Catch inline color literal patterns#141
Merged
Merged
Conversation
nahiyankhan
approved these changes
Jun 11, 2026
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Why
Ghost color checks could miss common literal forms like shorthand hex and named colors when the authored detector was narrower than the underlying design rule. The PR also captures a follow-up idea for CI and PR integration recipes.
What
ideas/It will now capture all variants of hex codes / css colors:



Risk Assessment
Low. This broadens findings for color-oriented forbidden checks, leaves required detectors and non-color checks unchanged, and adds a standalone idea note.
References
pnpm checkpassedpnpm build,pnpm check, andpnpm testpassedideas/ci-pr-integration-recipes.mdGenerated with Codex