Skip to content

GH#17503: protect executable template code blocks from simplification#17521

Merged
marcusquinn merged 1 commit intomainfrom
bugfix/simplifier-protect-templates
Apr 6, 2026
Merged

GH#17503: protect executable template code blocks from simplification#17521
marcusquinn merged 1 commit intomainfrom
bugfix/simplifier-protect-templates

Conversation

@marcusquinn
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Summary

Adds explicit guardrails to the code-simplifier agent preventing it from compressing executable template code blocks into prose.

Problem

The simplifier (738e4ca49) compressed a gh pr comment executable template into a single prose line. The information was preserved but the executable format was lost. Workers went from having a copy-paste command to an ambiguous prose instruction, causing 65% MERGE_SUMMARY miss rate.

The simplifier's existing rules said to preserve "code blocks" and "command examples" but didn't distinguish between illustrative examples (can be summarized) and executable templates (workers copy-paste to run — must remain verbatim as code blocks).

Changes

  • code-simplifier.md regression verification table: executable templates explicitly called out as must-remain code blocks
  • code-simplifier.md "almost never simplify" section: executable template code blocks listed with incident reference

Both changes are in .agents/tools/code-review/code-simplifier.md.

Closes #17503

…17503)

The simplifier (738e4ca) compressed a gh pr comment executable template
into prose, causing 65% MERGE_SUMMARY miss rate. Add explicit rules:
- Regression verification: executable templates must remain as code blocks
- Almost never simplify: executable template code blocks listed explicitly

Prose around the block can be tightened; the block itself must survive.
@gemini-code-assist
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Warning

You have reached your daily quota limit. Please wait up to 24 hours and I will start processing your requests again!

@coderabbitai
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Apr 6, 2026

Warning

Rate limit exceeded

@marcusquinn has exceeded the limit for the number of commits that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 1 minutes and 44 seconds before requesting another review.

Your organization is not enrolled in usage-based pricing. Contact your admin to enable usage-based pricing to continue reviews beyond the rate limit, or try again in 1 minutes and 44 seconds.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit.

🚦 How do rate limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization.

Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout.

Please see our FAQ for further information.

ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: d2c6114c-c406-48fb-a3f4-5001d6c6d09f

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 768f3f3 and e812305.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • .agents/tools/code-review/code-simplifier.md
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Commit unit tests in branch bugfix/simplifier-protect-templates

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.

❤️ Share

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

@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Apr 6, 2026

🔍 Code Quality Report

�[0;35m[MONITOR]�[0m Code Review Monitoring Report

SonarCloud: 0 bugs, 0 vulnerabilities, 1 code smells

Mon Apr 6 01:28:58 UTC 2026: Code review monitoring started
Mon Apr 6 01:28:58 UTC 2026: SonarCloud - Bugs: 0, Vulnerabilities: 0, Code Smells: 1

📈 Current Quality Metrics

  • BUGS: 0
  • CODE SMELLS: 1
  • VULNERABILITIES: 0

Generated on: Mon Apr 6 01:29:00 UTC 2026


Generated by AI DevOps Framework Code Review Monitoring

@sonarqubecloud
Copy link
Copy Markdown

sonarqubecloud bot commented Apr 6, 2026

@codacy-production
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Up to standards ✅

🟢 Issues 0 issues

Results:
0 new issues

View in Codacy

TIP This summary will be updated as you push new changes. Give us feedback

@marcusquinn marcusquinn merged commit bde4a69 into main Apr 6, 2026
29 of 31 checks passed
@marcusquinn marcusquinn deleted the bugfix/simplifier-protect-templates branch April 6, 2026 01:33
@marcusquinn
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner Author

Summary

Adds explicit guardrails to the code-simplifier agent preventing it from compressing executable template code blocks into prose.

Problem

The simplifier (738e4ca49) compressed a gh pr comment executable template into a single prose line. The information was preserved but the executable format was lost. Workers went from having a copy-paste command to an ambiguous prose instruction, causing 65% MERGE_SUMMARY miss rate.
The simplifier's existing rules said to preserve "code blocks" and "command examples" but didn't distinguish between illustrative examples (can be summarized) and executable templates (workers copy-paste to run — must remain verbatim as code blocks).

Changes

  • code-simplifier.md regression verification table: executable templates explicitly called out as must-remain code blocks
  • code-simplifier.md "almost never simplify" section: executable template code blocks listed with incident reference
    Both changes are in .agents/tools/code-review/code-simplifier.md.

Merged via PR #17521 to main.
Merged by deterministic merge pass (pulse-wrapper.sh).

aidevops.sh v3.6.113 spent 7m on this as a headless bash routine.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

t1896: Resolve specific model name in dispatch comments instead of auto-select (round-robin)

1 participant