issues: capture ledger hygiene review and prune stale queue rows

[BigSimmo]

Summary

• Re-declare dark body/heading ink and companion roles on .dark .ckb-v2 after the cascade port so light .ckb-v2 matching inside dark subtrees cannot resolve light ink on dark surfaces.
• Merge origin/main to clear DIRTY mergeability (prefer main’s post-feat(design-system): v2 token layer + 26 components — reconciled, cascade-ported, forced-colours owned #1538/fix(design-system): critique fixes + post-merge truth sweep (bundled hygiene PR) #1541 component copies; keep this tip’s dark-ink contract + HCM transparent overlay-backdrop rationale).
• Tabs: aria-controls only on the selected tab when a panel is owned (unselected tabs no longer point at missing IDs).
• Tooltip: compose mouse/focus/keydown handlers with the child’s existing handlers instead of replacing them.

RAG impact: no retrieval behaviour change — design-system token dark-cascade fix and unadopted UI component a11y only; no file under src/lib/rag/**, clinical-search, retrieval-selection, ranking, eval harness, golden fixtures, or retrieval RPCs is touched.

Verification

• npm run verify:pr-local
• focused: vitest tests/ckb-v2-token-contract.test.ts + tests/ui-v2-components.dom.test.tsx — 35 passed
• npm run verify:cheap — 457 files / 4782 passed
• UI verification not run: no production surface adopts .ckb-v2 / these components yet; phone-chrome and visual journeys unchanged. Prefer CI Production UI on this tip.

Risk and rollout

• Risk: low — class-scoped unadopted token layer + unadopted UI components; merge resolves conflict with main’s already-shipped design-system layer.
• Rollback: revert the squash / tip commits; no schema, data, or provider surface.
• Provider or production effects: None.

Clinical Governance Preflight

• Source-backed claims still require linked source verification before clinical use
• No patient-identifiable document workflow was introduced or expanded without explicit governance approval
• Supabase target remains Clinical KB Database (sjrfecxgysukkwxsowpy)
• Service-role keys and private document access remain server-only
• Demo/synthetic content remains clearly separated from real clinical sources
• Source metadata, review status, and outdated/unknown-source behavior remain conservative
• Deployment classification/TGA SaMD impact was checked when clinical decision-support behavior changed

Notes

• Remaining playbook work stays in later tranches (SPEC §13).
• Companion design-system docs already on main via docs(design-system): resolved five-document spec set + repair of the broken sentry merge #1531 / docs(design-system): perfection pass — per-component contracts, playbook, authoring DoD, usage rules #1537 / feat(design-system): v2 token layer + 26 components — reconciled, cascade-ported, forced-colours owned #1538 / fix(design-system): critique fixes + post-merge truth sweep (bundled hygiene PR) #1541.

[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: 5 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: 1748851e-4467-4662-bac7-5c0503e5995f

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 7a65bbf and e08d989.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• docs/outstanding-issues.md

---

_{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]

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.
To continue using code reviews, add credits to your account and enable them for code reviews in your settings.

[qodo-code-review]

PR Summary by Qodo

Ledger: capture hygiene review and refresh outstanding-issues queue

📝 Documentation 🕐 10-20 Minutes

AI Description

• Refresh the recommended execution queue to reflect only currently open ledger items.
• Record 2026-07-31 hygiene findings and add new concrete follow-up tasks.
• Archive completed/superseded rows and bump the next issue id.

Diagram

graph TD
A["Agent/Operator"] --> B["docs/outstanding-issues.md"] --> C["Recommended queue"]
B --> D["Open items table"] --> E["Resolved/archive"]
C --> D
F["check:outstanding-issues (planned gate)"] --> B

Loading

High-Level Assessment

The following are alternative approaches to this PR:

1. Generate the queue from Open items (single source of truth)

• ➕ Eliminates manual drift between queue and open table (root cause of stale IDs).
• ➕ Allows deterministic ordering rules (priority/acuity/optional triggers) without re-copying rows.
• ➕ Makes automated validation simpler (no parsing of prose tables for membership).
• ➖ Requires tooling/format changes (script + enforced structure) and reviewer buy-in.
• ➖ Loses some of the current human-curated narrative in the queue unless reintroduced elsewhere.

2. Keep the current manual queue, but add a strict CI gate (#183)

• ➕ Minimal workflow change; preserves current editing ergonomics.
• ➕ Prevents the specific failure mode (queued IDs that are not open) from recurring.
• ➖ Does not prevent other drift (ordering conflicts, duplicated intent, stale dependencies).
• ➖ Parsing markdown tables can be brittle unless carefully scoped to the queue ID column.

Recommendation: The PR’s approach (manual reconciliation + capturing the hygiene findings) is appropriate for this snapshot. Follow up by implementing the narrow validation gate described in #183 (parse only the queue ID column and require membership in Open items). If queue drift continues, consider generating the queue from Open items to remove the dual-maintenance burden entirely.

Files changed (1) +85 / -21

Documentation (1) +85 / -21

outstanding-issues.mdReconcile queue with open ledger and archive completed/superseded rows +85/-21

Reconcile queue with open ledger and archive completed/superseded rows

• Updates the recommended execution queue definition and contents to represent all open rows, removing stale references to already-archived IDs and adding newly captured follow-ups (#183–#200). Archives completed/superseded items (notably #017, #040, #103, plus queue-hygiene bookkeeping) and updates the next-id marker to 201, while splitting large umbrellas (#086, #188) into concrete child tasks.

docs/outstanding-issues.md

[BigSimmo]

@cursoragent

Fix merge conflict and failing CI and address comments

[cursor]

Taking a look!

  

[qodo-code-review]

Code Review by Qodo

🐞 Bugs (0) 📘 Rule violations (0) 📎 Requirement gaps (0) 🎨 UX issues (0) 🔗 Cross-repo conflicts (0) 📜 Skill insights (0)

1. UTF-8 BOM added ✓ Resolved 🐞 Bug ⚙ Maintainability

Description

docs/outstanding-issues.md now begins with a UTF-8 BOM (U+FEFF), introducing an invisible character
that can create confusing diffs and break byte/character-sensitive tooling that expects the file to
start with #. This should be removed to keep the ledger plain UTF-8 text.

Code

docs/outstanding-issues.md[1]

+# Universal Task Ledger — Outstanding Issues, Recommendations & Tasks

Evidence

The file’s first line in the PR branch renders with an extra invisible character before # (shown
as # ...), which indicates a BOM at byte 0.

docs/outstanding-issues.md[1-1]

Agent prompt

The issue below was found during a code review. Follow the provided context and guidance below and implement a solution

### Issue description
`docs/outstanding-issues.md` starts with a UTF-8 BOM (U+FEFF), i.e. an invisible character before the leading `#` in the first heading. This adds hidden churn and can confuse tooling/editors.

### Issue Context
This file is a core repo ledger consumed by automation and edited frequently; it should stay as plain UTF-8 text without a BOM.

### Fix Focus Areas
- docs/outstanding-issues.md[1-1]

### What to change
1. Remove the leading BOM character so the file starts exactly with `# Universal Task Ledger — ...`.
2. Ensure your editor/save pipeline is set to UTF-8 **without BOM** for this file.

ⓘ Copy this prompt and use it to remediate the issue with your preferred AI generation tools

---

_{To customize comments, go to the Qodo configuration screen, or learn more in the docs.}

[BigSimmo]

@cursoragent resolve merge conflict please

[cursor]

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