docs: refresh README sample output to match what commit-check prints - #535
Conversation
The README's output blocks predate rule IDs, so they showed neither the CCxxx identifiers nor the Docs links that every failure now prints. Same staleness #530 fixed in the demo GIF; the docs site is already current, only the README had been left behind. Measured by running each documented command against this checkout rather than reading the code: Type message check failed ==> ... -> CC001 message check failed ==> ... Type branch check failed ==> ... -> CC201 branch check failed ==> ... plus a trailing `Docs: https://commit-check.com/rules/#ccNNN` line on both, and two commit types the list had never picked up (perf, build). Four more blocks were stale in the same way, so they are refreshed too: - --no-banner carried a line that no longer exists anywhere in the source: "It doesn't match regex: ^(build|chore|ci|...)". grep over *.py finds it only in a test comment. - --compact prints the rule id: [FAIL] CC001 message: ... - Both --format json examples were missing the rule_id and docs_url fields, showed value as "" where it is now populated on pass, and named a subject_imperative check that the default run does not emit — it reports subject_max_length (CC004) and subject_min_length (CC005), and lists passing checks alongside the failing one. - The Python API return-value schema was missing rule_id and docs_url. The API code examples themselves were correct; each was re-run to confirm. Every block was then re-captured and compared byte for byte against the committed text (JSON via json.loads, text with ANSI colours and trailing padding normalised), so these are transcripts, not transcriptions. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01U9zFxq8V4qxG4aMzJhGBFn
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 55 minutes You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository. 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. Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
|
Why
The README's output blocks predate rule IDs, so they show neither the
CCxxxidentifiers nor theDocs:links that every failure now prints. This is the same staleness #530 fixed in the demo GIF — the docs site is already current, only the README was left behind.What changed
Every block was produced by running the documented command against this checkout, not by editing prose.
The two
## ExamplesblocksType message check failedCC001 message check failed… test, chore, ci… test, chore, perf, build, ciDocs: https://commit-check.com/rules/#cc001Same for the branch block:
Type branch check failed→CC201 branch check failed, plus itsDocs:line.Four more blocks, same defect
--no-bannercarried a line that no longer exists anywhere in the source:It doesn't match regex: ^(build|chore|ci|…). A grep over*.pyfinds it only in a test comment.--compactprints the rule id:[FAIL] CC001 message: …--format jsonexamples were missing therule_idanddocs_urlfields, showedvalueas""where it is now populated on pass, and named asubject_imperativecheck the default run does not emit — it reportssubject_max_length(CC004) andsubject_min_length(CC005), and lists passing checks alongside the failing one.rule_idanddocs_url. The API code examples were correct — each was re-run to confirm the documentedstatusvalues still hold.Verification
After editing, each block was re-captured from a live run and compared byte for byte against the committed text — JSON via
json.loads, text with ANSI colours and trailing padding normalised. All six match. These are transcripts, not transcriptions.Docs-only; no code or test changes.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
https://claude.ai/code/session_01U9zFxq8V4qxG4aMzJhGBFn
Generated by Claude Code