docs: define TEPP product completion and technical gap baseline - #164
Conversation
|
Note Reviews pausedIt looks like this branch is under active development. To avoid overwhelming you with review comments due to an influx of new commits, CodeRabbit has automatically paused this review. You can configure this behavior by changing the Use the following commands to manage reviews:
Use the checkboxes below for quick actions:
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
Included review availability: Your plan provides up to 1 included review per hour; 0 remain after this review. 📝 WalkthroughWalkthrough제품·기술 격차 기준선을 2026-08-23T17:59:26Z GitHub 스냅샷에 맞게 갱신했다. 문서 색인과 검증 스크립트를 업데이트했다. 기준선 검증 테스트를 추가했다. Changes제품·기술 격차 기준선
Estimated code review effort: 3 (Moderate) | ~25 minutes Merge Risk: 🟡 Moderate · up to The documentation validator can accept an invalid protected-main readiness claim when an unrelated negative condition is present, which could make the release-readiness register report work as implemented when it is not. Merge should wait for this validation issue to be fixed or explicitly accepted by the owner. Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant main
participant Validator as validate_product_technical_gap_baseline
participant Baseline as product-technical-gap-baseline.md
main->>Validator: 기준선 검증 실행
Validator->>Baseline: 메타데이터와 인벤토리 읽기
Baseline-->>Validator: 기준선 내용 반환
Validator-->>main: 검증 결과 또는 AssertionError
🚥 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 |
|
@opencode-agent review exact current HEAD b613ec3. Verify that the live gap baseline accurately separates protected-main maturity from active PR state, preserves PR stack order and issue #156 acceptance criteria, and keeps Figma/Storybook deferred only for the current headless slice. Re-check documentation/quality contracts on this exact SHA. Approve only from exact-head evidence; do not use COPILOT_GITHUB_TOKEN or bypass protected checks. |
|
Refreshed the live baseline at The snapshot is now 2026-08-20 18:57 KST and records current heads for #62, #115, #144, #157, and #159, adds #164 to the active queue, and replaces stale numeric check counts with qualitative exact-head evidence so queued Checks cannot be presented as passes. The stack and issue #156 acceptance sequence remain unchanged. Verification: documentation, workspace-contract, docstring, and diff checks passed. Please review this exact head and refresh the required Checks. |
|
Baseline refresh at current PR head
|
|
Refreshed this baseline at exact current PR HEAD |
|
Refreshed the buyer-gap baseline at exact current head |
|
Refreshed the live baseline at exact head
Please re-run current-head protected Checks and obtain the qualifying independent approval before merge. |
|
Baseline refresh at exact HEAD
|
|
Current-head baseline refresh: |
|
Live baseline refresh at current HEAD |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
An unrelated `not` in `queued Checks are not required; this PR is implemented-main` was treated as negation. Only never/do not/does not/ cannot/must not plus promote/treat/make/mean licenses the span.
![devin-ai-integration[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/811515?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Replace the fixed-window denial regex with sentence-scoped negation governance: a claim passes only when a negation cue directly governs a promotion verb inside the same sentence and no adversative conjunction separates that pair from the maturity assertion. Honest wordings whose negation precedes the phrase are accepted, while unrelated negated clauses joined by 'but' can no longer license an implemented-main claim.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Eight new draft PRs opened in the Driver-recovery psychometric series since the last snapshot. Protected-main SHA and non-draft count (70) are unchanged -- no new mergeable work landed, this is a pure register refresh.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Maintainer Verification — exact head
|
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
…ister The Changed entry still described the predecessor 2026-08-23T21:46:37Z snapshot (109 open / 39 drafts) while the committed baseline document records the refreshed 2026-08-24T05:41:54Z snapshot (118 open / 48 drafts). Align the changelog narrative with the register the validator enforces so the exact-head evidence stays internally consistent.
| for cue in QUEUED_CHECKS_NEGATED_VERB.finditer(text, sentence_start, window_end): | ||
| if QUEUED_CHECKS_ADVERSATIVE.search(text, cue.end(), window_end) is None: | ||
| return True |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🟡 Promotion guard bypassed by period-separated negation
The negation search treats only adversatives like but as barriers between a negated promotion verb and the implemented-main claim (QUEUED_CHECKS_ADVERSATIVE at scripts/validate_documentation.py:183). A sentence-ending period is not a barrier, so queued Checks never promote spam. This PR is implemented-main. is accepted as denied. An affirmative promotion in the next sentence, within 80 characters, passes the guard.
Prompt for agents
In _promotion_is_denied (scripts/validate_documentation.py), the negation-verb search runs over [sentence_start, claim.end()] and only rejects a negation when a QUEUED_CHECKS_ADVERSATIVE token (but/however/yet/although/though) separates the cue from implemented-main. A sentence break (period, semicolon, newline, etc., already defined in QUEUED_CHECKS_SENTENCE_BREAK) between the negated clause and the implemented-main assertion is not treated as a separator, so an unrelated negated-promotion clause followed by a fresh affirmative implemented-main sentence is wrongly reported as denied. Consider also treating a QUEUED_CHECKS_SENTENCE_BREAK occurrence between cue.end() and window_end as a separator (i.e. the negation must be in the same sentence as the implemented-main claim), similar to the adversative check.
Was this helpful? React with 👍 or 👎 to provide feedback.
…l-gap-baseline # Conflicts: # CHANGELOG.md
1 participant
Operator outcome
Adds and expands
docs/product-technical-gap-baseline.mdas TEPP's single live operator-gap and release-readiness register. The document distinguishes protected-main capability from open-PR work, records the exact queue scale bounded to protected-main SHAc45be17a9dbce95ef81cee230e9d128abc7160ac, maps every major product vertical to a measurable issue, and defines a dependency-aware route to a supported release.TEPP is not a purchase catalog. This head names operator-visible gaps rather than Buyer language.
Verification
python3 -m unittest tests.quality.test_product_technical_gap_baseline -qDo not merge until the unchanged exact head has required checks and two independent approvals (ruleset 18156473). Do not self-approve. Predecessor-head Checks are not merge evidence.
Summary by CodeRabbit
문서화
품질 개선
정리