fix(docs-hygiene): run under/at/on through the document-locator predicate (0.21.5) - #3228
Conversation
|
Claude finished @kyle-sexton's task in 1m 16s —— View job Security review — no issues found
Skip gate: change has no security-relevant surface. This PR touches only The functional change widens No CRITICAL, IMPORTANT, or SUGGESTION findings. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: a86d9dda9f
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".
|
Last security-reviewed head: |
…cate conversational-antecedent narrowed in from a blanket exemption to a document-locator check, but under, at, and on still exempted unconditionally. As we agreed on Tuesday and as we decided at the standup therefore escaped. Route those three followers through the same locator predicate in already uses. Anaphoric adverbs stay unconditional. A real document locus after the narrowed prepositions stays exempt. Closes #3192 Co-authored-by: Kyle Sexton <kyle-sexton@users.noreply.github.com>
An inline-code path after on/at/under followed by punctuation left only the comma after strip+cut, which fell through as "not a locator". Closes #3192 Co-authored-by: Kyle Sexton <kyle-sexton@users.noreply.github.com>
a410006 to
a351329
Compare
|
Claude finished @cursor[bot]'s task in 24s —— View job Code review — skipped (skip gate)
Skip gate triggered: PR is closed (merged), not open. Per the skill's skip gate, review stops here for a merged/closed PR — no findings are posted. (This run was triggered by a For context, Codex's automated review already flagged one point worth a look if this surfaces again on an open PR: |
|
Claude has reviewed this PR 1 time. The lane skips further automatic reviews after 5; deleting this comment resets the count. |
Closes #3192
Summary
conversational-antecedentnarrowedinfrom a blanket exemption to a document-locator check in #3162, butunder,at, andonstill exempted unconditionally. Conversational residue phrased with those prepositions escaped: "as we agreed on Tuesday", "as we decided at the standup", "as we agreed under time pressure".Fix
All three now defer to
audit_noise_follower_is_document_locator, the same predicateinalready uses. The anaphoric-adverb followers (above/below/earlier/later/previously/elsewhere) stay unconditional.Corpus measurement (1154 tracked
.mdfiles, minus**/evals/fixtures/**andCHANGELOG.md): conversational-antecedent count is 2 before and 2 after. T1 stayed 13. Routingonthrough the locator adds no new findings on this repo — the high-trafficonidioms (based on,depends on,on disk,on the other hand) never matched the antecedent pattern. The choice to narrow all three is therefore justified: recall goes up on the issue's own table, with a measured zero false-positive delta on the fleet corpus.Verification
detect.test.sh— 143 checks passed, covering the issue table plus high-trafficonidioms and the unchanged anaphoricaboveexemptionskill-quality:check docs-hygiene:audit-noise— PASSSKILL.mdtreatment row updated so it stays trueRelated
in; recorded this as a deferred recall gap