Skip to content

chore(rules): add Tier-2 plan-PR inspiration-discipline rule#63

Merged
SutuSebastian merged 1 commit intomainfrom
rule/plan-pr-inspiration-discipline
May 4, 2026
Merged

chore(rules): add Tier-2 plan-PR inspiration-discipline rule#63
SutuSebastian merged 1 commit intomainfrom
rule/plan-pr-inspiration-discipline

Conversation

@SutuSebastian
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@SutuSebastian SutuSebastian commented May 4, 2026

Summary

Promotes the cite-the-source-path discipline from honor-system (per PR #58 § 4) to an auto-attached Tier-2 rule per the agents-tier-system framework.

Why now: parked follow-up from PR #58 Q10 grill. Plan-PR + recipe authors get the inspection-source list primed automatically when authoring under docs/plans/** or templates/recipes/** — without paying always-on context cost on every turn.

What lands

  • .agents/rules/plan-pr-inspiration-discipline.md — Tier-2 rule body (~30 lines per the Tier-2 priming guideline). Frontmatter:
    • globs: ["docs/plans/**", "templates/recipes/**"]
    • alwaysApply: false
    • description with trigger phrases (LSP, SQLite, oxc, MCP, plan PR, recipe authoring) for Cursor's intent-discoverability.
  • .cursor/rules/plan-pr-inspiration-discipline.mdc — symlink to the source file per agents-first-convention.
  • .agents/rules/agents-tier-system.md Tier-2 list updated with the new rule entry + deep-link to the canonical inspection list.

Rule body covers

  1. Why peer-tool cloning dilutes codemap's niche — cohort positioning brief; codemap's intrinsic differentiation (predicate-as-API + pure structural + JS/TS/CSS-deep extraction).
  2. Top inspiration sources — LSP spec, SQLite docs, oxc AST node reference, Lightning CSS docs, JSON-RPC 2.0 + MCP spec, TC39 proposals, existing codemap surface.
  3. Cite-the-source examples — proper pattern (cite spec, not peer source path) with three examples.
  4. When-NOT-to-cite-a-peer escape hatch — empirical user-demand signals are valid market research; "X tool does Y so we should too" is the anti-pattern.

Doc-governance compliance

  • Authored in .agents/rules/ first, symlink in .cursor/rules/ per agents-first-convention.
  • Tier-2 placement justified per agents-tier-system Tier 2: rule has always-on principles (cite-spec discipline) that should fire whenever the relevant files are in scope.
  • Pairs with the research-note § 4 list as the deep reference (no separate skill needed; the list IS the deep reference). Same shape as the docs-governance Tier-2 rule + skill.
  • Durability checked per the agents-tier-system durability sub-rules: cites reference docs (README.md, architecture.md) by name (durable), uses no PR / commit hashes as primary anchors, no source-line-number references.

Test plan

  • bun run format:check passes
  • Symlink resolves correctly (ls -la .cursor/rules/plan-pr-inspiration-discipline.mdc → points at source)
  • Cross-references to research note § 4 anchor resolve
  • CodeRabbit review

Out of scope

  • docs/research/fallow.md closure — PR #61.
  • docs/roadmap.md non-goals lockstep — PR #62.
  • (a) FTS5 + Mermaid plan PR — PR #60.
  • (b) C.9 plugin layer plan PR — PR #59.

@SutuSebastian
chore(rules): add Tier-2 plan-PR inspiration-discipline rule
2105fa0 
Per the parked follow-up from PR #58 grill (Q10): the cite-the-source-
path discipline in docs/research/non-goals-reassessment-2026-05.md § 4
was honor-system. Promoting to a Tier-2 auto-attached rule per the
agents-tier-system framework so plan-PR / recipe authors get the
inspection list primed automatically.

Files added/changed:

- .agents/rules/plan-pr-inspiration-discipline.md — Tier-2 rule body
  (~30 lines per Tier-2 priming guideline). Frontmatter: globs
  docs/plans/** + templates/recipes/**, alwaysApply: false, description
  with trigger phrases for Cursor's discoverability.

- .cursor/rules/plan-pr-inspiration-discipline.mdc — symlink to the
  source file per agents-first-convention.

- .agents/rules/agents-tier-system.md — added the new rule to the
  Tier 2 list with cross-ref to § 4 as the canonical inspection-sources
  catalogue.

Rule body covers:

1. Why peer-tool cloning dilutes codemap's niche (cohort positioning).
2. Top inspiration sources (LSP spec, SQLite docs, oxc, Lightning CSS,
   JSON-RPC + MCP, TC39, existing codemap surface).
3. Cite-the-source examples (proper pattern: cite spec; not peer-tool
   source path).
4. When-NOT-to-cite-a-peer escape hatch (empirical user-demand
   signals are OK; "X tool does Y so we should too" is not).

Pairs with the research-note § 4 list as the deep reference (no
separate skill needed; the list IS the deep reference). Mirrors the
docs-governance Tier-2 rule pattern (priming layer + skill reference).
@changeset-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown

changeset-bot Bot commented May 4, 2026

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: 2105fa0

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

@coderabbitai
Copy link
Copy Markdown

coderabbitai Bot commented May 4, 2026

Warning

Rate limit exceeded

@SutuSebastian has exceeded the limit for the number of commits that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 23 minutes and 55 seconds before requesting another review.

To keep reviews running without waiting, you can enable usage-based add-on for your organization. This allows additional reviews beyond the hourly cap. Account admins can enable it under billing.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit.

🚦 How do rate limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization.

Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout.

Please see our FAQ for further information.

ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: ab080b2e-083b-4e5f-b6dc-9060ef022da2

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 54e3a2c and 2105fa0.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)
  • .agents/rules/agents-tier-system.md
  • .agents/rules/plan-pr-inspiration-discipline.md
  • .cursor/rules/plan-pr-inspiration-discipline.mdc
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Commit unit tests in branch rule/plan-pr-inspiration-discipline

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
Review rate limit: 0/1 reviews remaining, refill in 23 minutes and 55 seconds.

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

@SutuSebastian SutuSebastian merged commit fe65df0 into main May 4, 2026
10 checks passed
@SutuSebastian SutuSebastian deleted the rule/plan-pr-inspiration-discipline branch May 4, 2026 12:31
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@SutuSebastian