docs: update readme - #41
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 39 minutes Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. 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. 📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe README now links to the deployed Task Flow application, documents environment placeholders, explains project structure and tooling decisions, lists planned improvements, and clarifies that requirements take precedence over mockups for list actions. ChangesREADME documentation
Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~2 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: 3
🤖 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 `@README.md`:
- Line 87: Update the feature-deletion claim in the README to acknowledge that
removing a feature also requires deleting its route registrations and tests that
import it, while retaining the statement that features do not import from each
other.
- Around line 95-99: The README’s cache-correctness and latency claims are too
absolute. Update the discussion around invalidate-and-refetch to acknowledge
that it depends on correct query keys and successful refetches, and revise
“impossible to get subtly wrong” and “always correct” to qualified wording while
preserving the comparison with manual cache writes and the extra network
request.
- Line 91: Update the README paragraph around the Tailwind CSS v4 `@theme`
explanation to replace the absolute claim that only design-system utilities
compile. State instead that named utilities in the cleared color, text, shadow,
and tracking namespaces are restricted to design-system tokens, while preserving
the surrounding design-fidelity and Figma-to-code mapping explanation.
🪄 Autofix
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.
⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)
README.md (1)
43-43: 🎯 Functional Correctness | 🟡 Minor | ⚡ Quick winDocument how readers obtain both required environment values.
npm run codegenrequiresAPI_URLandAPI_TOKEN, but the setup instructions mention only the project access token. Since.env.examplecontains placeholders for both values, a fresh clone cannot complete the documented setup unless the README explains where to obtainAPI_URLas well. Update the setup instructions to request both values or link to the challenge instructions that provide them.🤖 Prompt for 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. In `@README.md` at line 43, Update the README setup instructions to explain how readers obtain both API_URL and API_TOKEN, either by requesting both values or linking to the challenge instructions that provide them. Ensure the documented setup for npm run codegen no longer mentions only the project access token.
🤖 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.
Outside diff comments:
In `@README.md`:
- Line 43: Update the README setup instructions to explain how readers obtain
both API_URL and API_TOKEN, either by requesting both values or linking to the
challenge instructions that provide them. Ensure the documented setup for npm
run codegen no longer mentions only the project access token.
|
test-check-permission |
1 participant
Summary by CodeRabbit
.env.exampletoken placeholders and setup guidance.