feat(rfc): support in-version spec authoring#36
Merged
Merged
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: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: ⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
📒 Files selected for processing (21)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (13)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughRFC lifecycle rules now enforce current-version changelog ownership, clause ChangesRFC lifecycle and editing governance
Estimated code review effort: 4 (Complex) | ~60 minutes Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Operator
participant GovctlCLI
participant RfcLifecycle
participant ChangelogStore
participant ClauseStore
Operator->>GovctlCLI: edit changelog or advance RFC
GovctlCLI->>RfcLifecycle: validate lifecycle operation
RfcLifecycle->>ChangelogStore: resolve current RFC-version entry
RfcLifecycle->>ClauseStore: inspect clause since values
ClauseStore-->>RfcLifecycle: return pending or resolved clauses
RfcLifecycle-->>GovctlCLI: persist edit, seal phase, or report diagnostic
Possibly related PRs
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 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 |
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know! |
![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
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
gov/schema/edit-ops.json (1)
656-728: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🔵 Trivial | ⚡ Quick winEnable
"get"verb for nested changelog fields.While
"get"is enabled for the rootchangelogobject, the individual sub-fields (summary,added,changed, etc.) lack"get"in theirverbsarrays. This prevents users from inspecting specific fields directly via commands likegovctl rfc get RFC-0002 changelog.summary, which is inconsistent with other artifacts (likeadrorwork) that allow querying nested items.♻️ Proposed fix to allow `get` access
Apply the
"get"verb to the scalar fields, list fields, and list item operations:{ "name": "summary", "node": { "kind": "scalar", - "verbs": ["set"], + "verbs": ["get", "set"], "set_mode": { "type": "string" } } }, { "name": "added", "node": { "kind": "list", - "verbs": ["add", "remove"], + "verbs": ["get", "add", "remove"], "text_key": null, - "item": { "kind": "scalar", "verbs": ["remove"] } + "item": { "kind": "scalar", "verbs": ["get", "remove"] } } }, { "name": "changed", "node": { "kind": "list", - "verbs": ["add", "remove"], + "verbs": ["get", "add", "remove"], "text_key": null, - "item": { "kind": "scalar", "verbs": ["remove"] } + "item": { "kind": "scalar", "verbs": ["get", "remove"] } } }, { "name": "deprecated", "node": { "kind": "list", - "verbs": ["add", "remove"], + "verbs": ["get", "add", "remove"], "text_key": null, - "item": { "kind": "scalar", "verbs": ["remove"] } + "item": { "kind": "scalar", "verbs": ["get", "remove"] } } }, { "name": "removed", "node": { "kind": "list", - "verbs": ["add", "remove"], + "verbs": ["get", "add", "remove"], "text_key": null, - "item": { "kind": "scalar", "verbs": ["remove"] } + "item": { "kind": "scalar", "verbs": ["get", "remove"] } } }, { "name": "fixed", "node": { "kind": "list", - "verbs": ["add", "remove"], + "verbs": ["get", "add", "remove"], "text_key": null, - "item": { "kind": "scalar", "verbs": ["remove"] } + "item": { "kind": "scalar", "verbs": ["get", "remove"] } } }, { "name": "security", "node": { "kind": "list", - "verbs": ["add", "remove"], + "verbs": ["get", "add", "remove"], "text_key": null, - "item": { "kind": "scalar", "verbs": ["remove"] } + "item": { "kind": "scalar", "verbs": ["get", "remove"] } } }🤖 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 `@gov/schema/edit-ops.json` around lines 656 - 728, Update the nested changelog field definitions under the RFC artifact’s changelog node to include "get" in each field’s verbs array, covering summary, added, changed, deprecated, removed, and security. Preserve their existing set/add/remove permissions and ensure list item definitions retain their current remove operation.
🤖 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 `@src/cmd/edit/doc_target/rfc_changelog.rs`:
- Around line 20-30: Update apply_current_changelog_doc and the
CurrentChangelogView handling so edits to version and date are not silently
ignored: either reject any changes to these read-only fields before applying
updates, or explicitly persist them if they are intended to be editable. Ensure
set operations report failure for rejected changes and retain existing behavior
for editable changelog fields.
- Around line 63-80: Move the root-only path validation before the
render_target_from_doc call in the RFC changelog flow, and remove the redundant
output path so each valid root request emits the changelog exactly once. Keep
invalid nested requests returning E0804FieldNotEditable without rendering or
printing JSON.
In `@src/cmd/lifecycle/rfc.rs`:
- Around line 343-346: Update the RFC bump flow around pending_clause_ids and
fill_pending_clause_versions to execute pending-Clause release only when the RFC
has normative status. Keep draft RFC Clause versions pending across bumps, and
preserve the existing finalization behavior that assigns their since values.
In `@tests/lifecycle_tests/rfc_cases/deprecation.rs`:
- Around line 52-60: Strengthen the deprecation test around the run_commands
invocation for RFC-0001 by asserting that the command succeeds and does not emit
an error, or by verifying that rfc.toml reaches the expected deprecated status.
Keep the existing unchanged-clause and since-field assertions to validate the
remaining behavior.
---
Nitpick comments:
In `@gov/schema/edit-ops.json`:
- Around line 656-728: Update the nested changelog field definitions under the
RFC artifact’s changelog node to include "get" in each field’s verbs array,
covering summary, added, changed, deprecated, removed, and security. Preserve
their existing set/add/remove permissions and ensure list item definitions
retain their current remove operation.
🪄 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: 942583bb-aa3c-4ffb-874b-0dc1397bdc5c
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (7)
tests/snapshots/test_errors__legacy_flat_clause_toml_accepted.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_errors__legacy_flat_rfc_toml_accepted.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_errors__valid_clause_toml_wire_format.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_errors__valid_rfc_toml_wire_format.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_help__rfc_bump_help.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_help__rfc_edit_help.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_help__rfc_get_help.snapis excluded by!**/*.snap
📒 Files selected for processing (45)
CHANGELOG.mddocs/guide/rfcs.mddocs/rfc/RFC-0000.mddocs/rfc/RFC-0001.mddocs/rfc/RFC-0002.mdgov/rfc/RFC-0000/clauses/C-CLAUSE-DEF.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0000/clauses/C-PHASE-LIFECYCLE.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0000/clauses/C-RFC-DEF.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0000/clauses/C-STATUS-LIFECYCLE.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0000/rfc.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0001/clauses/C-GATE-CONDITIONS.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0001/clauses/C-RFC-PHASE.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0001/rfc.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0002/clauses/C-LIFECYCLE-VERBS.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0002/rfc.tomlgov/schema/edit-ops.jsongov/schema/edit-ops.schema.jsongov/work/2026-07-16-allow-in-version-rfc-authoring-during-spec.tomlsrc/cli/resources/rfc.rssrc/cmd/edit/add.rssrc/cmd/edit/doc_target/mod.rssrc/cmd/edit/doc_target/rfc_changelog.rssrc/cmd/edit/doc_target/set.rssrc/cmd/edit/get.rssrc/cmd/edit/remove.rssrc/cmd/edit/rules.rssrc/cmd/lifecycle/mod.rssrc/cmd/lifecycle/rfc.rssrc/cmd/lifecycle/rfc_clause_versions.rssrc/cmd/new/artifacts/clause.rssrc/diagnostic/code/metadata.rssrc/diagnostic/code/mod.rssrc/validate/rfc.rssrc/write/changelog/mod.rssrc/write/changelog/tests.rssrc/write/mod.rstests/common/fixtures.rstests/edit_tests/rfc.rstests/error_tests/rfc_clause_cases/check.rstests/error_tests/rfc_clause_cases/wire_format.rstests/lifecycle_tests/clause.rstests/lifecycle_tests/rfc_cases/advance.rstests/lifecycle_tests/rfc_cases/bump.rstests/lifecycle_tests/rfc_cases/deprecation.rstests/test_help.rs
Comment on lines
+20
to
+30
| #[derive(Debug, Serialize, Deserialize)] | ||
| struct CurrentChangelogView { | ||
| version: String, | ||
| date: String, | ||
| summary: Option<String>, | ||
| added: Vec<String>, | ||
| changed: Vec<String>, | ||
| deprecated: Vec<String>, | ||
| removed: Vec<String>, | ||
| fixed: Vec<String>, | ||
| security: Vec<String>, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🗄️ Data Integrity & Integration | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win
Do not silently discard edits to version and date.
These fields are exposed in the editable document, but apply_current_changelog_doc ignores them. A set operation can therefore succeed while persisting no requested change. Reject changes to read-only fields or apply them explicitly.
Proposed read-only validation
let view: CurrentChangelogDoc = deserialize_edit_doc(doc, id)?;
let entry = current_changelog_entry_mut(rfc)?;
+ if view.changelog.version != entry.version || view.changelog.date != entry.date {
+ return Err(Diagnostic::new(
+ DiagnosticCode::E0804FieldNotEditable,
+ "RFC changelog version and date are not editable",
+ id,
+ ));
+ }
entry.notes = view.changelog.summary;Also applies to: 158-171
🤖 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 `@src/cmd/edit/doc_target/rfc_changelog.rs` around lines 20 - 30, Update
apply_current_changelog_doc and the CurrentChangelogView handling so edits to
version and date are not silently ignored: either reject any changes to these
read-only fields before applying updates, or explicitly persist them if they are
intended to be editable. Ensure set operations report failure for rejected
changes and retain existing behavior for editable changelog fields.
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 `@docs/rfc/RFC-0002.md`:
- Around line 397-398: Clarify requirement 7’s restoration baseline and rollback
semantics to cover the complete governed filesystem state, not only
byte-for-byte contents of pre-existing files. Explicitly define that rollback
removes artifacts created after the baseline, restores deleted artifacts and
their contents, and restores relevant metadata/state; keep requirement 8’s
lifecycle exceptions unchanged.
In `@gov/rfc/RFC-0000/clauses/C-STATUS-LIFECYCLE.toml`:
- Line 14: Remove the duplicated [content] table header in the TOML document,
leaving exactly one declaration before its associated fields so the file parses
successfully.
In `@src/validate/rfc.rs`:
- Around line 35-52: Add the RFC clause citations RFC-0000:C-RFC-DEF and
RFC-0002:C-LIFECYCLE-VERBS to the diagnostic emitted by the
current-changelog-count check in the RFC validation flow. Keep the existing
count validation, diagnostic codes, and message unchanged while associating the
invariant with both cited clauses.
🪄 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: 0fc5246d-94c7-4966-9b8a-92b752952989
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (7)
tests/snapshots/test_errors__legacy_flat_clause_toml_accepted.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_errors__legacy_flat_rfc_toml_accepted.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_errors__valid_clause_toml_wire_format.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_errors__valid_rfc_toml_wire_format.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_help__rfc_bump_help.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_help__rfc_edit_help.snapis excluded by!**/*.snaptests/snapshots/test_help__rfc_get_help.snapis excluded by!**/*.snap
📒 Files selected for processing (49)
.claude/skills/gov/SKILL.md.claude/skills/rfc-writer/SKILL.md.claude/skills/spec/SKILL.mdAGENTS.mdCHANGELOG.mddocs/guide/rfcs.mddocs/rfc/RFC-0000.mddocs/rfc/RFC-0001.mddocs/rfc/RFC-0002.mdgov/rfc/RFC-0000/clauses/C-CLAUSE-DEF.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0000/clauses/C-PHASE-LIFECYCLE.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0000/clauses/C-RFC-DEF.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0000/clauses/C-STATUS-LIFECYCLE.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0000/rfc.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0001/clauses/C-GATE-CONDITIONS.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0001/clauses/C-RFC-PHASE.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0001/rfc.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0002/clauses/C-LIFECYCLE-VERBS.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0002/rfc.tomlgov/schema/edit-ops.jsongov/schema/edit-ops.schema.jsongov/work/2026-07-16-allow-in-version-rfc-authoring-during-spec.tomlsrc/cli/resources/rfc.rssrc/cmd/edit/add.rssrc/cmd/edit/doc_target/mod.rssrc/cmd/edit/doc_target/rfc_changelog.rssrc/cmd/edit/doc_target/set.rssrc/cmd/edit/get.rssrc/cmd/edit/remove.rssrc/cmd/edit/rules.rssrc/cmd/lifecycle/mod.rssrc/cmd/lifecycle/rfc.rssrc/cmd/lifecycle/rfc_clause_versions.rssrc/cmd/new/artifacts/clause.rssrc/diagnostic/code/metadata.rssrc/diagnostic/code/mod.rssrc/validate/rfc.rssrc/write/changelog/mod.rssrc/write/changelog/tests.rssrc/write/mod.rstests/common/fixtures.rstests/edit_tests/rfc.rstests/error_tests/rfc_clause_cases/check.rstests/error_tests/rfc_clause_cases/wire_format.rstests/lifecycle_tests/clause.rstests/lifecycle_tests/rfc_cases/advance.rstests/lifecycle_tests/rfc_cases/bump.rstests/lifecycle_tests/rfc_cases/deprecation.rstests/test_help.rs
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (36)
- gov/schema/edit-ops.schema.json
- src/diagnostic/code/metadata.rs
- src/write/mod.rs
- tests/test_help.rs
- src/cmd/edit/get.rs
- src/cmd/edit/rules.rs
- gov/rfc/RFC-0000/clauses/C-RFC-DEF.toml
- gov/rfc/RFC-0002/rfc.toml
- src/cmd/edit/remove.rs
- gov/rfc/RFC-0000/clauses/C-CLAUSE-DEF.toml
- gov/rfc/RFC-0001/clauses/C-RFC-PHASE.toml
- CHANGELOG.md
- tests/lifecycle_tests/clause.rs
- tests/lifecycle_tests/rfc_cases/deprecation.rs
- tests/error_tests/rfc_clause_cases/check.rs
- tests/error_tests/rfc_clause_cases/wire_format.rs
- gov/rfc/RFC-0000/clauses/C-PHASE-LIFECYCLE.toml
- src/cmd/new/artifacts/clause.rs
- gov/rfc/RFC-0000/rfc.toml
- src/cmd/edit/doc_target/set.rs
- src/cmd/edit/add.rs
- gov/schema/edit-ops.json
- src/write/changelog/tests.rs
- src/write/changelog/mod.rs
- gov/work/2026-07-16-allow-in-version-rfc-authoring-during-spec.toml
- src/diagnostic/code/mod.rs
- src/cmd/lifecycle/rfc_clause_versions.rs
- gov/rfc/RFC-0001/clauses/C-GATE-CONDITIONS.toml
- docs/guide/rfcs.md
- docs/rfc/RFC-0001.md
- tests/lifecycle_tests/rfc_cases/advance.rs
- tests/edit_tests/rfc.rs
- src/cmd/edit/doc_target/rfc_changelog.rs
- tests/lifecycle_tests/rfc_cases/bump.rs
- src/cmd/lifecycle/rfc.rs
- gov/rfc/RFC-0002/clauses/C-LIFECYCLE-VERBS.toml
| "lifecycle", | ||
| ] | ||
|
|
||
| [content] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🎯 Functional Correctness | 🔴 Critical | ⚡ Quick win
Duplicated TOML table header.
The [content] table header is duplicated, which causes a TOML syntax error.
🐛 Proposed fix
-[content]
-[content]
+[content][incorrect_review_comment]
🤖 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 `@gov/rfc/RFC-0000/clauses/C-STATUS-LIFECYCLE.toml` at line 14, Remove the
duplicated [content] table header in the TOML document, leaving exactly one
declaration before its associated fields so the file parses successfully.
Comment on lines
+35
to
+52
| let current_changelog_count = rfc | ||
| .rfc | ||
| .changelog | ||
| .iter() | ||
| .filter(|entry| entry.version == rfc.rfc.version) | ||
| .count(); | ||
| if current_changelog_count != 1 { | ||
| let code = if current_changelog_count == 0 { | ||
| DiagnosticCode::E0111RfcNoChangelog | ||
| } else { | ||
| DiagnosticCode::E0115RfcCurrentChangelogInvalid | ||
| }; | ||
| result.diagnostics.push(Diagnostic::new( | ||
| DiagnosticCode::W0101RfcNoChangelog, | ||
| "RFC has no changelog entries (hint: run `govctl rfc bump`)", | ||
| code, | ||
| format!( | ||
| "RFC must contain exactly one changelog entry for current version {} (found {})", | ||
| rfc.rfc.version, current_changelog_count | ||
| ), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🟡 Minor | ⚡ Quick win
🧩 Analysis chain
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Search for changelog rules in normative RFCs
rg -i -C 3 "changelog" gov/rfc/Repository: govctl-org/govctl
Length of output: 35658
Add the RFC clause citation for the current-changelog check. RFC-0000:C-RFC-DEF defines the invariant: an RFC must have exactly one current changelog entry whose version matches the RFC version. RFC-0002:C-LIFECYCLE-VERBS restates the same current-entry rule.
🤖 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 `@src/validate/rfc.rs` around lines 35 - 52, Add the RFC clause citations
RFC-0000:C-RFC-DEF and RFC-0002:C-LIFECYCLE-VERBS to the diagnostic emitted by
the current-changelog-count check in the RFC validation flow. Keep the existing
count validation, diagnostic codes, and message unchanged while associating the
invariant with both cited clauses.
Source: Coding guidelines
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
Caution
Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.
⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)
tests/lifecycle_tests/rfc_cases/bump.rs (1)
729-730: 🎯 Functional Correctness | 🔴 Critical | ⚡ Quick winFix cross-platform compilation error.
This test unconditionally imports and uses
std::os::unix::fs::PermissionsExt, which will cause a compilation error on non-Unix platforms (such as Windows). You must gate the test with#[cfg(unix)]as is done with the permission rollback tests insrc/write/mod.rs.🐛 Proposed fix
+#[cfg(unix)] fn test_failed_bump_preserves_files_without_success_output() -> common::TestResult { use std::os::unix::fs::PermissionsExt;🤖 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 `@tests/lifecycle_tests/rfc_cases/bump.rs` around lines 729 - 730, Gate test_failed_bump_preserves_files_without_success_output with #[cfg(unix)] so its Unix-only PermissionsExt import and usage are excluded on non-Unix platforms, matching the existing permission rollback tests in src/write/mod.rs.
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
.claude/skills/rfc-writer/SKILL.md (1)
140-160: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🔵 Trivial | ⚡ Quick winAdd governing RFC citations to the normative lifecycle guidance.
The new phase, amendment, compatibility, and clause-versioning rules should be directly traceable to authoritative governance artifacts.
.claude/skills/rfc-writer/SKILL.md#L140-L160: cite the RFC clauses governing phase-aware authoring and clausesinceassignment.AGENTS.md#L86-L89,102-L109: cite the RFC clauses governing status/phase compatibility and lifecycle transitions.🤖 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 @.claude/skills/rfc-writer/SKILL.md around lines 140 - 160, Add governing RFC clause citations to the normative lifecycle guidance in .claude/skills/rfc-writer/SKILL.md at lines 140-160, covering phase-aware authoring and Clause since assignment. Also add citations in AGENTS.md at lines 86-89 and 102-109 for the status/phase compatibility and lifecycle-transition rules, using the authoritative RFC clause references without changing the guidance itself.Source: Coding guidelines
tests/lifecycle_tests/rfc_cases/bump.rs (1)
393-393: 🎯 Functional Correctness | 🔵 Trivial | 💤 Low valueFix the field name from
notestosummary.The test populates
historical["notes"], but the changelog schema definessummaryas the correct field name. Although this doesn't break the test, correcting it avoids schema confusion.♻️ Proposed fix
- historical["notes"] = toml::Value::String("Historical summary".to_string()); + historical["summary"] = toml::Value::String("Historical summary".to_string());🤖 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 `@tests/lifecycle_tests/rfc_cases/bump.rs` at line 393, Update the historical changelog fixture assignment in the bump test from the schema-invalid `notes` key to the defined `summary` key, preserving the existing `"Historical summary"` value.
🤖 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 @.claude/skills/rfc-writer/SKILL.md:
- Around line 145-147: Update the post-spec version-bump rule in the phase
transition guidance to apply only to content-changing normative RFC or Clause
edits. Explicitly exempt lifecycle-approved metadata and changelog-only updates,
while preserving the existing amendment and release requirements for qualifying
edits in impl, test, or stable.
---
Outside diff comments:
In `@tests/lifecycle_tests/rfc_cases/bump.rs`:
- Around line 729-730: Gate
test_failed_bump_preserves_files_without_success_output with #[cfg(unix)] so its
Unix-only PermissionsExt import and usage are excluded on non-Unix platforms,
matching the existing permission rollback tests in src/write/mod.rs.
---
Nitpick comments:
In @.claude/skills/rfc-writer/SKILL.md:
- Around line 140-160: Add governing RFC clause citations to the normative
lifecycle guidance in .claude/skills/rfc-writer/SKILL.md at lines 140-160,
covering phase-aware authoring and Clause since assignment. Also add citations
in AGENTS.md at lines 86-89 and 102-109 for the status/phase compatibility and
lifecycle-transition rules, using the authoritative RFC clause references
without changing the guidance itself.
In `@tests/lifecycle_tests/rfc_cases/bump.rs`:
- Line 393: Update the historical changelog fixture assignment in the bump test
from the schema-invalid `notes` key to the defined `summary` key, preserving the
existing `"Historical summary"` value.
🪄 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: a0636dd4-996c-417d-bac9-530e72c3f741
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
tests/snapshots/test_help__rfc_bump_help.snapis excluded by!**/*.snap
📒 Files selected for processing (21)
.claude/skills/gov/SKILL.md.claude/skills/rfc-writer/SKILL.md.claude/skills/spec/SKILL.mdAGENTS.mdCHANGELOG.mddocs/guide/rfcs.mddocs/rfc/RFC-0000.mddocs/rfc/RFC-0002.mdgov/rfc/RFC-0000/clauses/C-CLAUSE-DEF.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0000/rfc.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0002/clauses/C-LIFECYCLE-VERBS.tomlgov/rfc/RFC-0002/rfc.tomlgov/work/2026-07-16-address-valid-pr-review-follow-ups.tomlgov/work/2026-07-16-reject-version-bumps-for-non-normative-rfcs.tomlsrc/cli/resources/rfc.rssrc/cmd/edit/doc_target/rfc_changelog.rssrc/cmd/lifecycle/rfc.rssrc/validate/rfc.rssrc/write/mod.rstests/lifecycle_tests/rfc_cases/bump.rstests/lifecycle_tests/rfc_cases/deprecation.rs
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (9)
- src/cli/resources/rfc.rs
- src/validate/rfc.rs
- tests/lifecycle_tests/rfc_cases/deprecation.rs
- .claude/skills/spec/SKILL.md
- CHANGELOG.md
- src/cmd/edit/doc_target/rfc_changelog.rs
- src/cmd/lifecycle/rfc.rs
- docs/guide/rfcs.md
- gov/rfc/RFC-0002/clauses/C-LIFECYCLE-VERBS.toml
Reject version-changing bumps for draft and deprecated RFCs while preserving changelog-only updates. Clarify rollback restoration state and strengthen lifecycle regression coverage.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
changelog.summaryand categorized change lists) viarfc get/edit ... changelog.Bug Fixes
spec → implblocks pending clauses; clarified clausesinceassignment and pending handling.--change) update without changing RFC version.Documentation
Tests