Add zero-to-hero technical teardown#324
Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reached
More reviews will be available in 56 minutes. Learn how PR review limits work. Your organization has run out of usage credits. Purchase more in the billing tab. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans include higher PR review limits than trial, open-source, and free plans. In all cases, reviews become available again over time. During sustained high-volume PR review activity, CodeRabbit may temporarily slow when the next review becomes available. Please see our Fair Usage Limits Policy for further information. ℹ️ Review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: ASSERTIVE Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (5)
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 |
|
@codex Code Lawyer self-audit findings for PR #324.
Summary: 1 self-discovered issue (P5: 1). No unresolved GitHub review threads were present at discovery time. |
|
@codex Activity Summary for PR #324.
Validation performed:
GitHub review-thread state after push: 0 unresolved review threads, 0 total review threads. No PR-originated thread required resolution. |
|
Summary
Testing
|
|
Summary
Testing
|
|
@codex Code Lawyer re-audit finding for PR #324.
Summary: no new issue was found in the PR diff itself. This is an external local gate blocker surfaced during the Code Lawyer pass. |
|
@codex Activity Summary for the requested Code Lawyer re-audit of PR #324.
Validation performed in this re-audit:
Review-thread resolution: no PR-originated review threads exist, so none were resolved. No commits were created during this re-audit. |
|
Codex couldn't complete this request. Try again later. |
|
@codex Activity Summary for the latest Code Lawyer pass on PR #324.
Validation performed:
Review-thread resolution: no PR-originated review threads exist, so none were resolved. Pushed update: |
|
Summary
Testing
|
Summary
TECHNICAL-TEARDOWN.md, a zero-to-hero technical guide that starts atbin/git-mind.jsand traces the major runtime paths end to end.README.mdanddocs/README.mdso it is discoverable from the canonical documentation map.Problem Statement
Issue #318 tracks Mermaid rendering problems in the technical teardown. The existing documentation set also lacked a single end-to-end execution-path explanation for readers with no prior project context. This PR closes that gap with a validated Markdown teardown whose Mermaid diagrams render successfully and whose flowcharts use the requested
TDorientation.ADR Compliance (Required)
Relevant ADR(s)
Compliance Declaration
Exception Request (Required if deviating)
1376115if needed.Architecture Laws Checklist (Hard Gates)
Canonical Truth & Context
--at,--observer,--trust) or deterministically defaulted.Determinism & Provenance
Artifact Hygiene
Contracts & Compatibility
Extension/Effects Safety (if applicable)
Scope Control
Backward Compatibility
Test Plan (Required)
Unit
# Not run: docs-only change; no runtime logic changed.Integration
# Not run: docs-only change; no runtime integration path changed.Determinism
flowchart TD.Contract/Schema
# Not applicable: no schema files changed.Policy Gates
Security / Trust Impact
Performance Impact
Observability / Debuggability
Operational Notes
1376115.Linked Issues / Milestones
Reviewer Quick Verdict Block (for maintainers)
MUST (Hard Gates)
SHOULD (Quality)
Verdict