Pin the rain input to rain.cli 91d70ac

[thedavidmeister]

Refs rainlanguage/rainix#377

What

flake.lock only: the rain input moves from rain.cli 2481470 to 91d70ac.

Why

main is red on two workflows since #2863 merged.

• git-clean builds rain-cli, and at 2481470 that fetches every crate from crates.io/api, which now answers 403 to the curl User-Agent nix sends. 91d70ac vendors through the static.crates.io CDN and builds. rain.cli main head bce8de4 does not build (stale vendor hash after the release bump; rain.cli Update i9r address #25 fixes that shape), so the pin is exact rather than main.
• rainix-sol failed five LibRaindexDeployProd tests on SubParser not deployed. The SubParser candidate is now live on all five networks (run 34838042705), so this run of the suite passes; nothing in this diff touches Solidity.

QA

• Discriminating tests: n/a, lock file only. The prod deploy tests are the check: red on main since 2026-09-13 for a deployment that now exists.
• Mutations applied: n/a, no logic changed.
• Oracle: rain.cli 91d70ac builds locally and in CI (its nix-build check on bump deps #24); the SubParser runtime code at 0xE14F3A7bC20116E47A5C302cD7236479fcb4F5E6 hashed against the pointer on Arbitrum, Base, Base Sepolia, Flare and Polygon, 5 of 5 matching.
• Category check: main red on git-clean and rainix-sol; both covered.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01V8ViHcKLVk2YoS2joH4HdN

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Review was skipped due to path filters

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)

• flake.lock is excluded by !**/*.lock

CodeRabbit blocks several paths by default. You can override this behavior by explicitly including those paths in the path filters. For example, including **/dist/** will override the default block on the dist directory, by removing the pattern from both the lists.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Advanced

Run ID: bc44de40-3162-48d4-8c0b-2041c6d19461

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:

• 🔍 Trigger review

---

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.}

[github-actions]

@coderabbitai assess this PR size classification for the totality of the PR with the following criterias and report it in your comment:

S/M/L PR Classification Guidelines:

This guide helps classify merged pull requests by effort and complexity rather than just line count. The goal is to assess the difficulty and scope of changes after they have been completed.

Small (S)

Characteristics:

• Simple bug fixes, typos, or minor refactoring
• Single-purpose changes affecting 1-2 files
• Documentation updates
• Configuration tweaks
• Changes that require minimal context to review

Review Effort: Would have taken 5-10 minutes

Examples:

• Fix typo in variable name
• Update README with new instructions
• Adjust configuration values
• Simple one-line bug fixes
• Import statement cleanup

Medium (M)

Characteristics:

• Feature additions or enhancements
• Refactoring that touches multiple files but maintains existing behavior
• Breaking changes with backward compatibility
• Changes requiring some domain knowledge to review

Review Effort: Would have taken 15-30 minutes

Examples:

• Add new feature or component
• Refactor common utility functions
• Update dependencies with minor breaking changes
• Add new component with tests
• Performance optimizations
• More complex bug fixes

Large (L)

Characteristics:

• Major feature implementations
• Breaking changes or API redesigns
• Complex refactoring across multiple modules
• New architectural patterns or significant design changes
• Changes requiring deep context and multiple review rounds

Review Effort: Would have taken 45+ minutes

Examples:

• Complete new feature with frontend/backend changes
• Protocol upgrades or breaking changes
• Major architectural refactoring
• Framework or technology upgrades

Additional Factors to Consider

When deciding between sizes, also consider:

• Test coverage impact: More comprehensive test changes lean toward larger classification
• Risk level: Changes to critical systems bump up a size category
• Team familiarity: Novel patterns or technologies increase complexity

Notes:

• the assessment must be for the totality of the PR, that means comparing the base branch to the last commit of the PR
• the assessment output must be exactly one of: S, M or L (single-line comment) in format of: SIZE={S/M/L}
• do not include any additional text, only the size classification
• your assessment comment must not include tips or additional sections
• do NOT tag me or anyone else on your comment