Sweep the change set, not only the file you noticed the defect in - #91
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Earned by the review of PR #90, where two defects survived a sweep I had already done. Peeling a probe onto `main` brought prose written against an older state. I swept the design notes for links whose targets no longer existed, found three, and fixed them -- then committed without asking whether the SOURCE FILES moving in the same commit had the same defect. They did: the module doc named the same absent checklist, and three sites named a queue module that had been renamed. A reviewer found both. CONTRACT INTEGRITY rule 3 is the natural home and already says "the reported site is a sample, not the population", but neither half of it fires here. Its trigger is a change to a stated CONTRACT rule, and a dangling link is not one; its population is the component and its dependents, reached by grep, not the commit in front of you. So this is a gap rather than a restatement, which is why it lands as one sentence inside rule 3 rather than as a second sweeping rule somewhere else -- two rules about sweeping would be exactly the restatement drift this section exists to prevent. Deliberately narrow, and worth saying so: this is mechanical and cheap, and it would have caught both prose defects in that PR. It would NOT have caught the same review's most valuable finding -- that enabling two non-default features on a workspace member removed the default-features build from CI -- which needed a reviewer reasoning about feature unification, and which no amount of grepping one's own diff would surface. Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🟢 Approval recommended
No unresolved review issues remain.
Pull request overview
Adds contributor guidance to sweep all files in a commit for repeated defects.
Changes:
- Extends CONTRACT INTEGRITY rule 3.
- Documents change-set-wide defect sweeps.
File summaries
| File | Description |
|---|---|
.github/copilot-instructions.md |
Adds change-set sweep guidance. |
Review details
- Files reviewed: 1/1 changed files
- Comments generated: 0
- Review effort level: Lite
💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.
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
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.
One sentence, added inside CONTRACT INTEGRITY rule 3.
What earned it
The review of #90 found two defects that had survived a sweep I had already done.
Peeling a probe onto
mainbrought prose written against an older state. I swept the design notes for links whose targets no longer existed, found three, fixed them -- and committed without asking whether the source files moving in the same commit had the same defect. They did: the module doc named the same absent checklist, and three sites named a queue module that had since been renamed.Why it goes inside rule 3, not beside it
Rule 3 is the natural home and already says "the reported site is a sample, not the population." But neither half of it fires on this:
Two different triggers, two different populations -- so this is a gap rather than a restatement. Landing it as one sentence inside rule 3 keeps a single sweeping rule; two rules about sweeping would be precisely the restatement drift that section exists to prevent.
Deliberately narrow
Worth stating plainly: this is mechanical and cheap, and it would have caught both prose defects in #90.
It would not have caught that review's most valuable finding -- that enabling two non-default features on a workspace member removed the default-features build from CI. That needed a reviewer reasoning about feature unification, and no amount of grepping one's own diff surfaces it.
A narrow win, taken because it is nearly free, not because it addresses the class of thing that cost the most.