });\n } else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element\n var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];\n if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {\n Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);\n }\n }\n }\n \n highlight(document.body);\n \n // Re-highlight on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Highlight Search Terms");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
docs(agents): mark member-scoped guardrails as an open gap, not a design - #787
Merged
jarvis9443 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
docs/guardrail-scope-known-gap
Jul 20, 2026
Merged
docs(agents): mark member-scoped guardrails as an open gap, not a design#787
jarvis9443 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
docs/guardrail-scope-known-gap
Conversation
@jarvis9443
@jarvis9443jarvis9443
commented
Jul 20, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
The per-model-gate rule added alongside #783/#786 listed guardrail attachment as a deliberate entry-scoped exception. That is wrong and actively misleading: a guardrail scoped to a member model silently never runs when the model is reached through a Model Group (measured — direct request 422, same request via the group 200, content forwarded upstream), and it stays unfixed only because the semantics are undecided, not because entry scope is correct.
Input guardrails resolve before a target is picked, and under failover there is no single "winning member" to resolve against — so the fix needs a product call (union of candidate members vs. entry scope) rather than the mechanical treatment allowed_cidrs and rate limits got. Tracked in api7/AISIX-Cloud#1090.
Left as written, the rule would tell the next author to scope a new gate to the requested entry and cite guardrails as precedent.
Ref api7/AISIX-Cloud#1090
@jarvis9443
docs(agents): mark member-scoped guardrails as an open gap, not a design
22c3df5
The per-model-gate rule listed guardrail attachment as a deliberate
entry-scoped exception. It is not: a guardrail scoped to a member
silently never runs for group traffic (measured: direct 422, via group
200), and it stays unfixed only because the input-guardrail semantics
under failover are undecided. Left as written, the rule would tell the
next author to scope a new gate to the entry and cite this as precedent.
Ref api7/AISIX-Cloud#1090
@coderabbitai
coderabbitaiBot
commented
Jul 20, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

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:17 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: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: fab69fe2-137c-4573-9755-f12f0bc3b1e8
📥 Commits
Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 71e6d29 and 22c3df5.
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • crates/aisix-proxy/AGENTS.md
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  •  Create PR with unit tests
  •  Commit unit tests in branch docs/guardrail-scope-known-gap
Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.
@jarvis9443
jarvis9443
merged commit 9029e57
into
mainJul 20, 2026

10 checks passed

@jarvis9443
jarvis9443
deleted the

docs/guardrail-scope-known-gap

branch
July 20, 2026 09:55
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@jarvis9443

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page\n(function() {\n var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',\n 'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',\n 'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];\n \n function cleanUrl(url) {\n try {\n var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);\n var changed = false;\n trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {\n if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {\n u.searchParams.delete(p);\n changed = true;\n }\n });\n return changed ? u.toString() : url;\n } catch (e) {\n return url;\n }\n }\n \n function cleanLinks() {\n document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n \n cleanLinks();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1) {\n if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();\n node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Remove Tracking Parameters from Links");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '

Skip to content
docs(agents): mark member-scoped guardrails as an open gap, not a design - #787
Merged
jarvis9443 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
docs/guardrail-scope-known-gap
Jul 20, 2026
Merged
docs(agents): mark member-scoped guardrails as an open gap, not a design#787
jarvis9443 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
docs/guardrail-scope-known-gap
Conversation
@jarvis9443
@jarvis9443jarvis9443
commented
Jul 20, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
The per-model-gate rule added alongside #783/#786 listed guardrail attachment as a deliberate entry-scoped exception. That is wrong and actively misleading: a guardrail scoped to a member model silently never runs when the model is reached through a Model Group (measured — direct request 422, same request via the group 200, content forwarded upstream), and it stays unfixed only because the semantics are undecided, not because entry scope is correct.
Input guardrails resolve before a target is picked, and under failover there is no single "winning member" to resolve against — so the fix needs a product call (union of candidate members vs. entry scope) rather than the mechanical treatment allowed_cidrs and rate limits got. Tracked in api7/AISIX-Cloud#1090.
Left as written, the rule would tell the next author to scope a new gate to the requested entry and cite guardrails as precedent.
Ref api7/AISIX-Cloud#1090
@jarvis9443
docs(agents): mark member-scoped guardrails as an open gap, not a design
22c3df5
The per-model-gate rule listed guardrail attachment as a deliberate
entry-scoped exception. It is not: a guardrail scoped to a member
silently never runs for group traffic (measured: direct 422, via group
200), and it stays unfixed only because the input-guardrail semantics
under failover are undecided. Left as written, the rule would tell the
next author to scope a new gate to the entry and cite this as precedent.
Ref api7/AISIX-Cloud#1090
@coderabbitai
coderabbitaiBot
commented
Jul 20, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

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:17 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: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: fab69fe2-137c-4573-9755-f12f0bc3b1e8
📥 Commits
Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 71e6d29 and 22c3df5.
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • crates/aisix-proxy/AGENTS.md
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  •  Create PR with unit tests
  •  Commit unit tests in branch docs/guardrail-scope-known-gap
Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.
@jarvis9443
jarvis9443
merged commit 9029e57
into
mainJul 20, 2026

10 checks passed

@jarvis9443
jarvis9443
deleted the

docs/guardrail-scope-known-gap

branch
July 20, 2026 09:55
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@jarvis9443

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube\n(function() {\n function tryTheater() {\n var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label=\"Theater mode\"], ytd-player #player button[title=\"Theater mode\"]');\n if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {\n btn.click();\n }\n }\n \n // Try immediately\n tryTheater();\n \n // Try after navigation (SPA)\n var lastUrl = location.href;\n setInterval(function() {\n if (location.href !== lastUrl) {\n lastUrl = location.href;\n setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);\n }\n }, 1000);\n \n // Also try on player load\n var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "YouTube Theater Mode Default");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
docs(agents): mark member-scoped guardrails as an open gap, not a design - #787
Merged
jarvis9443 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
docs/guardrail-scope-known-gap
Jul 20, 2026
Merged
docs(agents): mark member-scoped guardrails as an open gap, not a design#787
jarvis9443 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
docs/guardrail-scope-known-gap
Conversation
@jarvis9443
@jarvis9443jarvis9443
commented
Jul 20, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
The per-model-gate rule added alongside #783/#786 listed guardrail attachment as a deliberate entry-scoped exception. That is wrong and actively misleading: a guardrail scoped to a member model silently never runs when the model is reached through a Model Group (measured — direct request 422, same request via the group 200, content forwarded upstream), and it stays unfixed only because the semantics are undecided, not because entry scope is correct.
Input guardrails resolve before a target is picked, and under failover there is no single "winning member" to resolve against — so the fix needs a product call (union of candidate members vs. entry scope) rather than the mechanical treatment allowed_cidrs and rate limits got. Tracked in api7/AISIX-Cloud#1090.
Left as written, the rule would tell the next author to scope a new gate to the requested entry and cite guardrails as precedent.
Ref api7/AISIX-Cloud#1090
@jarvis9443
docs(agents): mark member-scoped guardrails as an open gap, not a design
22c3df5
The per-model-gate rule listed guardrail attachment as a deliberate
entry-scoped exception. It is not: a guardrail scoped to a member
silently never runs for group traffic (measured: direct 422, via group
200), and it stays unfixed only because the input-guardrail semantics
under failover are undecided. Left as written, the rule would tell the
next author to scope a new gate to the entry and cite this as precedent.
Ref api7/AISIX-Cloud#1090
@coderabbitai
coderabbitaiBot
commented
Jul 20, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

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:17 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: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: fab69fe2-137c-4573-9755-f12f0bc3b1e8
📥 Commits
Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 71e6d29 and 22c3df5.
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • crates/aisix-proxy/AGENTS.md
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  •  Create PR with unit tests
  •  Commit unit tests in branch docs/guardrail-scope-known-gap
Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.
@jarvis9443
jarvis9443
merged commit 9029e57
into
mainJul 20, 2026

10 checks passed

@jarvis9443
jarvis9443
deleted the

docs/guardrail-scope-known-gap

branch
July 20, 2026 09:55
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@jarvis9443

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content\n(function() {\n function unstick() {\n document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role=\"banner\"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*=\"position: fixed\"], [style*=\"position:sticky\"]').forEach(function(el) {\n if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || \n getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {\n el.style.position = 'static';\n el.style.top = 'auto';\n el.style.zIndex = 'auto';\n }\n });\n }\n \n unstick();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });\n})();", "Kill Sticky Headers");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
docs(agents): mark member-scoped guardrails as an open gap, not a design - #787
Merged
jarvis9443 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
docs/guardrail-scope-known-gap
Jul 20, 2026
Merged
docs(agents): mark member-scoped guardrails as an open gap, not a design#787
jarvis9443 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
docs/guardrail-scope-known-gap
Conversation
@jarvis9443
@jarvis9443jarvis9443
commented
Jul 20, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
The per-model-gate rule added alongside #783/#786 listed guardrail attachment as a deliberate entry-scoped exception. That is wrong and actively misleading: a guardrail scoped to a member model silently never runs when the model is reached through a Model Group (measured — direct request 422, same request via the group 200, content forwarded upstream), and it stays unfixed only because the semantics are undecided, not because entry scope is correct.
Input guardrails resolve before a target is picked, and under failover there is no single "winning member" to resolve against — so the fix needs a product call (union of candidate members vs. entry scope) rather than the mechanical treatment allowed_cidrs and rate limits got. Tracked in api7/AISIX-Cloud#1090.
Left as written, the rule would tell the next author to scope a new gate to the requested entry and cite guardrails as precedent.
Ref api7/AISIX-Cloud#1090
@jarvis9443
docs(agents): mark member-scoped guardrails as an open gap, not a design
22c3df5
The per-model-gate rule listed guardrail attachment as a deliberate
entry-scoped exception. It is not: a guardrail scoped to a member
silently never runs for group traffic (measured: direct 422, via group
200), and it stays unfixed only because the input-guardrail semantics
under failover are undecided. Left as written, the rule would tell the
next author to scope a new gate to the entry and cite this as precedent.
Ref api7/AISIX-Cloud#1090
@coderabbitai
coderabbitaiBot
commented
Jul 20, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

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:17 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: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: fab69fe2-137c-4573-9755-f12f0bc3b1e8
📥 Commits
Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 71e6d29 and 22c3df5.
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • crates/aisix-proxy/AGENTS.md
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  •  Create PR with unit tests
  •  Commit unit tests in branch docs/guardrail-scope-known-gap
Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.
@jarvis9443
jarvis9443
merged commit 9029e57
into
mainJul 20, 2026

10 checks passed

@jarvis9443
jarvis9443
deleted the

docs/guardrail-scope-known-gap

branch
July 20, 2026 09:55
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@jarvis9443

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site\n(function() {\n var enabled = true;\n \n function applyDarkMode() {\n if (!enabled) return;\n \n // Create style element if it doesn't exist\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (!style) {\n style = document.createElement('style');\n style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n }\n \n // Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video\n style.textContent = '\n /* Invert everything except media */\n html {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #1a1a2e !important;\n }\n \n /* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */\n img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*=\"background-image\"] {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n }\n \n /* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */\n .no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,\n [data-theme=\"light\"], [data-theme=\"light\"],\n .ace_editor, .ace_editor *,\n .CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,\n .monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,\n .markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,\n .highlight, .highlight *,\n pre code, pre code * {\n filter: none !important;\n }\n \n /* Fix common UI elements */\n .modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #2d2d44 !important;\n border-color: #444 !important;\n }\n \n /* Scrollbars */\n ::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }\n \n /* Selection */\n ::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ';\n }\n \n function removeDarkMode() {\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (style) style.remove();\n }\n \n // Toggle with Alt+Shift+D\n document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {\n if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {\n e.preventDefault();\n enabled = !enabled;\n if (enabled) {\n applyDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');\n } else {\n removeDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');\n }\n }\n });\n \n // Apply on load\n applyDarkMode();\n \n // Re-apply on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {\n applyDarkMode();\n }\n });\n observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });\n \n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');\n})();", "Universal Dark Mode");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); }
})();
})();

Skip to content
docs(agents): mark member-scoped guardrails as an open gap, not a design - #787
Merged
jarvis9443 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
docs/guardrail-scope-known-gap
Jul 20, 2026
Merged
docs(agents): mark member-scoped guardrails as an open gap, not a design#787
jarvis9443 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
docs/guardrail-scope-known-gap
Conversation
@jarvis9443
@jarvis9443jarvis9443
commented
Jul 20, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
The per-model-gate rule added alongside #783/#786 listed guardrail attachment as a deliberate entry-scoped exception. That is wrong and actively misleading: a guardrail scoped to a member model silently never runs when the model is reached through a Model Group (measured — direct request 422, same request via the group 200, content forwarded upstream), and it stays unfixed only because the semantics are undecided, not because entry scope is correct.
Input guardrails resolve before a target is picked, and under failover there is no single "winning member" to resolve against — so the fix needs a product call (union of candidate members vs. entry scope) rather than the mechanical treatment allowed_cidrs and rate limits got. Tracked in api7/AISIX-Cloud#1090.
Left as written, the rule would tell the next author to scope a new gate to the requested entry and cite guardrails as precedent.
Ref api7/AISIX-Cloud#1090
@jarvis9443
docs(agents): mark member-scoped guardrails as an open gap, not a design
22c3df5
The per-model-gate rule listed guardrail attachment as a deliberate
entry-scoped exception. It is not: a guardrail scoped to a member
silently never runs for group traffic (measured: direct 422, via group
200), and it stays unfixed only because the input-guardrail semantics
under failover are undecided. Left as written, the rule would tell the
next author to scope a new gate to the entry and cite this as precedent.
Ref api7/AISIX-Cloud#1090
@coderabbitai
coderabbitaiBot
commented
Jul 20, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

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:17 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: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: fab69fe2-137c-4573-9755-f12f0bc3b1e8
📥 Commits
Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 71e6d29 and 22c3df5.
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • crates/aisix-proxy/AGENTS.md
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  •  Create PR with unit tests
  •  Commit unit tests in branch docs/guardrail-scope-known-gap
Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.
@jarvis9443
jarvis9443
merged commit 9029e57
into
mainJul 20, 2026

10 checks passed

@jarvis9443
jarvis9443
deleted the

docs/guardrail-scope-known-gap

branch
July 20, 2026 09:55
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@jarvis9443