docs(standards): org engineering standards + editorial README template#24
Conversation
Engineering guidelines (docs/standards/): - README.md — index, the standard-stack table, enforcement model - 01-baseline — Tier 1: required toolchain, hard rules, code shape (all repos) - 02-languages — Tier 2: per-language tooling/idioms (TS, Py, C#, Rust, C/C++, sh, SQL, md/json/yaml) - 03-safety-overlay — Tier 3: JSF AV C++ / MISRA / NASA Power of Ten for device- & flight-adjacent code - 04-security — security overlay (OWASP/CERT, secrets, web headers, crypto/auth) Linked from README.md and CONTRIBUTING.md (new "Engineering standards" section). CONTRIBUTING onboarding: collapse the two-curl flow to the single `curl -fsSL https://get.resq.software | sh` (install.sh does CLI + hooks). README template restyle (editorial / centered): - one centered hero <div> — mark, title, tagline, calm flat badge row (logos + the ResQ sky accent 0ea5e9), single nav line, ◆ divider. - new ## Stats section: Repobeats activity embed + contrib.rocks avatars. - TOC updated; all internal links verified to resolve. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Warning Review limit reached
More reviews will be available in 48 minutes and 57 seconds. Learn how PR review limits work. Your organization has run out of usage credits. Purchase more credits in the billing tab to continue. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After more reviews become available, 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 include higher PR review limits than trial, open-source, and free plans. In all cases, reviews become available again over time. During sustained high-volume PR review activity, CodeRabbit may temporarily slow when the next review becomes available. Please see our Fair Usage Limits Policy for further information. ℹ️ Review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (4)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThis PR establishes a comprehensive org-wide engineering standards framework with four tiers (baseline CI and hard rules, language-specific tooling, safety/critical systems overlay, and security overlay), documents each tier with actionable guidance, integrates the standards into contributor onboarding, and updates repository template presentation. ChangesEngineering Standards Framework and Onboarding
Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~12 minutes Possibly related PRs
Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 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 |
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request introduces a comprehensive, three-tier engineering standards framework under docs/standards/ covering baseline requirements, language-specific guidelines, safety-critical overlays, and security practices. It also updates CONTRIBUTING.md and README.md to reference these standards, and modernizes README.template.md with a centered hero layout and a new stats section. The review feedback suggests minor improvements to the documentation files: correcting the image source in the README template to match its scaled-down size, removing a Rust source-level attribute from a command-line block in the language standards, and converting the security pre-merge checklist from plain text to a standard Markdown task list for interactive rendering.
Important
The consumer version of Gemini Code Assist on GitHub is being sunset. Starting June 18, 2026, new organization installations will be blocked, and all code review activity will officially cease on July 17, 2026.
For more details on the timeline and next steps, please review the Help Documentation.
Co-authored-by: gemini-code-assist[bot] <176961590+gemini-code-assist[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> Signed-off-by: Mike Odnis <mike@mikeodnis.dev>
Co-authored-by: gemini-code-assist[bot] <176961590+gemini-code-assist[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> Signed-off-by: Mike Odnis <mike@mikeodnis.dev>
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@CONTRIBUTING.md`:
- Line 59: Update the wording that misstates the tier count: replace the string
"three-tier model:" in CONTRIBUTING.md (currently at the header line containing
"three-tier model:") with "four-tier model:" and optionally rename the Security
bullet to "Tier 4 — Security overlay" for consistency; also update the README
text that reads "the three-tier model (baseline, per-language, safety overlay) +
security overlay" to "the four-tier model (baseline, language, safety overlay,
security overlay)" so both docs align with the four-tier structure defined in
docs/standards and the PR objectives.
- Around line 56-71: The "Engineering standards" section currently calls this a
"three-tier model" but enumerates four items; update the descriptive text under
the "## Engineering standards" header to say "four-tier model" and optionally
change the "Security overlay" list item to "Tier 4 — Security overlay" to match
the naming pattern used for the other items (keep the existing item names: "Tier
1 — Baseline", "Tier 2 — Language enforcement", "Tier 3 — Safety overlay", and
change the last item to "Tier 4 — Security overlay").
In `@docs/standards/04-security.md`:
- Line 28: Update the markdown link in docs/standards/04-security.md that
currently references `security-scan.yml` but points to
`../../.github/workflows/README.md`; change the link target to the actual
workflow file `../../.github/workflows/security-scan.yml` so the visible text
and href match (verify the bracketed text `security-scan.yml` remains and only
the target path is replaced).
🪄 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: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 7a2ff560-e8ba-4863-ae36-01b6e0841c73
📒 Files selected for processing (8)
CONTRIBUTING.mdREADME.mdREADME.template.mddocs/standards/01-baseline.mddocs/standards/02-languages.mddocs/standards/03-safety-overlay.mddocs/standards/04-security.mddocs/standards/README.md
- CONTRIBUTING.md: "three-tier model:" → "three-tier model plus a security
overlay:" so the lead-in matches the four bullets (3 tiers + the security
overlay). Kept Security as an *overlay* rather than relabeling it "Tier 4",
to stay consistent with docs/standards/README.md ("The three tiers") and
04-security.md ("Composes with all three tiers").
- 04-security.md: point the `security-scan.yml` link at the actual workflow
file (../../.github/workflows/security-scan.yml) so text and href match.
Skipped the suggested README.md edit: it already reads "the three-tier model
(…) + security overlay", which is correct; switching it to "four-tier" would
introduce the contradiction the other docs avoid.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
…d block It's a Rust source-level attribute, not a CLI command — list it as a prose bullet instead (addresses gemini review on PR #24). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
1 participant
Summary
Two requested pieces:
1. Engineering guidelines in the repo —
docs/standards/Materializes the ultraplan brief as the org's engineering constitution (the cloud session couldn't push it). Three-tier model + security overlay:
README.md01-baseline.md02-languages.md03-safety-overlay.md04-security.mdREADME.md("What's in This Repo") and a new Engineering standards section inCONTRIBUTING.md.requiredcheck +repo-standards.ymlfrom PR feat(standards): repo-conformance check + get.resq.software install #23.2. Editorial README template restyle
The structured template is now editorial / centered (the recommended direction):
<div>— mark, title, tagline, a calm flat badge row (logos + the ResQ sky accent0ea5e9), a single nav line, and a◆ ◆ ◆divider.## Statssection — Repobeats activity embed ({{REPOBEATS_HASH}}placeholder + generation note) and contrib.rocks contributor avatars — matching the Meshtastic-style stats panel you shared.Also
CONTRIBUTING.mdonboarding collapsed to the singlecurl -fsSL https://get.resq.software | sh(verifiedinstall.shdoes CLI + hooks), consistent with PR feat(standards): repo-conformance check + get.resq.software install #23.Test plan
docs/standards/*resolve (20/20) + README/CONTRIBUTING links todocs/standards/ResQ README Templatemarker preserved;<div>balanced (2/2); Repobeats + contrib.rocks placeholders presentrepo-standards/required-gategreen on this PRNotes
docs/standards/multi-file set (the recommended option). If you'd rather have a singleSTANDARDS.md, it flattens trivially — say the word.docs/standards/content is drawn directly from your ultraplan brief and adapted to the actual ResQ stack.Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes