[hiciefte]

Adds a repository-level .coderabbit.yaml. It is the only file in this pull request.

CodeRabbit runs on the organization's free plan and keeps hitting its rate limit. The file spends reviews where they help: it skips the wording proposals, leaves immutable and generated material out of scope, and keeps CodeRabbit from pushing the restored wiki text toward rewrites.

Needs a maintainer after merge

Create a label named wording-proposal and apply it to the 74 wording proposals, #100 to #173. #97 to #99 (content changes) and all technical pull requests stay without the label and keep being reviewed. Open future wording proposals with gh pr create --label wording-proposal, so the label is already there when the pull request opens.

A wording proposal cannot be skipped by title or branch:

	Wording proposals #100–#173	Technical and content pull requests (#89–#99, #174, #175)
Title	Free sentences, no shared prefix or keyword	Free sentences too
Head branch	review/wording-foss-teams, review/docs-*	chore/*, fix/*, proposal/*, content/*
Author, base, draft state	same author, base main, none are drafts	same
Labels	none	none

reviews.auto_review offers ignore_title_keywords, labels, drafts, base_branches, ignore_usernames and description_keyword; there is no head-branch setting. The titles share no keyword, so only a label separates the two groups: labels: ["!wording-proposal"] reviews every pull request except those with the label.

Settings that match the organization settings

• profile: chill, auto_approvals.enabled: false (no request-changes workflow; request_changes_workflow is the deprecated alias of the same setting)
• high_level_summary: true with high_level_summary_in_walkthrough: true
• poem: false, in_progress_fortune: false, chat.art: false
• review_status: true, fail_commit_status: true (a review that stops with an error is reported as failed; rate-limited reviews never fail)
• chat.allow_non_org_members: false
• Every finishing touch that pushes commits or opens pull requests is off: docstrings, unit_tests, simplify, autofix, fix_ci, resolve_merge_conflict
• inheritance: true, so settings not listed here come from the organization
• pre_merge_checks.docstrings.mode: "off", because the docstring coverage check does not apply to this repository

Excluded from review (path_filters)

Exclusions only. An include pattern would limit the review to the matching files.

Path	Why
review/ai-edited/**	Immutable snapshot of the earlier AI-edited guides
public/wiki-source/**	Raw wikitext and revision metadata exports, including archived redirects and templates
public/media/**	Recovered images and their mapping
dist/**, node_modules/**	Build output and dependencies
migration/articles.json, migration/title-route-map.json	Generated acquisition indexes; the two files are byte-identical
migration/*-20261014.json	Dated records of the 14 October 2026 archive capture and the template renderings derived from it (4 files)
migration/recovered-dispute-alias-evidence.json	Evidence with line numbers into the raw snapshot
recovery-evidence/**	Media and archive acquisition manifests
review-evidence/**	Dated claim ledgers from the review of the earlier guides
review/comparison-index.json	Generated comparison index of originals against the earlier AI edits
design-reference/.extract-design-system/**	Automated raw and normalized design extraction

Left in scope on purpose: migration/restoration-fidelity.json, the restoration receipt, because any change to it must draw a comment (it has its own instruction below), and the files that pull requests edit: review/PROPOSAL-INDEX.md, review/proposal-coverage.json (changed by #174), migration/accepted-edits.json, migration/source-formatting.json (changed by #97 and #99), migration/source-review-notes.json (changed by #98), and the small section and link repair records.

An excluded file is also invisible to CodeRabbit if someone edits it. The fidelity gate (check) and human review remain the guard for those files. The restoration receipt is the one file where a quiet edit would matter most, so it is not excluded.

Review instructions (path_instructions)

• src/content/docs/wiki/** (all 212 files are restored wiki articles): no rewording, restyling, restructuring or tone suggestions. Comment only on statements that could cause loss of funds, expose a seed or key, leak private data, or contradict current Bisq behaviour, and name the source checked. Broken links and broken markup may be flagged, with a link or markup fix only. In a pull request that edits an article on purpose, review only the changed lines against the same criteria.
• scripts/**: the source-fidelity gate (scripts/check-source-fidelity.mjs, scripts/lib/accepted-edits.mjs, the other check-*.mjs) must not be weakened; tests must change with the code, and a new test file must be added to the test script.
• .github/**: least-privilege permissions, pinned actions, and the required check job keeps running npm ci, npm test and npm run build.
• migration/restoration-fidelity.json must not change in any pull request: CodeRabbit flags every modification as a problem, quotes the changed slugs or hashes, and states that restoration receipts are never rehashed or edited to make a check pass (accepted wording changes go through migration/accepted-edits.json instead).
• package.json and migration/accepted-edits.json get short entries of their own, because the build and test scripts and the accepted-edit receipts are what the gate depends on.

Tools

• languagetool and markdownlint are off. The schema cannot scope a tool to a path, so they are off for the whole repository; they would flag original wiki prose and the HTML inside the article files.
• gitleaks stays on. trufflehog, presidio, osvScanner, actionlint, zizmor and yamllint keep their defaults.

Validation

Schema: https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json, fetched 2026-11-10, SHA-256 53ca372d5bbfefd61e2bad9ab5ef399e69d1e06b07a73221b006d83682a743fa. Validated with jsonschema 4.26.0 (Draft 2020-12) in a throwaway virtual environment, run with python -I:

schema itself is a valid 2020-12 schema
schema validation errors: 0
strict key check problems: 0

The schema rejects unknown keys only at the top level and in a few objects, so the second check walks every key in the file and confirms it exists in the schema and is not deprecated. A deliberately wrong file (unknown keys, strings for booleans) fails both checks. The values were also checked against docs.coderabbit.ai.

npm ci, npm test (66 pass) and npm run build pass locally. The file does not touch what they read.

Not verified

• The CodeRabbit documentation says it uses the configuration of the branch under review, and, on the page about description overrides, that fork pull requests use the target branch's configuration. The 74 wording proposals come from the fork and were branched before this file existed, so after merging, check that one labelled proposal really is skipped. If it is still reviewed, the label rule needs those branches to be updated.
• Only the schema and documentation were checked. CodeRabbit has not run against this file yet.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository.

Next included review available in 52 minutes.

Check out review usage here.

View limit details

Limit details: You’ve used the included review currently available.

Learn how review limits work.

Review configuration:

Run configuration

• Source mode: Auto
• Repository: Unavailable
• Branch: Unavailable
• File: No configuration file from this repository applied
• Commit: Unavailable
• Layers: Organization UI
• Review profile: CHILL
• Plan: Advanced
• Run ID: bd0bc797-72fc-490f-840b-7984caa232c5

Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 184948d and bab4f48.

Files selected for processing: 1

• .coderabbit.yaml

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.

Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn