fix(ci): restore nix-cachix-setup load — dot notation for github-token input

[thedavidmeister]

Problem (regression from #241)

#241 fixed the description but changed the access-tokens input reference to bracket notation with double quotes — inputs["github-token"] — which GHA expressions reject:

TemplateValidationException … (Line: 59): Unexpected symbol: '"github-token"' … expression: inputs["github-token"] || github.token

So nix-cachix-setup still failed to load org-wide.

Fix

Use dot notation inputs.github-token — identical to the existing, production-proven inputs.cachix-auth-token and inputs.gc-max-store-size-macos references in the same file (GHA resolves hyphenated input names this way here). All ${{ }} expressions in the action were re-verified.

Restores nix-cachix-setup load; the cross-org token plumbing from #240 is preserved.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@thedavidmeister, we couldn't start this review because you've reached your PR review rate limit.

More reviews will be available in 33 minutes and 50 seconds. Learn how PR review limits work.

Your organization has used up its prepaid credits, and credit purchases are no longer available. Enable the review add-on in the billing tab to keep reviews running — you're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based credits.

🚦 How do rate limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please see our Fair Usage Limits Policy for further information.

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 41b2115b-34f1-49f0-aad6-cbc3c7c94554

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 77b7882 and be1fad2.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• .github/actions/nix-cachix-setup/action.yml

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch fix/nix-token-single-quote

---

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.}

[thedavidmeister]

Reviewed be1fad2: restores nix-cachix-setup load after #241's double-quote bracket regression. Switches the access-tokens reference to dot notation inputs.github-token, matching the production-proven inputs.cachix-auth-token / inputs.gc-max-store-size-macos references in the same file. All ${{ }} expressions re-verified valid. Merging despite red PR checks because they cannot load the very action this fixes. Approve.

[github-actions]

@coderabbitai assess this PR size classification for the totality of the PR with the following criterias and report it in your comment:

S/M/L PR Classification Guidelines:

This guide helps classify merged pull requests by effort and complexity rather than just line count. The goal is to assess the difficulty and scope of changes after they have been completed.

Small (S)

Characteristics:

• Simple bug fixes, typos, or minor refactoring
• Single-purpose changes affecting 1-2 files
• Documentation updates
• Configuration tweaks
• Changes that require minimal context to review

Review Effort: Would have taken 5-10 minutes

Examples:

• Fix typo in variable name
• Update README with new instructions
• Adjust configuration values
• Simple one-line bug fixes
• Import statement cleanup

Medium (M)

Characteristics:

• Feature additions or enhancements
• Refactoring that touches multiple files but maintains existing behavior
• Breaking changes with backward compatibility
• Changes requiring some domain knowledge to review

Review Effort: Would have taken 15-30 minutes

Examples:

• Add new feature or component
• Refactor common utility functions
• Update dependencies with minor breaking changes
• Add new component with tests
• Performance optimizations
• More complex bug fixes

Large (L)

Characteristics:

• Major feature implementations
• Breaking changes or API redesigns
• Complex refactoring across multiple modules
• New architectural patterns or significant design changes
• Changes requiring deep context and multiple review rounds

Review Effort: Would have taken 45+ minutes

Examples:

• Complete new feature with frontend/backend changes
• Protocol upgrades or breaking changes
• Major architectural refactoring
• Framework or technology upgrades

Additional Factors to Consider

When deciding between sizes, also consider:

• Test coverage impact: More comprehensive test changes lean toward larger classification
• Risk level: Changes to critical systems bump up a size category
• Team familiarity: Novel patterns or technologies increase complexity

Notes:

• the assessment must be for the totality of the PR, that means comparing the base branch to the last commit of the PR
• the assessment output must be exactly one of: S, M or L (single-line comment) in format of: SIZE={S/M/L}
• do not include any additional text, only the size classification
• your assessment comment must not include tips or additional sections
• do NOT tag me or anyone else on your comment