Repository navigation
Single authoritative source asks text shown to readers to name the source of another party's facts - #462
Conversation
…urce of another party's facts
The record's scope named services, stores, reports and workflows, so a
reviewer reading it against a sentence in documentation, help text, a
message or a footnote did not apply it. A review footnote elsewhere
restated the platform's documentation with two clauses the page does
not say ("before credits", and a measurement of the App's own) and
passed review that way. The record now applies to text that restates
another party's facts, and asks whether it names the source and says
nothing as the source's fact that the source does not say.
A second control plants such a sentence in docs/REFERENCE.md. Driven 10
times each way with a Haiku reviewer: the new document catches it 10/10
and the reflow miss fires 0/10; the document before this change catches
the same plant 3/10.
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01EycJ7mGDxJLKzkppTnFNbx
a1c8b8d to
6e41e18
Compare
uphold-reviewGate alone under this owner: This App runs the gate alone for every pull request under this owner for now, so only uphold's rules ran. Use Full review on the uphold review check for a full review. ✅ uphold rules: uphold's rules pass · this repository's policy at 7bb0050Rule outputReviewed with uphold 1.40.0 by uphold-review 0.7.2 · 6e41e18 · claude-haiku-5-5 · 20 s · $0.00 list1 · $0.00 over 2 sessions Footnotes
|
Finishing Touches
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✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #462 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 94.98% 94.98%
=======================================
Files 56 56
Lines 28550 28550
=======================================
Hits 27118 27118
Misses 1432 1432 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
Why.
single-authoritative-sourcealready asks "Can every copy explain its source and refresh policy?". But itsapplies_whennames only services, stores, reports and workflows, so a reviewer reading it against a sentence of prose did not apply it. A review footnote elsewhere restated a platform's documentation with two clauses the page does not say: "before credits", and a measurement of the App's own stated as fact. The footnote passed review.Change.
applies_whengains: text shown to readers, such as documentation, help text, a message or a footnote, that restates facts another party owns, such as a vendor's documented behavior.review_questionsgains: where such text restates another party's facts, does it name the source, and does it say anything as that source's fact which the source does not say?[[review.control]]for the record inpolicy/upheld.toml. It plants an uncited, invented clause about osv-scanner's behavior indocs/REFERENCE.md, and its miss is a reflow of the same bullet.REVIEW.md,AGENTS.mdandreview-controls.jsonregenerated withuphold_check.py --review --emit.No new record: one incident, covered by an existing record once its scope says so (rule-of-three).
Evidence (Goodhart: the planted change, not the wording). I ran the new control's two sides 10 times each, with a Haiku reviewer fed
{document, change}as--drivedoes:The reviewer was a local
claude -pwrapper, which this repository does not ship. That gap is filed separately.Gate:
prek run --all-files --hook-stage manualpasses.https://claude.ai/code/session_01EycJ7mGDxJLKzkppTnFNbx