Update slop_with_models.py

sacrificialpancakes commented

2025-03-21 17:52:52 -04:00

(Migrated from git2.unturf.com)

added in arguments

Summary by CodeRabbit

New Features
- Enhanced the calculator tool with a more descriptive label and clear input requirements for evaluating math expressions.
- Updated the greet tool by specifying the required input for names, providing improved guidance for usage.

added in arguments  ## Summary by CodeRabbit - **New Features** - Enhanced the calculator tool with a more descriptive label and clear input requirements for evaluating math expressions. - Updated the greet tool by specifying the required input for names, providing improved guidance for usage.

coderabbitai commented

2025-03-21 17:53:05 -04:00

(Migrated from git2.unturf.com)

Walkthrough

The update modifies the initialize_model_map function in slop_with_models.py. The changes enhance the tool definitions for both the "calculator" and "greet" tools. The "calculator" tool's description is updated from "Basic math" to "Basic math calculator," and an "arguments" key is added to specify an expected parameter named "expression." Similarly, the "greet" tool gains an "arguments" key for a parameter named "name." These modifications define the input parameters required for each tool more clearly.

Changes

File	Change Summary
slop_with_models.py	Updated `initialize_model_map`: for "calculator", description modified to "Basic math calculator" and added argument `{"name": "expression", "type": "str", "description": "the math expression to evaluate."}`; for "greet", added argument `{"name": "name", "type": "str", "description": "name of person to greet"}`.

Poem

I'm a rabbit with a keen eye for change,
Hoping through the code in a whirlwind range.
Tools now speak clearer with arguments in sight,
"Calculator" and "Greet" shine oh so bright.
With each update, I hop in delight!
🐰✨

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 394d1cd512 and 8d878f779b.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

slop_with_models.py (3 hunks)

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)

slop_with_models.py

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
- I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
- Generate unit testing code for this file.
Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
- @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
- @coderabbitai modularize this function.
PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
- @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
- @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
- @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
- @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

@coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
@coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
@coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
@coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
@coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
@coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR.
@coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
@coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
@coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (`.coderabbit.yaml`)

You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

## Walkthrough The update modifies the `initialize_model_map` function in `slop_with_models.py`. The changes enhance the tool definitions for both the "calculator" and "greet" tools. The "calculator" tool's description is updated from "Basic math" to "Basic math calculator," and an "arguments" key is added to specify an expected parameter named "expression." Similarly, the "greet" tool gains an "arguments" key for a parameter named "name." These modifications define the input parameters required for each tool more clearly. ## Changes | File | Change Summary | |--------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | slop_with_models.py | Updated `initialize_model_map`: for "calculator", description modified to "Basic math calculator" and added argument `{"name": "expression", "type": "str", "description": "the math expression to evaluate."}`; for "greet", added argument `{"name": "name", "type": "str", "description": "name of person to greet"}`. | ## Poem > I'm a rabbit with a keen eye for change, > Hoping through the code in a whirlwind range. > Tools now speak clearer with arguments in sight, > "Calculator" and "Greet" shine oh so bright. > With each update, I hop in delight! > 🐰✨  --- <details> <summary>📜 Recent review details</summary> **Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI** **Review profile: CHILL** **Plan: Pro** <details> <summary>📥 Commits</summary> Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 394d1cd512382ac3409744c9665e2f4ee561f763 and 8d878f779b8222aeef6370a28ee47f7c5fd887ce. </details> <details> <summary>📒 Files selected for processing (1)</summary> * `slop_with_models.py` (3 hunks) </details> <details> <summary>🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)</summary> * slop_with_models.py </details> </details>     --- <details> <summary>🪧 Tips</summary> ### Chat There are 3 ways to chat with [CodeRabbit](https://coderabbit.ai?utm_source=oss&utm_medium=github&utm_campaign=engineering/unturf/slop.unturf.com&utm_content=1): - Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example: - `I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.` - `Generate unit testing code for this file.` - Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag `@coderabbitai` in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples: - `@coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.` - `@coderabbitai modularize this function.` - PR comments: Tag `@coderabbitai` in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples: - `@coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.` - `@coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.` - `@coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.` - `@coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.` Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. ### CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments) - `@coderabbitai pause` to pause the reviews on a PR. - `@coderabbitai resume` to resume the paused reviews. - `@coderabbitai review` to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository. - `@coderabbitai full review` to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again. - `@coderabbitai summary` to regenerate the summary of the PR. - `@coderabbitai generate docstrings` to [generate docstrings](https://docs.coderabbit.ai/finishing-touches/docstrings) for this PR. - `@coderabbitai resolve` resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments. - `@coderabbitai configuration` to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository. - `@coderabbitai help` to get help. ### Other keywords and placeholders - Add `@coderabbitai ignore` anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed. - Add `@coderabbitai summary` to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description. - Add `@coderabbitai` anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically. ### CodeRabbit Configuration File (`.coderabbit.yaml`) - You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a `.coderabbit.yaml` file to the root of your repository. - Please see the [configuration documentation](https://docs.coderabbit.ai/guides/configure-coderabbit) for more information. - If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: `# yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json` ### Documentation and Community - Visit our [Documentation](https://docs.coderabbit.ai) for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit. - Join our [Discord Community](http://discord.gg/coderabbit) to get help, request features, and share feedback. - Follow us on [X/Twitter](https://twitter.com/coderabbitai) for updates and announcements. </details>

coderabbitai commented

2025-03-21 17:53:39 -04:00

(Migrated from git2.unturf.com)

changed the description

coderabbitai commented

2025-03-21 17:55:10 -04:00

(Migrated from git2.unturf.com)

Actionable comments posted: 1

🧹 Nitpick comments (2)

slop_with_models.py (2)
117-120: Nice enhancement to the calculator tool definition!

The description change from "Basic math" to "Basic math calculator" makes the tool's purpose clearer, and adding the arguments definition improves the API's self-documentation.

However, I notice that the /tools endpoint (line 269) doesn't return these argument definitions in its response, so API clients won't know what parameters to send without checking the code.

Consider enhancing the /tools endpoint to include the arguments information in the response:
@app.route("/tools", methods=["GET"])
def list_tools():
    logger.info("Received /tools request")
-    tool_list = [{"id": k, "description": v["description"]} for k, v in tools.items()]
+    tool_list = [{"id": k, "description": v["description"], "arguments": v.get("arguments", [])} for k, v in tools.items()]
    logger.debug(f"Returning tools: {tool_list}")
    return jsonify({"tools": tool_list}), 200
113-131: Consider improving validation based on arguments definition

The validation in the use_tool function (lines 281-286) is currently hardcoded for specific tools. For better maintainability, consider refactoring it to validate based on the arguments definitions.
@app.route("/tools/<tool_id>", methods=["POST"])
def use_tool(tool_id):
    logger.info(f"Received /tools/{tool_id} request")
    if tool_id not in tools:
        logger.error(f"Tool not found: {tool_id}")
        return jsonify({"error": "Tool not found"}), 404
    data = request.json or {}
    logger.debug(f"Tool {tool_id} input data: {data}")
-    if tool_id == "calculator" and "expression" not in data:
-        logger.warning("Missing 'expression' for calculator tool")
-        return jsonify({"error": "Missing 'expression'"}), 400
-    if tool_id == "greet" and "name" not in data:
-        logger.warning("Missing 'name' for greet tool")
-        return jsonify({"error": "Missing 'name'"}), 400
+    # Validate required arguments based on tool definition
+    if "arguments" in tools[tool_id]:
+        for arg in tools[tool_id]["arguments"]:
+            if arg["name"] not in data:
+                logger.warning(f"Missing '{arg['name']}' for {tool_id} tool")
+                return jsonify({"error": f"Missing '{arg['name']}' parameter"}), 400
    try:
        result = tools[tool_id]["execute"](data)
        logger.debug(f"Tool {tool_id} result: {result}")
        return jsonify(result), 200
    except Exception as e:
        logger.error(f"Error executing tool {tool_id}: {str(e)}", exc_info=True)
        return jsonify({"error": str(e)}), 500

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 6eaa3f6951 and 394d1cd512.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

slop_with_models.py (1 hunks)

🔇 Additional comments (1)

slop_with_models.py (1)

126-128: Good addition of argument definition for the greet tool!

This explicitly documents the expected parameter for the tool and matches the validation in the use_tool function.

**Actionable comments posted: 1** <details> <summary>🧹 Nitpick comments (2)</summary><blockquote> <details> <summary>slop_with_models.py (2)</summary><blockquote> `117-120`: **Nice enhancement to the calculator tool definition!** The description change from "Basic math" to "Basic math calculator" makes the tool's purpose clearer, and adding the arguments definition improves the API's self-documentation. However, I notice that the `/tools` endpoint (line 269) doesn't return these argument definitions in its response, so API clients won't know what parameters to send without checking the code. Consider enhancing the `/tools` endpoint to include the arguments information in the response: ```diff @app.route("/tools", methods=["GET"]) def list_tools(): logger.info("Received /tools request") - tool_list = [{"id": k, "description": v["description"]} for k, v in tools.items()] + tool_list = [{"id": k, "description": v["description"], "arguments": v.get("arguments", [])} for k, v in tools.items()] logger.debug(f"Returning tools: {tool_list}") return jsonify({"tools": tool_list}), 200 ``` --- `113-131`: **Consider improving validation based on arguments definition** The validation in the `use_tool` function (lines 281-286) is currently hardcoded for specific tools. For better maintainability, consider refactoring it to validate based on the arguments definitions. ```diff @app.route("/tools/<tool_id>", methods=["POST"]) def use_tool(tool_id): logger.info(f"Received /tools/{tool_id} request") if tool_id not in tools: logger.error(f"Tool not found: {tool_id}") return jsonify({"error": "Tool not found"}), 404 data = request.json or {} logger.debug(f"Tool {tool_id} input data: {data}") - if tool_id == "calculator" and "expression" not in data: - logger.warning("Missing 'expression' for calculator tool") - return jsonify({"error": "Missing 'expression'"}), 400 - if tool_id == "greet" and "name" not in data: - logger.warning("Missing 'name' for greet tool") - return jsonify({"error": "Missing 'name'"}), 400 + # Validate required arguments based on tool definition + if "arguments" in tools[tool_id]: + for arg in tools[tool_id]["arguments"]: + if arg["name"] not in data: + logger.warning(f"Missing '{arg['name']}' for {tool_id} tool") + return jsonify({"error": f"Missing '{arg['name']}' parameter"}), 400 try: result = tools[tool_id]["execute"](data) logger.debug(f"Tool {tool_id} result: {result}") return jsonify(result), 200 except Exception as e: logger.error(f"Error executing tool {tool_id}: {str(e)}", exc_info=True) return jsonify({"error": str(e)}), 500 ``` </blockquote></details> </blockquote></details> <details> <summary>📜 Review details</summary> **Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI** **Review profile: CHILL** **Plan: Pro** <details> <summary>📥 Commits</summary> Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 6eaa3f6951255a18de28a84ee56e54051135dd95 and 394d1cd512382ac3409744c9665e2f4ee561f763. </details> <details> <summary>📒 Files selected for processing (1)</summary> * `slop_with_models.py` (1 hunks) </details> <details> <summary>🔇 Additional comments (1)</summary><blockquote> <details> <summary>slop_with_models.py (1)</summary> `126-128`: **Good addition of argument definition for the greet tool!** This explicitly documents the expected parameter for the tool and matches the validation in the `use_tool` function. </details> </blockquote></details> </details>

coderabbitai commented

2025-03-21 17:55:26 -04:00

(Migrated from git2.unturf.com)

🔥 CAUTION
Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitLab's limits when posting large numbers of comments.

Actionable comments posted: 1

🧹 Nitpick comments (2)

slop_with_models.py (2)
117-120: Nice enhancement to the calculator tool definition!

The description change from "Basic math" to "Basic math calculator" makes the tool's purpose clearer, and adding the arguments definition improves the API's self-documentation.

However, I notice that the /tools endpoint (line 269) doesn't return these argument definitions in its response, so API clients won't know what parameters to send without checking the code.

Consider enhancing the /tools endpoint to include the arguments information in the response:
@app.route("/tools", methods=["GET"])
def list_tools():
    logger.info("Received /tools request")
-    tool_list = [{"id": k, "description": v["description"]} for k, v in tools.items()]
+    tool_list = [{"id": k, "description": v["description"], "arguments": v.get("arguments", [])} for k, v in tools.items()]
    logger.debug(f"Returning tools: {tool_list}")
    return jsonify({"tools": tool_list}), 200
113-131: Consider improving validation based on arguments definition

The validation in the use_tool function (lines 281-286) is currently hardcoded for specific tools. For better maintainability, consider refactoring it to validate based on the arguments definitions.
@app.route("/tools/<tool_id>", methods=["POST"])
def use_tool(tool_id):
    logger.info(f"Received /tools/{tool_id} request")
    if tool_id not in tools:
        logger.error(f"Tool not found: {tool_id}")
        return jsonify({"error": "Tool not found"}), 404
    data = request.json or {}
    logger.debug(f"Tool {tool_id} input data: {data}")
-    if tool_id == "calculator" and "expression" not in data:
-        logger.warning("Missing 'expression' for calculator tool")
-        return jsonify({"error": "Missing 'expression'"}), 400
-    if tool_id == "greet" and "name" not in data:
-        logger.warning("Missing 'name' for greet tool")
-        return jsonify({"error": "Missing 'name'"}), 400
+    # Validate required arguments based on tool definition
+    if "arguments" in tools[tool_id]:
+        for arg in tools[tool_id]["arguments"]:
+            if arg["name"] not in data:
+                logger.warning(f"Missing '{arg['name']}' for {tool_id} tool")
+                return jsonify({"error": f"Missing '{arg['name']}' parameter"}), 400
    try:
        result = tools[tool_id]["execute"](data)
        logger.debug(f"Tool {tool_id} result: {result}")
        return jsonify(result), 200
    except Exception as e:
        logger.error(f"Error executing tool {tool_id}: {str(e)}", exc_info=True)
        return jsonify({"error": str(e)}), 500

🛑 Comments failed to post (1)

slop_with_models.py (1)
121-121: 💡 Verification agent
🧩 Analysis chain

Security note regarding eval usage

While not directly related to your changes, I'd like to note that the calculator tool uses eval() which can execute arbitrary Python code. Consider using a safer alternative like the ast.literal_eval() function or a dedicated math expression parser for better security.

🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if there are any security issues reported for the use of eval
rg -A 3 -B 3 "eval\(" --context=3
Length of output: 430
Security Alert: Unsafe eval() Usage in Calculator Execution

We've confirmed that eval() is used in slop_with_models.py (line 121) to evaluate user-supplied math expressions. This poses a risk of arbitrary code execution.

Location: slop_with_models.py, line 121.

Issue: Using eval() can execute malicious Python code from untrusted input.

Recommendation: Replace eval() with a safer alternative. If only literal expressions are expected, consider using ast.literal_eval(). Otherwise, evaluate using a dedicated math expression parser that limits execution to mathematical operations only.

> 🔥 **CAUTION** > Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitLab's limits when posting large numbers of comments. **Actionable comments posted: 1** <details> <summary>🧹 Nitpick comments (2)</summary><blockquote> <details> <summary>slop_with_models.py (2)</summary><blockquote> `117-120`: **Nice enhancement to the calculator tool definition!** The description change from "Basic math" to "Basic math calculator" makes the tool's purpose clearer, and adding the arguments definition improves the API's self-documentation. However, I notice that the `/tools` endpoint (line 269) doesn't return these argument definitions in its response, so API clients won't know what parameters to send without checking the code. Consider enhancing the `/tools` endpoint to include the arguments information in the response: ```diff @app.route("/tools", methods=["GET"]) def list_tools(): logger.info("Received /tools request") - tool_list = [{"id": k, "description": v["description"]} for k, v in tools.items()] + tool_list = [{"id": k, "description": v["description"], "arguments": v.get("arguments", [])} for k, v in tools.items()] logger.debug(f"Returning tools: {tool_list}") return jsonify({"tools": tool_list}), 200 ``` --- `113-131`: **Consider improving validation based on arguments definition** The validation in the `use_tool` function (lines 281-286) is currently hardcoded for specific tools. For better maintainability, consider refactoring it to validate based on the arguments definitions. ```diff @app.route("/tools/<tool_id>", methods=["POST"]) def use_tool(tool_id): logger.info(f"Received /tools/{tool_id} request") if tool_id not in tools: logger.error(f"Tool not found: {tool_id}") return jsonify({"error": "Tool not found"}), 404 data = request.json or {} logger.debug(f"Tool {tool_id} input data: {data}") - if tool_id == "calculator" and "expression" not in data: - logger.warning("Missing 'expression' for calculator tool") - return jsonify({"error": "Missing 'expression'"}), 400 - if tool_id == "greet" and "name" not in data: - logger.warning("Missing 'name' for greet tool") - return jsonify({"error": "Missing 'name'"}), 400 + # Validate required arguments based on tool definition + if "arguments" in tools[tool_id]: + for arg in tools[tool_id]["arguments"]: + if arg["name"] not in data: + logger.warning(f"Missing '{arg['name']}' for {tool_id} tool") + return jsonify({"error": f"Missing '{arg['name']}' parameter"}), 400 try: result = tools[tool_id]["execute"](data) logger.debug(f"Tool {tool_id} result: {result}") return jsonify(result), 200 except Exception as e: logger.error(f"Error executing tool {tool_id}: {str(e)}", exc_info=True) return jsonify({"error": str(e)}), 500 ``` </blockquote></details> </blockquote></details> <details> <summary>🛑 Comments failed to post (1)</summary><blockquote> <details> <summary>slop_with_models.py (1)</summary><blockquote> 121-121: _💡 Verification agent_ <details> <summary>🧩 Analysis chain</summary> **Security note regarding eval usage** While not directly related to your changes, I'd like to note that the calculator tool uses `eval()` which can execute arbitrary Python code. Consider using a safer alternative like the `ast.literal_eval()` function or a dedicated math expression parser for better security. --- 🏁 Script executed: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Check if there are any security issues reported for the use of eval rg -A 3 -B 3 "eval\(" --context=3 ``` Length of output: 430 --- </details> **Security Alert: Unsafe `eval()` Usage in Calculator Execution** We've confirmed that `eval()` is used in `slop_with_models.py` (line 121) to evaluate user-supplied math expressions. This poses a risk of arbitrary code execution. - **Location:** `slop_with_models.py`, line 121. - **Issue:** Using `eval()` can execute malicious Python code from untrusted input. - **Recommendation:** Replace `eval()` with a safer alternative. If only literal expressions are expected, consider using `ast.literal_eval()`. Otherwise, evaluate using a dedicated math expression parser that limits execution to mathematical operations only. </blockquote></details> </blockquote></details>

russellballestrini commented

2025-03-21 17:57:07 -04:00

(Migrated from git2.unturf.com)

approved this merge request

russellballestrini commented

2025-03-21 17:57:13 -04:00

(Migrated from git2.unturf.com)

assigned to @sacrificialpancakes

russellballestrini commented

2025-03-21 17:59:02 -04:00

(Migrated from git2.unturf.com)

unassigned @sacrificialpancakes

russellballestrini commented

2025-03-21 17:59:05 -04:00

(Migrated from git2.unturf.com)

assigned to @sacrificialpancakes

sacrificialpancakes commented

2025-03-21 17:59:45 -04:00

(Migrated from git2.unturf.com)

added 1 commit

8d878f77 - Update slop_with_models.py. nitpicks

Compare with previous version

added 1 commit <ul><li>8d878f77 - Update slop_with_models.py. nitpicks</li></ul> [Compare with previous version](/engineering/unturf/slop.unturf.com/-/merge_requests/1/diffs?diff_id=362&start_sha=394d1cd512382ac3409744c9665e2f4ee561f763)

coderabbitai commented

2025-03-21 18:00:27 -04:00

(Migrated from git2.unturf.com)

changed the description

sacrificialpancakes commented

2025-03-21 18:01:51 -04:00

(Migrated from git2.unturf.com)

mentioned in commit e63fe48e41

mentioned in commit e63fe48e41320343374bd2397aa13c2efb6f083b

sacrificialpancakes (Migrated from git2.unturf.com) merged commit e63fe48e41 into main

2025-03-21 18:01:51 -04:00

Rows
Columns

Update slop_with_models.py #1

Summary by CodeRabbit

Walkthrough

Changes

Poem

Chat

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

Other keywords and placeholders

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

Documentation and Community

CodeRabbit Configuration File (`.coderabbit.yaml`)