[juanmaguitar]

Why

The review procedure always compared against origin/trunk, which includes earlier changes when a PR is stacked. It also listed local changes without requiring staged and untracked content to be inspected, and could misattribute a baseline check failure to the branch.

What changes

Make the configured PR base the review base, with an explicit trunk choice only for a confirmed no-PR review. Require separate inspection of unstaged, staged, and untracked work, and require base verification before attributing a deterministic failure to the branch.

How to test this

Starting state: This branch, with .github/instructions/code-review.instructions.md open.

1. Read Establish the review scope and diff.
   • Expected: a PR lookup failure stops the process rather than silently choosing trunk; the no-PR path explicitly sets base=trunk.
2. Review the listed Git commands.
   • Expected: they include committed diff, git diff, git diff --cached, and untracked-file discovery.
3. Read the deterministic-check guidance.
   • Expected: it requires verification of the selected base before calling a failure branch-caused.

What must not have happened: A stacked PR must not be reviewed as though its earlier stack layers were newly introduced, and a GitHub lookup failure must not create a false trunk baseline.

Platforms: any — repository Markdown only.

Risks and limitations

This is process guidance, not an automated guard. A reviewer must still inspect untracked-file contents and explicitly confirm the no-PR state before using trunk.

Related

Follow-up to the review-scope audit finding.

---

Design decisions and alternatives considered

The procedure deliberately fails closed when it cannot query a PR base. A fallback based on any gh failure would conflate an absent PR with an authentication, network, or API failure.

Review outcome (required — see AGENTS.md)

0 [fix here] · 0 [follow-up]

• Review: completed — /root/fresh_review_after_rebase (fresh agent context); reviewed uncommitted scope on 413c2a951a3b33e119f72e55dc36b208933c3956 / 413c2a951a3b33e119f72e55dc36b208933c3956; local independent judgement review with no findings; npm run lint and npm test passed (1,258 tests); published diff verified against the reviewed work.
• Since review: 413c2a951a3b33e119f72e55dc36b208933c3956 worktree → 9c2fa58284ef157e5c7719bb692c880e8f0a44ff checked; no additional changes and no findings.

Implementation notes

No application code or dependencies changed.

Screenshots or recording

No user-visible application surface changed.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

Next included review available in 53 minutes.

Check out review usage here.

View limit details

Limit details: You’ve used the included review currently available.

You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository.

Learn how review limits work.

Review configuration:

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Advanced

Run ID: e1f0e7e6-e8a9-4e32-b67f-a16555fd47a7

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 413c2a9 and 9c2fa58.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• .github/instructions/code-review.instructions.md

---

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.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}