regress-stage: add /pharn-regress product command and outside-scope gate#26
Conversation
Introduce the fifth product-pipeline stage: deterministic regress detection outside the feature scope, reusing check-regress.mjs and the spec→plan hash-chain gate. Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 50 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. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (3)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThis PR adds a new ChangesNew /pharn-regress command and stage artifacts
Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~12 minutes Possibly related PRs
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
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 |
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🤖 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 @.dev/features/regress-stage/REVIEW.md:
- Line 78: The REVIEW.md markdown has emphasis written with underscores instead
of asterisks, causing the markdownlint MD049 failure. Update the affected
emphasized phrases in this file to use *emphasis* syntax, and keep the existing
wording intact. After making the markdown style change, run npx prettier --write
on the same file to satisfy the prettier --check failure.
In @.dev/features/regress-stage/SHIP.md:
- Around line 10-17: The outcomes table in SHIP.md has spacing that breaks
markdownlint MD060 and prettier formatting. Reformat the table to match the
expected compact pipe-table style, keeping the same rows and values but fixing
the alignment/spacing so `npx prettier --write` and MD060 both pass.
In @.dev/features/regress-stage/VERIFY.md:
- Around line 7-15: The VERIFY.md status table is misformatted, causing
markdownlint MD060 and prettier check failures. Update the markdown table under
the regress-stage summary so the pipes and columns are properly aligned in the
same style used by the surrounding docs, and make sure the table remains valid
after formatting. Use the existing table content in VERIFY.md as the target and
reformat it so prettier and markdownlint both pass.
- Around line 18-29: The honest note is incomplete because it lists only three
prettified outputs, but the VERIFY.md document itself also needed formatting.
Update the `format:check` explanation so it explicitly includes VERIFY.md in the
set of files fixed by `npx prettier --write`, or rephrase the paragraph to say
all hand-written audit outputs from the run were formatted. Keep the rest of the
`check-verify.mjs` / `verdict: "no-regressions"` explanation unchanged.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: a4299acf-4493-453d-b7e7-99b45cb52a26
📒 Files selected for processing (9)
.claude/commands/pharn-regress.md.dev/features/regress-stage/GRILL.md.dev/features/regress-stage/PLAN.md.dev/features/regress-stage/REGRESSION.md.dev/features/regress-stage/REVIEW.md.dev/features/regress-stage/SHIP.md.dev/features/regress-stage/VERIFY.md.dev/features/regress-stage/regression-report.json.dev/features/regress-stage/verify-report.json
| > Per P7 (real, recurring — not hypothetical). Provenance: increment `regress-stage` | ||
| > (`.claude/commands/pharn-regress.md`), recurring across `grill-stage` + `build-stage`. | ||
|
|
||
| - **Candidate (target `.dev/memory-bank/lessons-learned.md`):** _"Every product `pharn-*` command that |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🟡 Minor | ⚡ Quick win
Fix emphasis style — use asterisks instead of underscores.
Lines 78, 82, 83, and 86 use _emphasis_ but markdownlint expects *emphasis* (MD049). Replace underscores with asterisks, e.g.:
- _"Every product `pharn-*` command that
+ *"Every product `pharn-*` command thatAlso run npx prettier --write on this file to resolve the prettier --check failure.
Also applies to: 82-83, 86-86
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Actions: ci / check
[error] 78-78: markdownlint-cli2 (markdownlint) MD049/emphasis-style Emphasis style [Expected: asterisk; Actual: underscore]
🤖 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 @.dev/features/regress-stage/REVIEW.md at line 78, The REVIEW.md markdown has
emphasis written with underscores instead of asterisks, causing the markdownlint
MD049 failure. Update the affected emphasized phrases in this file to use
*emphasis* syntax, and keep the existing wording intact. After making the
markdown style change, run npx prettier --write on the same file to satisfy the
prettier --check failure.
| ### Honest note — the `format:check` gate (transparency, not hidden) | ||
|
|
||
| On the first pass `format:check` exited **1**: the three files authored during this pipeline run — | ||
| `.claude/commands/pharn-regress.md` (the deliverable), and the audit scaffolding | ||
| `.dev/features/regress-stage/GRILL.md` + `regression-report.json` — were not yet prettier-formatted (they | ||
| were hand-written). Every prior committed pipeline output on `main` is prettier-clean, so a clean build must | ||
| leave these files formatted. The fix was the **deterministic formatter** `npx prettier --write` on exactly | ||
| those three files (content-preserving — whitespace/wrapping only; `regression-report.json`'s data, incl. | ||
| `verdict: "no-regressions"`, is byte-equivalent). The gates were then re-run on the clean output and the | ||
| verdict above is that **true** re-computed result — not a judgment override. `check-verify.mjs` recomputes | ||
| `PASS iff every gate == 0`; it cannot be faked. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🟡 Minor | ⚡ Quick win
Update honest note to include VERIFY.md formatting.
The note lists three files that were prettier-formatted, but VERIFY.md itself also required formatting (per the pipeline's prettier --check failure). Update the note to include this file, or rephrase to indicate that all hand-written audit outputs in the run needed formatting.
🤖 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 @.dev/features/regress-stage/VERIFY.md around lines 18 - 29, The honest note
is incomplete because it lists only three prettified outputs, but the VERIFY.md
document itself also needed formatting. Update the `format:check` explanation so
it explicitly includes VERIFY.md in the set of files fixed by `npx prettier
--write`, or rephrase the paragraph to say all hand-written audit outputs from
the run were formatted. Keep the rest of the `check-verify.mjs` / `verdict:
"no-regressions"` explanation unchanged.
1 participant
Summary
/pharn-regress, the fifth product-pipeline stage (spec → plan → grill → build → regress → verify → ship), as a command-only increment with no new floor primitive.check-regress.mjsfor baseline vs HEAD exit-code comparison,check-plan-spec-agree.mjsas the third spec→plan hash-chain consumer after grill and build) to detect pass→fail flips outside the feature's declared scope in the user's codebase..dev/features/regress-stage/(plan, grill, review, regression/verify reports).Test plan
npm test— floor and hook suites stay greennode .dev/floor/validate.mjs .— capability count remains 1 (command is floor-ignored)/pharn-regressagainst a feature with a knownfeatures/<name>/PLAN.md+SPEC.mdand confirmregression-report.json+REGRESSION.mdemit with deterministic verdictREGRESSION.md(chain gate, no silent pass)check-regress.mjs verdict)Made with Cursor
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes