Fix Prose-Gate Findings in the Develop-vs-Main Diff

[ptr727]

Fixes the required prose-gate findings blocking the develop -> main promotion PR (#100).

validate-task.yml's "Check prose step" only ran on this repo's own CI for the first time once #99 adopted the hub's version, and it diffs the promotion PR's base (main) rather than a feature PR's base (develop). That surfaced pre-existing prose findings from #97 and #98, never caught by their own diff-scoped reviews:

• .gitattributes, .github/workflows/merge-bot-pull-request.yml: comment sentences wrapped across lines.
• TODO.md: two semicolons in prose, and two backtick-quoted mentions of checks/check-eol-pins.py (deleted by Adopt the Fleet's text=auto .gitattributes, Retire check-eol-pins.py #98) inside prose that was already narrating its retirement in the past tense, dropped the backticks since a code span reads as a live path reference rather than a name in a history note.

Verified

scripts/prose_lint.py --diff origin/main and scripts/docker_lint.py --linter actionlint --linter editorconfig-checker both pass clean.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Clarified TODO guidance and corrected references to validation documentation, scripts, and related issue details.
  • Improved comments describing binary media path handling and automated workflow configuration.
  • Reformatted repository guidance and workflow comments for improved readability without changing Git behavior, path rules, or automation functionality.

[qodo-code-review]

Code Review by Qodo

🐞 Bugs (0) 📘 Rule violations (0) 📎 Requirement gaps (0)

Great, no issues found!

Qodo reviewed your code and found no material issues that require review

Tip of the day

💡 Did you know, you can turn these tips off under Display preferences

More tips ↗ | Customize Qodo ↗ | Qodo docs ↗

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 393e01aa-6314-4df1-ac28-4affbd2c234b

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between ac60937 and d7334e4.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• TODO.md

Included review availability: Your plan provides up to 10 included reviews per hour; 0 remain after this review.

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The pull request reformats repository comments and updates four TODO entries. Git attributes, workflow behavior, and configuration remain unchanged.

Changes

Documentation cleanup

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Repository comment formatting .gitattributes, .github/workflows/merge-bot-pull-request.yml	Reformatted comments without changing Git attributes or workflow configuration.
TODO reference updates TODO.md	Clarified gate documentation, corrected retired script paths, and adjusted issue entry punctuation.

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~2 minutes

Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to d7334

This PR makes localized prose and documentation corrections, and no actionable merge-blocking risk remains after normal checks and review.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly describes the main change: fixing prose-gate findings in the develop-to-main diff.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 0 functions across 0 files. (1 skipped: 1 unsupported.)
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch fix-stale-prose-diff

---

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

[qodo-code-review]

PR Summary by Qodo

Fix prose-gate failures in develop→main promotion diff

📝 Documentation ⚙️ Configuration changes 🕐 Less than 10 minutes

AI Description

• Rewrap multi-line comments to satisfy prose-gate sentence formatting rules.
• Clean up TODO prose to remove semicolons and stale code-span path references.
• Unblock the develop→main promotion by making main-diff prose lint pass.

Diagram

graph TD
  PR["Promotion PR diff"] --> PG(["Prose-gate check"]) --> BASE[("main base")]
  PG --> GA[".gitattributes comments"] --> MB["merge-bot workflow comments"] --> TD["TODO.md prose"]

Loading

High-Level Assessment

The following are alternative approaches to this PR:

1. Change prose-gate baseline for promotion PRs

• ➕ Avoids surfacing legacy prose issues during develop→main promotion diffs
• ➕ Reduces noise when adopting new hub CI behaviors
• ➖ Weakens the guarantee that main is clean and promotion-ready
• ➖ Can allow regressions to accumulate in main-facing diffs

2. Add targeted prose-lint ignore rules for specific patterns/files

• ➕ Keeps the stricter main-diff behavior while allowing known/intentional text patterns
• ➕ Minimizes churn in prose-heavy files
• ➖ Creates an exceptions list that needs ongoing maintenance
• ➖ Risk of masking real prose problems if ignore patterns broaden over time

3. Fix findings in-place (this PR’s approach)

• ➕ Preserves strictness of the new required check
• ➕ Removes ambiguous/stale references (e.g., code-span paths that look live)
• ➕ Small, low-risk change that keeps main-diff clean going forward
• ➖ May require occasional follow-up cleanups if additional legacy prose issues surface later

Recommendation: Keep the current approach: fix the prose findings in-place so the required prose-gate remains strict and main-facing diffs stay clean. Consider baseline/ignore-rule tweaks only if future promotions repeatedly surface large volumes of legacy prose unrelated to the promotion.

Files changed (3) +10 / -9

Documentation (1) +4 / -4

TODO.mdTighten TODO prose to remove semicolons and stale code-span references +4/-4

Tighten TODO prose to remove semicolons and stale code-span references

• Replaces a semicolon with a comma in a long bullet and removes backtick code spans around a retired script name to avoid path-like references. Also tweaks a table entry sentence to eliminate a semicolon while preserving meaning.

TODO.md

Other (2) +6 / -5

.gitattributesRewrap binary-path rationale comments for prose-gate compliance +3/-3

Rewrap binary-path rationale comments for prose-gate compliance

• Splits a multi-line wrapped comment into shorter, standalone sentences. No attribute rules or path patterns were changed; only comment prose/line wrapping.

.gitattributes

merge-bot-pull-request.ymlRewrap workflow comment block to satisfy prose linting +3/-2

Rewrap workflow comment block to satisfy prose linting

• Reformats a wrapped multi-line comment into separate sentences. Workflow behavior, secrets, and job configuration remain unchanged.

.github/workflows/merge-bot-pull-request.yml

[Copilot]

🟢 Approval recommended

The changes are low-risk, scoped to prose/comment formatting, with only a minor grammatical nit remaining.

Pull request overview

This PR fixes prose-gate findings that surfaced when diffing develop against main during the develop→main promotion flow, by rewriting wrapped comment prose and adjusting TODO prose to satisfy the gate’s style constraints.

Changes:

• Rewrap comment prose in .gitattributes and .github/workflows/merge-bot-pull-request.yml so sentences aren’t split across lines.
• Adjust TODO.md prose to remove semicolons and avoid backtick-formatted historical path mentions that read like live references.

File summaries

File	Description
TODO.md	Removes prose-gate flagged punctuation/formatting in retrospective notes.
.github/workflows/merge-bot-pull-request.yml	Reflows YAML comments into separate sentences to avoid wrapped prose.
.gitattributes	Reflows .gitattributes comments into full sentences per line for prose-gate compliance.

Review details

• Files reviewed: 3/3 changed files
• Comments generated: 1
• Review effort level: Lite

---

💡 Configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.