feat(ledger): add durable ULID + Crockford display IDs to outstanding-issues tooling

[BigSimmo]

Implements durable issue-id identity for outstanding-issues rows and collision-safe display IDs (ulid in comment), with parser and reconciliation safety updates.

• scripts/issue-id.mjs
• scripts/ledger-inbox.mjs
• scripts/outstanding-issues.mjs
• scripts/outstanding-issues-writer checks and docs hook updates

[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.

[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 ↗︎.

[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: 30 minutes

Limit details: You’ve used all 1 included review currently available under your plan. You completed 90 included PR reviews in the past 7 days; at that activity level, included reviews refill at 1 review per hour.

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: d3f0adf9-baa2-4404-a101-03908312dd49

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 3f33068 and 6dbffc8.

📒 Files selected for processing (10)

• .claude/hooks/issues-surface.sh
• docs/scripts-index.md
• scripts/check-outstanding-issues.mjs
• scripts/issue-id.mjs
• scripts/issues-report.mjs
• scripts/ledger-inbox.mjs
• scripts/outstanding-issues.mjs
• tests/issues-report.test.ts
• tests/outstanding-issues-writer.test.ts
• tests/repo-hygiene.test.ts

---

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

[BigSimmo]

Final unblocking review

• Final PR head: 6dbffc894103452af177dd3479688d8dba93463a
• Latest base incorporated: 3f33068da16ef8a3235359ff974c9314cf79d758 (main)
• Merge commit now on main: fb8c71c94f8a45028df36aa669e3653c4f75cd2a
• Branch/merge-tree: the final head merged the latest base without conflicts, required CI completed, and GitHub’s existing auto-merge workflow then merged the PR. main now points to the merge commit above.

Review outcome

I completed a focused review and a separate manual adversarial pass. CodeRabbit did not produce a review because its PR review limit/spending cap was reached, and no local CodeRabbit CLI was available. There were no submitted reviews or actionable review threads.

Four high-confidence PR-introduced correctness gaps were reproduced:

1. Numeric Crockford display IDs such as #123456 can be reclassified as legacy IDs if their hidden ULID comment is lost.
2. The base-to-head guard detects a deleted display ID but not a changed durable ULID behind an unchanged display ID.
3. Invalid dates such as 2026-02-31 normalise through Date.parse instead of failing closed before deterministic ULID derivation.
4. .claude/skills/issues/SKILL.md still directs numeric ID allocation and references the retired issues:next-id marker.

Focused fixes and regression tests were prepared locally, but GitHub externally auto-merged the PR during the final concurrent-head recheck, before those commits were attached to the branch. No Codex commit or push landed after that merge. These four items therefore remain residual risks in the merged code.

Verification

• Focused local durability regressions: 4/4 passed.
• check-outstanding-issues --self-test: passed.
• Modified-script syntax checks: passed.
• Full local npm/Vitest was unavailable because the session runtime was Node 22/npm 10 while the repository requires Node 24/npm 11.
• Exact final head 6dbffc894103452af177dd3479688d8dba93463a: CI, Secret Scan, and SAST succeeded.
• Required PR required, Static PR checks, Unit coverage, Safety/config, lint, typecheck, outstanding-issues integrity, and ledger write discipline all succeeded.
• Advisory or out-of-scope UI, Lighthouse, build, migration, and browser jobs were skipped by changed-file scope rather than failed.
• No actionable threads remained.

No review-ledger record was added because the PR merged during the pre-push concurrency check, and a ledger-only post-merge tip would violate repository policy.

The PR was externally merged by its existing auto-merge workflow; I did not merge it.