Skip to content

docs: reframe floe/floe-agent boundary for @floelabs/cli 0.2.0 - #47

Merged
achris7 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/cli-0.2.0
Aug 7, 2026
Merged

docs: reframe floe/floe-agent boundary for @floelabs/cli 0.2.0#47
achris7 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/cli-0.2.0

Conversation

@rajbhensdadiya

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Companion to Floe-Labs/floe-cli#3. README + SECURITY only; no code changes.

- README: CLI table row updated; disambiguation blockquote drops the
  five-verb enumeration for the full-platform framing.
- SECURITY: supported @floelabs/cli version 0.1.x → 0.2.x.
@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Aug 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Warning

Review limit reached

You’ve reached a temporary PR review limit under our Fair Usage Limits Policy.

Your recent review volume is higher than typical usage, so adaptive limits are currently applied.

Next review available in: 58 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

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 configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 7d64f4a0-9a03-4127-89d8-df34a9c0f920

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 7f4c978 and bd7e88b.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • README.md
  • SECURITY.md

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

@achris7
achris7 requested review from achris7 and a lite review from Copilot August 7, 2026 22:19

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

Updates project documentation to clarify the boundary between the standalone Floe platform CLI (@floelabs/cli) and this repo’s AgentKit (floe-agent), aligning messaging with the @floelabs/cli 0.2.x line.

Changes:

  • Bumps the supported version reference for @floelabs/cli from 0.1.x to 0.2.x in SECURITY.md.
  • Reframes the README “Start building” table row to describe the CLI as the full platform terminal interface.
  • Expands the README “CLI” section wording to clearly distinguish @floelabs/cli from the floe-agent command.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

File Description
SECURITY.md Updates supported version listing for @floelabs/cli to 0.2.x.
README.md Clarifies @floelabs/cli vs floe-agent responsibilities and updates CLI positioning text.

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

@achris7
achris7 merged commit 64c9624 into main Aug 7, 2026
5 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants