Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded
Your organization is not enrolled in usage-based pricing. Contact your admin to enable usage-based pricing to continue reviews beyond the rate limit, or try again in 9 minutes and 5 seconds. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. ℹ️ Review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
WalkthroughUpdated versioning and release docs to semantic three-part tags (v1.1.0); expanded Standard Terms with Data Protection, Audit Right, Subcontracting limits, Engagement/Retainer controls, Prior Inventions workflow, revised IP/confidentiality/indemnity/non-solicit/termination clauses; Special Terms template adds Monthly Hours Cap and Prior Inventions schedule; CI lint workflow renamed and consolidated. Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 4 (Complex) | ⏱️ ~45 minutes 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 2 | ❌ 1❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)
✅ Passed checks (2 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 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 |
Time Submission Status
You can submit time with the command. Example: See available commands to help comply with our Guidelines. |
|
@holdex pr submit-time 3.5h |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
CHANGELOG.md (1)
28-28: Style: hyphenate "open source" when used as compound adjective.Static analysis correctly suggests hyphenating "open-source" when it modifies a noun ("open-source materials"). Same issue appears in STANDARD_TERMS.md lines 276 and 279.
📝 Proposed hyphenation fix
- materials that would restrict the Company's use, and that the Contractor has full + materials that would restrict the Company's use, and that the Contractor has fullApply similar fix to STANDARD_TERMS.md:
- Line 276: "open source materials" → "open-source materials"
- Line 279: "open source code" → "open-source code"
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@CHANGELOG.md` at line 28, Edit the sentence containing "Work Product is original, contains no unlicensed third-party or open source" to hyphenate the compound adjective—change "open source" to "open-source"; likewise update the phrases in STANDARD_TERMS.md referenced as "open source materials" and "open source code" (lines noted in the review) to "open-source materials" and "open-source code" respectively so the compound adjective is hyphenated consistently.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Inline comments:
In `@SPECIAL_TERMS.md`:
- Around line 104-105: Edit SPECIAL_TERMS.md to remove the "Hourly" option from
the Work Order Payment Type line: change the line that currently reads "Payment
Type: [Per-Project / Milestone-Based / Hourly]" so it only lists "Per-Project /
Milestone-Based" (retain the surrounding brackets and formatting), leaving the
Agreement header ("Agreement: [Contractor Full Name] — Special Terms v[X.Y.Z] /
Standard Terms v[X.Y.Z]") unchanged.
---
Nitpick comments:
In `@CHANGELOG.md`:
- Line 28: Edit the sentence containing "Work Product is original, contains no
unlicensed third-party or open source" to hyphenate the compound
adjective—change "open source" to "open-source"; likewise update the phrases in
STANDARD_TERMS.md referenced as "open source materials" and "open source code"
(lines noted in the review) to "open-source materials" and "open-source code"
respectively so the compound adjective is hyphenated consistently.
🪄 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: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: d1b36d13-3af1-4ccf-b022-84e5e88ec9ec
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
CHANGELOG.mdREADME.mdSPECIAL_TERMS.mdSTANDARD_TERMS.md
| Agreement: [Contractor Full Name] — Special Terms v[X.Y.Z] / Standard Terms v[X.Y.Z] | ||
| Payment Type: [Per-Project / Milestone-Based / Hourly] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧩 Analysis chain
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash
# Check how Hourly/Retainer payment types are used across engagement modes
echo "=== Work Order references in STANDARD_TERMS.md ==="
rg -n -C3 'Work Order' STANDARD_TERMS.md | head -40
echo -e "\n=== Engagement Mode definitions ==="
rg -n -C5 'Engagement Mode' STANDARD_TERMS.md
echo -e "\n=== Payment Type references ==="
rg -n -C3 'Payment Type' STANDARD_TERMS.md SPECIAL_TERMS.mdRepository: holdex/contractor-terms
Length of output: 5354
Remove "Hourly" from the Work Order Payment Type options in SPECIAL_TERMS.md line 105.
Work Orders apply only to Project/Milestone engagements. Hourly billing applies exclusively to Retainer engagements, which don't use Work Orders. Keep Payment Type to: [Per-Project / Milestone-Based].
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
In `@SPECIAL_TERMS.md` around lines 104 - 105, Edit SPECIAL_TERMS.md to remove the
"Hourly" option from the Work Order Payment Type line: change the line that
currently reads "Payment Type: [Per-Project / Milestone-Based / Hourly]" so it
only lists "Per-Project / Milestone-Based" (retain the surrounding brackets and
formatting), leaving the Agreement header ("Agreement: [Contractor Full Name] —
Special Terms v[X.Y.Z] / Standard Terms v[X.Y.Z]") unchanged.
|
Problem: holdex/github-actions creates the node_modules folder |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Inline comments:
In @.github/workflows/lint.yml:
- Around line 22-30: The markdown link-scan currently uses the glob '**/*.md'
which also matches vendored docs under the .holdex-actions directory; update the
scan glob in .github/workflows/lint.yml to explicitly exclude that directory
(e.g., add a negated pattern for .holdex-actions/** or .holdex-actions/**/*.md)
so the step that uses the '**/*.md' pattern does not traverse .holdex-actions;
ensure any other similar glob in the file (around the other scan at lines 37–45)
is updated the same way.
- Around line 22-24: Replace the mutable action ref in the workflow by pinning
the action in the uses: field to the provided commit SHA instead of `@main`;
specifically update the uses value that references
holdex/github-actions/.github/actions/base/checkout@main to use the full commit
SHA (the same SHA currently passed as the ref input) so the action version is
immutable rather than relying on the ref: input.
🪄 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: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 50e3a3ea-7d68-4614-9a33-8865a9a3f79d
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
.github/workflows/lint.ymlREADME.md
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- README.md
Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Vadim <vadim@holdex.io> Signed-off-by: Vadim <vadim@holdex.io>
|
@holdex pr submit-time 35m |
2 participants
Summary by CodeRabbit
Documentation
Chores