docs(design-system): add the 7 August handover - #1671
Conversation
A fresh session picking this work up cold currently has to re-derive state that was already measured, and several items in the inherited backlog are provably wrong — the previous session spent most of itself establishing that. Adds docs/design-system/HANDOVER-2026-08-07.md and links it from the document set README as the cold-start entry point. Carries: - measured state (53 registered / 29 adopted / 24 unadopted; 13 open defect rows; 7 blocking gates, 6 partial, 2 planned; 6 ungated prohibitions; 0 committed baselines), with the command to regenerate every figure - what landed 7 Aug (#1655, #1658, #1663, #1669) including the #207-vs-#227 clinical decision and why it went the way it did - six measured corrections to the older backlog, each of which would otherwise send the next session down a wrong path — notably that `--shadow-focus` is NOT dead (a *.tsx-only grep says it is; the live consumer is in globals.css), and that check:type-scale/check:icon-scale already ship as hard-zero gates - the ordered plan, split into finishing the kit and updating the live design - the baseline hold as the decision that unblocks the most, and why Linux provenance cannot be produced on Windows - scope discipline: do not build the 43 outlined P1/P2 components - the repo gotchas that cost the previous session (stale local main ref, the twelve superseded codex/v2-* branches that read as "ahead", lying background exit codes, verify:pr-local failing closed on lock parity, contended Chromium) - verification recipes and a ready-to-use prompt for the next session Ledger registration is deliberately left to `/issues capture` rather than hand-written rows: ids are allocated read-modify-write and hand-edits have collided before (`#156`). docs:check-links, docs:check-index, docs:check-inventory all exit 0. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
This pull request has been ignored for the connected project Preview Branches by Supabase. |
|
You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard. |
|
Warning Review limit reachedYou’ve reached a temporary PR review limit under our Fair Usage Limits Policy. Next review available in: 57 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 (1)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughAdded a design-system handover document with measured adoption data, corrected backlog assumptions, ordered implementation tracks, repository constraints, verification commands, and next-session instructions. Linked the document from the design-system README. ChangesDesign-system handover
Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~5 minutes 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@docs/design-system/HANDOVER-2026-08-07.md`:
- Around line 3-6: Update both fresh-session cold-start instructions in the
handover document to require reading AGENTS.md before this handover, preserving
AGENTS.md as the highest-priority source of truth. Apply the same ordering to
the additional referenced instruction.
- Around line 241-243: Update the pre-push recipe around the format and commit
commands to remove git add -A. Instruct users to review git status and git diff,
then stage only explicitly reviewed paths before committing, or omit the commit
step; preserve the subsequent typecheck, lint, and test commands.
🪄 Autofix
✅ Autofix completed
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: cf6cf19d-b340-43fe-be8c-d4edc52c442d
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
docs/design-system/HANDOVER-2026-08-07.mddocs/design-system/README.md
Fixes Applied SuccessfullyFixed 1 file(s) based on 2 unresolved review comments. Files modified:
Commit: The changes have been pushed to the Time taken: |
Fixed 1 file(s) based on 2 unresolved review comments. Co-authored-by: CodeRabbit <noreply@coderabbit.ai>
1 participant
Summary
Docs only. Adds
docs/design-system/HANDOVER-2026-08-07.mdand links it from the design-system README as the cold-start entry point.A fresh session picking this work up currently has to re-derive state that was already measured, and several items in the inherited backlog are provably wrong — establishing that consumed most of the previous session. This file exists so that does not happen twice.
It carries:
#207-vs-#227clinical decision, both sides of it, and why it resolved the way it did — so it is not re-litigated by someone reading only one side.--shadow-focusis not dead (a*.tsx-only grep says it is; the live consumer is.chat-composer-shell-delta:focus-withininglobals.css, and it is the forbidden companion ring, so removing it is a visible focus-state change), andcheck:type-scale/check:icon-scalealready ship as hard-zero gates — only the ESLint rules are absent, so the open gap is step selection, not arbitrary sizes.ubuntu-24.04provenance cannot be produced on Windows ({platform}insnapshotPathTemplate).mainref (111 commits), the twelvecodex/v2-*branches that read as "ahead" while being 14–28k lines behind, lying background-task exit codes,verify:pr-localfailing closed on lock parity, and unreliable Chromium under contention.Ledger registration is deliberately left to
/issues capturerather than hand-written rows intodocs/outstanding-issues.md— ids are allocated read-modify-write and hand-edits have collided before (#156).Verification
npm run docs:check-links— exit 0npm run docs:check-index— exit 0npm run docs:check-inventory— exit 0npm run formatappliedNo source, test, or config file is touched, so no behavioural gate applies.
RAG impact: no retrieval behaviour change — documentation only. No file under
src/lib/rag/**, clinical-search, retrieval-selection, ranking-config, answer-ranking, the eval harness, or the golden fixture is modified.🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Summary by CodeRabbit