docs(rag): record refuted lexical probe collapse (#098) - #1503
Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reachedYou’ve reached a temporary PR review limit under our Fair Usage Limits Policy. Next review available in: 59 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 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 configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
Comment |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: b14adae276
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".
|
Temporarily paused during the owner-authorized ordered merge sweep so |
|
@cursoragent this PR will be re-opened soon. Please resolve any failing CI, run bugbot and resolve any bugbot comments against current repo and fix any merge conflicts and also fix any errors and address and fix all comments or suggestions that are likely to improve the PR and Codebase. Please implement smallest required fix according to best code practices. Check your work. Leave this PR closed for now but still make all these changes and run the review. I want it ready to go for when I re-open it. |
|
PR #1503 is reopen-ready and still CLOSED. Fixed
Review / Bugbot
Checks
NoteGitHub may still show the old closed |
Resolve docs/outstanding-issues.md conflict by rebuilding from main and re-applying the #98 refuted-collapse evidence. Replace next-action (b) so it prohibits wholesale sibling lexical collapse rather than inviting a repeat of the failed canary. Co-authored-by: BigSimmo <BigSimmo@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: BigSimmo <BigSimmo@users.noreply.github.com>
Append the branch-review ledger verdict for the main-synced tip that keeps the #98 wholesale-collapse ban. Co-authored-by: BigSimmo <BigSimmo@users.noreply.github.com>
…ieval-issues-and-run-canary Co-authored-by: BigSimmo <BigSimmo@users.noreply.github.com>
|
This pull request has been ignored for the connected project Preview Branches by Supabase. |
|
@cursoragent This PR was just reopened. Do not merge, force-push, rebase, or arm auto-merge
|
1. Snapshot (at reopen)
2. SyncReal conflict → merged Conflict fix (smallest correct):
3. CI on tip
|
| Item | Status |
|---|---|
| Tip | 11b19c0473df833f2ce135e7f152b6070168c1fa |
| Sync | done (conflict resolved) |
| merge-tree | clean; 0 behind |
| GitHub | MERGEABLE / CLEAN |
| Threads | 0 actionable |
| CI | required green on tip |
Residual risk: PR body still narrates canaries 30579804611 / 30580564419 as collapse evidence; main’s corrected #098 Note says those runs were on unrelated SHAs. Row text now matches main’s correction + the collapse ban; body prose was left unchanged.
Merge decision left to you — no merge / force-push / rebase / auto-merge.


Motivation
#098) showedmatch_document_chunks_text_v2andmatch_document_table_facts_text_v2were each being called ×3 per search, which raised a latency/round-trip question and prompted an attempted optimisation.Description
src/lib/rag/rag-candidate-sources.tsand related tests), but that change was reverted after the live canary showed regressions.docs/outstanding-issues.mdto document the failed experiment, the canary evidence, the immediate revert, and the follow-up next steps for the route-levelPOST /api/searchbudget.docs/outstanding-issues.md(final committed change); experimental edits and test adjustments were tested and then reverted in the branch history to preserve the audit trail.Testing
npm run test -- --run tests/rag-variant-early-exit.test.ts tests/search-round-trip-budget.test.tsand those focused tests passed (2 files passed, 4 tests passed).node scripts/eval-rag-offline.mjs, which passed its provider-free fixture checks, and then executed three live eval canaries: baseline canary (passed), experimental canary30579804611(failed: document recall @5 fell 1.0 → 0.9444, content recall @5 fell 1.0 → 0.9699, 4 failing cases), and confirmation canary30580564419after revert (passed).npm run formatand repository static/cheap gates; static checks, lint and typecheck passed but a full unit-suite run encountered pre-existing mock-related failures (not caused by this revert) flagged by missingopenAISafetyIdentifiermocks, which remain outside the scope of this PR.Codex Task