chore: add CodeRabbit configuration

[thlorenz]

Summary

Add CodeRabbit configuration file to standardize code review settings across the project. This
configuration enables automated code review with assertive profile, sets up pre-merge checks
for issue assessment, and configures multiple linting and analysis tools for comprehensive code
quality checks.

Details

Mainly improved where the description is added and disabled some unnecessary checks.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• New Features

  • Introduces an automated code-review and quality pipeline with incremental auto-reviews, pre-merge checks, and configurable auto-replies/integrations for issue trackers.
  • Enables a broad set of linters, formatters, and scanners across languages and tooling to surface style, security, and quality issues automatically.

• Chores

  • Added a centralized configuration to manage review workflows, tool toggles, and project knowledge integrations.

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

[github-actions]

Manual Deploy Available

You can trigger a manual deploy of this PR branch to testnet:

Deploy to Testnet 🚀

Alternative: Comment /deploy on this PR to trigger deployment directly.

⚠️ Note: Manual deploy requires authorization. Only authorized users can trigger deployments.

Comment updated automatically when the PR is synchronized.

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Introduces a new .coderabbit.yaml configuration describing language and accessibility settings plus an automated code-review workflow. Configured sections include reviews (profiles, workflow toggles, auto-labeling, reviewer automation, cache control), auto_review (incremental reviews, draft/branch handling), finishing_touches (unit tests enabled, docstrings disabled), pre_merge_checks (modes off, issue assessment as warning), numerous tools enabled (linters/formatters/scan tools), chat integrations (art generation, auto-replies, Jira/Linear auto usage), knowledge_base and code_generation settings, and placeholders for project-specific keys.

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch thlorenz/coderabbit-config

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 66f6d37 and d03a114.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• .coderabbit.yaml (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

🧠 Learnings (1)

📓 Common learnings

Learnt from: thlorenz
Repo: magicblock-labs/magicblock-validator PR: 650
File: magicblock-chainlink/src/submux/subscription_task.rs:13-99
Timestamp: 2025-11-20T08:57:07.217Z
Learning: In the magicblock-validator repository, avoid posting review comments that merely confirm code is correct or matches intended behavior without providing actionable feedback, suggestions for improvement, or identifying potential issues. Such confirmatory comments are considered unhelpful noise by the maintainers.

🔇 Additional comments (2)

.coderabbit.yaml (2)

61-105: Clarify linter tool selection for JavaScript/TypeScript.

The configuration enables three linters for JavaScript/TypeScript analysis: Biome (line 82–83), ESLint (line 88–89), and OXC/Oxlint (line 98–99). Biome includes an ESLint-compatible linter, and Oxlint is a modern Rust-based alternative. Enabling all three may cause redundant checks or conflicting results.

Verify this is intentional (e.g., transitioning from ESLint to Biome, or using different rule sets) or consolidate to avoid duplication and slower review times.

On a positive note, the audited languages comment (line 61) directly addresses the previous review feedback about tool coverage—the configuration is now well-scoped to the repository's actual tech stack rather than enabling 30+ unnecessary tools.

---

10-10: Confirm intent of HTML comment placeholder for summary.

Line 10 uses an HTML comment (<!-- coderabbit-summary -->) as the high_level_summary_placeholder instead of the default (@coderabbitai summary). Confirm this is intentional and that the placeholder will be recognized correctly during reviews (for example, if the PR description uses a different structure or if the placeholder should be a human-readable marker instead).

---

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

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

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

📜 Review details

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between f80c598 and 66f6d37.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• .coderabbit.yaml (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

🧠 Learnings (1)

📓 Common learnings

Learnt from: thlorenz
Repo: magicblock-labs/magicblock-validator PR: 650
File: magicblock-chainlink/src/submux/subscription_task.rs:13-99
Timestamp: 2025-11-20T08:57:07.217Z
Learning: In the magicblock-validator repository, avoid posting review comments that merely confirm code is correct or matches intended behavior without providing actionable feedback, suggestions for improvement, or identifying potential issues. Such confirmatory comments are considered unhelpful noise by the maintainers.

🔇 Additional comments (3)

.coderabbit.yaml (3)

10-10: Verify that the HTML comment placeholder works for summary injection.

The custom placeholder <!-- coderabbit-summary --> is unconventional compared to the default @coderabbitai summary. Ensure that CodeRabbit correctly recognizes and replaces this HTML comment in the PR description when injecting the high-level summary.

---

49-56: Note: All three baseline pre-merge checks are disabled.

With docstrings, title, and description checks all set to off, CodeRabbit will not enforce documentation quality or PR description standards before merge. Code quality assurance for these aspects will depend entirely on manual review. Consider whether this trade-off aligns with your team's standards, especially given the "assertive" review profile which emphasizes thoroughness.

---

72-74: Verify GitHub Checks are intentionally disabled.

Line 73 sets github-checks.enabled: false. If your repository runs GitHub Actions, disabling this means CodeRabbit won't wait for or report on CI check results. Confirm this is intentional and that your workflow doesn't require GitHub Checks integration.

[bmuddha]

Nice!