docs: clarify required PR check setup

[BigSimmo]

Summary

• Clarifies the intended required PR check setup for verify, ui-smoke, secret scanning, and one migration replay gate.
• Documents that Docker image builds, full browser matrix, live drift, and eval canary checks are path-filtered, scheduled, or manual rather than normal source-only PR gates.
• Updates README/process docs and CI workflow comments to avoid stale duplicate required contexts like bare verify / ui-smoke.

Why

The PR status page showed duplicate expected required contexts and several heavier checks. This makes the repo's intended required/advisory split explicit so branch protection can be aligned without blocking ordinary PRs on absent path-filtered or scheduled checks.

Areas touched

• .github/workflows/ci.yml
• README.md
• docs/process-hardening.md

Verification

• git diff --check HEAD~1..HEAD passed.
• git merge-base --is-ancestor origin/main HEAD passed.

Checks not run

• No install, test, build, audit, live Supabase, OpenAI/provider, or branch-protection API changes were run. This is a documentation/comment-only change.

Risks / follow-up

• Live GitHub branch protection or rulesets still need to be updated separately to remove stale duplicate contexts and require the chosen active contexts.

[supabase]

Updates to Preview Branch (codex/pr-required-check-setup) ↗︎

Deployments	Status	Updated
Database	✅	Thu, 09 Jul 2026 10:07:57 UTC
Services	✅	Thu, 09 Jul 2026 10:07:57 UTC
APIs	✅	Thu, 09 Jul 2026 10:07:57 UTC

Tasks are run on every commit but only new migration files are pushed.
Close and reopen this PR if you want to apply changes from existing seed or migration files.

Tasks	Status	Updated
Configurations	✅	Thu, 09 Jul 2026 10:07:59 UTC
Migrations	✅	Thu, 09 Jul 2026 10:08:00 UTC
Seeding	✅	Thu, 09 Jul 2026 10:08:02 UTC
Edge Functions	✅	Thu, 09 Jul 2026 10:08:03 UTC

---

View logs for this Workflow Run ↗︎.
Learn more about Supabase for Git ↗︎.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: d25419bb-a69d-4ed0-b08f-63f963348c0d

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between e6ab120 and 6721b0c.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)

• .github/workflows/ci.yml
• README.md
• docs/process-hardening.md

---

📝 Walkthrough

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Updated CI and verification guidance to reflect the current set of required checks and how they should be used.
  • Clarified the role of migration replay checks, including when to rely on the external preview check versus the local verification gate.
  • Expanded the README and process hardening docs with more detailed build, test, and readiness workflow notes.

Walkthrough

This PR updates documentation and inline comments describing CI required checks and merge-gate policy. Changes clarify the migration replay gate behavior (preferring an external Supabase Preview check when reliable, falling back to db-reset-verify), and expand described pipeline stages. No code logic changes.

Changes

CI Gate Documentation

Layer / File(s)	Summary
CI workflow comment updates .github/workflows/ci.yml	Comments before the verify and db-reset-verify jobs are revised to describe expanded required gates (gitleaks, migration replay) and advisory guidance for keeping the replay gate only when an external check is reliable.
README CI gates description README.md	Verification gates section expanded to list coverage, dependency audit, production-readiness mode, edge-function typecheck, parallel ui-smoke/db-reset-verify, and conditional Supabase Preview migration replay.
Process hardening merge gate guidance docs/process-hardening.md	Documents three required parallel PR jobs and revises required-check policy to require exactly one migration replay gate, preferring Supabase Preview over db-reset-verify, with updated flakiness/bottleneck guidance.

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~3 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5 | ❌ 6

❌ Failed checks (6 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Generated And Sensitive Files	❓ Inconclusive	Repository clone failed, so this custom check could not run with code access.	Retry the review run. If this persists, inspect pre-merge custom-check logs for infrastructure or agent runtime failures.
Verification Claims	❓ Inconclusive	Repository clone failed, so this custom check could not run with code access.	Retry the review run. If this persists, inspect pre-merge custom-check logs for infrastructure or agent runtime failures.
Risky Git Or Deployment Actions	❓ Inconclusive	Repository clone failed, so this custom check could not run with code access.	Retry the review run. If this persists, inspect pre-merge custom-check logs for infrastructure or agent runtime failures.
Supabase Project And Schema Safety	❓ Inconclusive	Repository clone failed, so this custom check could not run with code access.	Retry the review run. If this persists, inspect pre-merge custom-check logs for infrastructure or agent runtime failures.
Runtime And Package Manager Integrity	❓ Inconclusive	Repository clone failed, so this custom check could not run with code access.	Retry the review run. If this persists, inspect pre-merge custom-check logs for infrastructure or agent runtime failures.
Api Route Failure Handling	❓ Inconclusive	Repository clone failed, so this custom check could not run with code access.	Retry the review run. If this persists, inspect pre-merge custom-check logs for infrastructure or agent runtime failures.

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title is concise and accurately summarizes the documentation-focused change to required PR check setup.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description matches the changeset and clearly explains the updated CI gate guidance and documentation intent.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch codex/pr-required-check-setup

✨ Simplify code

• Create PR with simplified code
• Commit simplified code in branch codex/pr-required-check-setup

Warning

Tools execution failed with the following error:

Failed to run tools: 13 INTERNAL: Received RST_STREAM with code 2 (Internal server error)

---

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

[BigSimmo]

@copilot resolve the merge conflicts in this pull request

[Copilot]

@copilot resolve the merge conflicts in this pull request

Done. Merged origin/main into this branch (commit 6721b0c). The only conflict was a single comment block in .github/workflows/ci.yml — kept the PR's clarifying wording. Working tree is clean.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Database/src/lib/source-metadata.ts

Line 19 in 72b5b17

source_kind: stringOrNull(value.source_kind),

Preserve registry route metadata during normalization

When registry corpus chunks are used in answer mode, the answer path normalizes search.results before building the final source list (src/lib/rag.ts:3956). This normalization now keeps source_kind but drops registry_record_kind, registry_record_slug, and registry_record_subkind, so documentCitationHref/sourceResultHref cannot build the native registry URL and fall back to /documents/<uuid> for synthetic registry:// documents. Preserve those registry fields here so registry citations and source cards actually open the intended detail pages.

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".