fix(mcp): refresh context metadata per request#122
Conversation
|
You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard. |
|
Warning Review limit reachedYou’ve reached a temporary PR review limit under our Fair Usage Limits Policy. Next review available in: 22 minutes Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: ASSERTIVE Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (3)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
evaOS review status: completedPR: #122 - fix(mcp): refresh context metadata per request evaOS review completed for this PR head. Automation note: agents should wait for this comment to reach PR URL: #122 Review URL: #122 (review) |
![evaos-code-review-bot[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/4184532?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Walkthrough
PR: #122 - fix(mcp): refresh context metadata per request
Head: 13848338dd76e44ba4b1cdff6450a9dc70ee6ca7 into main. Review event: COMMENT.
Provider: GLM/Z.ai through ZCode (zcode-glm, zcode, model GLM-5.2).
Estimated review effort: 1/5 (~10 min)
Changed Files
| File | Status | Churn | Purpose | Risk |
|---|
Review Signal
No validated inline findings.
Dropped findings before posting: 0. High-severity findings: 0.
Risk Taxonomy
No finding categories.
Validation and Proof
1 required validation/proof recommendation(s) selected from changed files.
- required: TypeScript/web build or CI proof - Runtime TypeScript/web files or package/config files changed. Proof: npm run build; typecheck; focused Vitest; green GitHub check.
Proof status: sufficient - PR metadata mentions acceptable proof for each required validation recommendation.
Profile validation hints: Call out stale index, wrong repo identity, memory growth, and destructive analyze behavior.
Profile proof expectations: Look for focused CLI, index, query, or migration proof.
Related Context
Related issues/PRs: abhigyanpatwari#2439, #118.
Suggested labels: none.
Suggested reviewers: none from current metadata.
Review Settings Preview
- Profile: assertive
- Enabled sections: Review summary (inline_review); Walkthrough (inline_review); Changed-files table (walkthrough); Effort estimate (walkthrough); Related issues/PRs (walkthrough); Suggested labels (suggestion_only); Review status comment (sticky_status)
- Path instructions: none
- Label suggestions: gitnexus, code-intelligence, backend
- Reviewer suggestions: none
- Suggestion behavior: suggestions only; labels and reviewers are not auto-applied.
- Roadmap-only settings: auto-apply labels; auto-request reviewers; required status checks
Pre-merge checklist
- Inline comments target current RIGHT-side diff lines.
- No secret-like content survived into posted inline comments.
- REQUEST_CHANGES is only used when eligible P0/P1 findings survive validation.
- Required behavior proof is present or not applicable.
- Labels and reviewers are suggestions only; the bot did not auto-apply them.
CI Report✅ All checks passed Pipeline Status
Test Results
✅ All 14659 tests passed 62 test(s) skipped — expand for details
Code CoverageTests
📋 View full run · Generated by CI |
|
Exact-head merge gate for
|
|
Merge governance audit: GitHub rejected the first admin merge because Post-merge verification: |
1 participant
Summary
Validation
npx vitest run test/unit/resources.test.tsnpx vitest run test/integration/context-resource-staleness.test.tsnpx tsc --noEmitnpx prettier --check ...Boundaries
No index mutation, embeddings, OpenClaw canary, or runtime restart. The local GitNexus
detect_changesgraph is registered to a different stale clone, so exact worktree mapping was unavailable; symbol impact was LOW and the current filesystem diff plus focused tests are authoritative.Ports the behavior of upstream abhigyanpatwari#2439 without its unrelated lockfile churn.
Closes #118