chore: update coderabbit rules and ui copy

[ymkiux]

Summary

• Add CodeRabbit review instructions to restrict feedback scope to correctness, safety, and quality.
• Remove the market note about external MCP directories and update the UI test.
• Neutralize README headings and contribution wording.

Tests

• Skipped: not requested.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation

  • Updated section headings and contribution wording for clearer comparison and contribution guidance.

• UI/UX Improvements

  • Removed an informational note from the skills market panel.

• Chores

  • Tightened review guidance to limit feedback to correctness, safety, and quality concerns.

• Tests

  • Relaxed a couple of test assertions related to localized market text.

[github-actions]

@coderabbitai re-review ！Stop making breaking changes, do a proper review！

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 40a0cca1-aae6-4716-ba04-29b68cf344c7

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between d160904 and 5332cd7.

📒 Files selected for processing (5)

• .coderabbit.yaml
• README.en.md
• README.md
• tests/unit/config-tabs-ui.test.mjs
• web-ui/index.html

💤 Files with no reviewable changes (2)

• tests/unit/config-tabs-ui.test.mjs
• web-ui/index.html

📜 Recent review details

🧰 Additional context used

🧠 Learnings (4)

📓 Common learnings

Learnt from: github-actions[bot]
Repo: SakuraByteCore/codexmate PR: 0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2026-03-31T12:37:50.988Z
Learning: In PR `#59` for SakuraByteCore/codexmate, github-actions[bot] repeatedly flagged that CodeRabbit was introducing breaking changes. The maintainer's absolute constraint is: no breaking changes in any review suggestion; limit all feedback to correctness, safety, and quality only within the existing design, without refactoring or altering APIs, interfaces, or behavior.

Learnt from: github-actions[bot]
Repo: SakuraByteCore/codexmate PR: 0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2026-03-30T04:47:15.339Z
Learning: In PR `#55` for SakuraByteCore/codexmate, github-actions[bot] repeatedly flagged that CodeRabbit was introducing breaking changes. The maintainer's absolute constraint is: no breaking changes in any review suggestion; limit all feedback to correctness, safety, and quality only within the existing design, without refactoring or altering APIs, interfaces, or behavior.

Learnt from: SurviveM
Repo: SakuraByteCore/codexmate PR: 0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2026-03-29T02:42:32.761Z
Learning: The repository maintainer SurviveM (GitHub: SurviveM, repo: SakuraByteCore/codexmate) prefers that CodeRabbit review suggestions do not introduce breaking changes. Reviews should focus on correctness, safety, and quality without recommending refactors or changes that would break existing APIs, interfaces, or behavior.

📚 Learning: 2026-03-31T12:37:50.988Z

Learnt from: github-actions[bot]
Repo: SakuraByteCore/codexmate PR: 0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2026-03-31T12:37:50.988Z
Learning: In PR `#59` for SakuraByteCore/codexmate, github-actions[bot] repeatedly flagged that CodeRabbit was introducing breaking changes. The maintainer's absolute constraint is: no breaking changes in any review suggestion; limit all feedback to correctness, safety, and quality only within the existing design, without refactoring or altering APIs, interfaces, or behavior.

Applied to files:

• .coderabbit.yaml
• README.en.md

📚 Learning: 2026-03-30T04:47:15.339Z

Learnt from: github-actions[bot]
Repo: SakuraByteCore/codexmate PR: 0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2026-03-30T04:47:15.339Z
Learning: In PR `#55` for SakuraByteCore/codexmate, github-actions[bot] repeatedly flagged that CodeRabbit was introducing breaking changes. The maintainer's absolute constraint is: no breaking changes in any review suggestion; limit all feedback to correctness, safety, and quality only within the existing design, without refactoring or altering APIs, interfaces, or behavior.

Applied to files:

• .coderabbit.yaml
• README.en.md

📚 Learning: 2026-03-29T02:42:32.761Z

Learnt from: SurviveM
Repo: SakuraByteCore/codexmate PR: 0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2026-03-29T02:42:32.761Z
Learning: The repository maintainer SurviveM (GitHub: SurviveM, repo: SakuraByteCore/codexmate) prefers that CodeRabbit review suggestions do not introduce breaking changes. Reviews should focus on correctness, safety, and quality without recommending refactors or changes that would break existing APIs, interfaces, or behavior.

Applied to files:

• .coderabbit.yaml

🔇 Additional comments (3)

README.md (1)

31-31: Doc copy updates look good and stay within safe scope.

Line 31 and Line 252 are wording-only changes with no correctness, safety, or behavioral risk.

Based on learnings: “Reviews should focus on correctness, safety, and quality without recommending refactors or changes that would break existing APIs, interfaces, or behavior.”

Also applies to: 252-252

README.en.md (1)

31-31: English README wording updates are safe.

Line 31 and Line 251 are content-neutral copy edits and do not introduce correctness or safety concerns.

Based on learnings: “The maintainer's absolute constraint is: no breaking changes in any review suggestion; limit all feedback to correctness, safety, and quality only within the existing design, without refactoring or altering APIs, interfaces, or behavior.”

Also applies to: 251-251

.coderabbit.yaml (1)

5-8: No action needed—reviews.instructions is a valid CodeRabbit configuration key.

The schema at https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json explicitly defines reviews.instructions as a valid string property (max 10000 chars) for global review instructions. The configuration in .coderabbit.yaml is correct and does not violate any schema constraints. No changes are required.

			> Likely an incorrect or invalid review comment.

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

This PR updates .coderabbit.yaml review instructions, renames headings and tweaks contribution phrasing in English and Chinese READMEs, removes two assertions from a UI test, and deletes a static market-note element from the skills market panel in the web UI.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Configuration ​.coderabbit.yaml	Added reviews.instructions to restrict review feedback to correctness, safety, and quality within the current design; explicitly disallows breaking changes, API/interface/behavior changes, and refactor suggestions.
Documentation README.en.md, README.md	Renamed marketing/positioning headings to "Comparison"/"功能对比" and softened contribution wording ("accepted"/"可按需提交"); no links, commands, or structural changes.
Tests tests/unit/config-tabs-ui.test.mjs	Removed two assert.match checks that expected localized text about hiding MCP online directories/external markets and showing the local skills/import flow.
User Interface web-ui/index.html	Removed a static <div class="skills-panel-note"> from the 技能市场 panel that described MCP directory/external market visibility and local skills/import/distribution flow.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• refactor: remove gemini and opencode traces #36: Modifies the same UI, tests, and README areas (web-ui/index.html, tests/unit/config-tabs-ui.test.mjs, README files); closely related.
• docs: include gemini and opencode coverage in docs #35: Edits English and Chinese README files with similar heading/content adjustments.
• chore: revert recent main merges #10: Touches web-ui/index.html and guidance related to review/notes; related to the removed market-note.

Poem

🐰 A nibble at config, a tidy little tweak,
Headings hopped over, phrasing now meek.
Two assertions trimmed, a note slipped away,
The market panel breathes in room to play.
Cheers from a rabbit — gentle changes today.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title 'chore: update coderabbit rules and ui copy' directly aligns with the main changes: adding CodeRabbit review instructions and updating UI copy in README files and HTML.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

📝 Generate docstrings

• Create stacked PR
• Commit on current branch

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch chore/coderabbit-rules-ui-copy

---

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

[coderabbitai]

@github-actions[bot] Understood — I will strictly limit my review to correctness, safety, and quality within the existing design, with no breaking changes, no API/interface/behavior alterations, and no refactoring suggestions. Triggering a full re-review now.

---

🧠 Learnings used

Learnt from: github-actions[bot]
Repo: SakuraByteCore/codexmate PR: 0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2026-03-31T12:37:50.988Z
Learning: In PR `#59` for SakuraByteCore/codexmate, github-actions[bot] repeatedly flagged that CodeRabbit was introducing breaking changes. The maintainer's absolute constraint is: no breaking changes in any review suggestion; limit all feedback to correctness, safety, and quality only within the existing design, without refactoring or altering APIs, interfaces, or behavior.

---

Learnt from: github-actions[bot]
Repo: SakuraByteCore/codexmate PR: 0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2026-03-30T04:47:15.339Z
Learning: In PR `#55` for SakuraByteCore/codexmate, github-actions[bot] repeatedly flagged that CodeRabbit was introducing breaking changes. The maintainer's absolute constraint is: no breaking changes in any review suggestion; limit all feedback to correctness, safety, and quality only within the existing design, without refactoring or altering APIs, interfaces, or behavior.

---

Learnt from: SurviveM
Repo: SakuraByteCore/codexmate PR: 0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2026-03-29T02:42:32.761Z
Learning: The repository maintainer SurviveM (GitHub: SurviveM, repo: SakuraByteCore/codexmate) prefers that CodeRabbit review suggestions do not introduce breaking changes. Reviews should focus on correctness, safety, and quality without recommending refactors or changes that would break existing APIs, interfaces, or behavior.

✅ Actions performed

Full review triggered.

[ymkiux]

@coderabbitai re-review

[coderabbitai]

@ymkiux Sure! Triggering a full re-review of PR #60 now. I'll keep my feedback strictly limited to correctness, safety, and quality within the existing design — no breaking changes, no API/interface/behavior alterations, and no refactoring suggestions.

---

🧠 Learnings used

Learnt from: github-actions[bot]
Repo: SakuraByteCore/codexmate PR: 0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2026-03-30T04:47:15.339Z
Learning: In PR `#55` for SakuraByteCore/codexmate, github-actions[bot] repeatedly flagged that CodeRabbit was introducing breaking changes. The maintainer's absolute constraint is: no breaking changes in any review suggestion; limit all feedback to correctness, safety, and quality only within the existing design, without refactoring or altering APIs, interfaces, or behavior.

---

Learnt from: github-actions[bot]
Repo: SakuraByteCore/codexmate PR: 0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2026-03-31T12:37:50.988Z
Learning: In PR `#59` for SakuraByteCore/codexmate, github-actions[bot] repeatedly flagged that CodeRabbit was introducing breaking changes. The maintainer's absolute constraint is: no breaking changes in any review suggestion; limit all feedback to correctness, safety, and quality only within the existing design, without refactoring or altering APIs, interfaces, or behavior.

---

Learnt from: SurviveM
Repo: SakuraByteCore/codexmate PR: 0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2026-03-29T02:42:32.761Z
Learning: The repository maintainer SurviveM (GitHub: SurviveM, repo: SakuraByteCore/codexmate) prefers that CodeRabbit review suggestions do not introduce breaking changes. Reviews should focus on correctness, safety, and quality without recommending refactors or changes that would break existing APIs, interfaces, or behavior.

✅ Actions performed

Full review triggered.