Update GEMINI.md

[billlzzz18]

User description

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Extensive governance and structure additions (instruction scope, proposal/commitment boundaries, and response language).
  • New repository/structure guidance, standard paths, and file format contracts.
  • Skill discovery/invocation constraints and command-readiness guidance.
  • Proposal Mode and setup-vs-runtime distinctions clarified.
  • Best practices for context efficiency; reorganized and reformatted for consistency.

---

CodeAnt-AI Description

Define project structure, resolution protocol, and operational constraints in GEMINI.md

What Changed

• Adds an "Instruction Scope" that limits this document to bootstrapping and structural rules; it is not a runtime decision engine.
• Introduces a canonical repository layout diagram so users know where project, track, and skill files are expected to live.
• Reworks the file-resolution protocol and lists standard default paths so references resolve to predictable locations; verification is structural only and does not stop work.
• Adds file-format contracts for track and skill documents so documents must include specific sections (purpose, spec, plan, capability).
• Declares a "Commitment Boundary": generated outputs are proposals only and require explicit user acceptance before changing state.
• Defines skill discovery and invocation rules: choose skills by declared metadata, do not improvise beyond declared capability, and surface mismatches as decisions.
• Adds "Proposal Mode", context-efficiency best practices, command readiness guidance, and a response-language rule to shape assistant behavior and user interactions.

Impact

✅ Clearer repository navigation
✅ Fewer misplaced or unresolved file references
✅ Clearer distinction between proposals and executed actions

💡 Usage Guide

Checking Your Pull Request

Every time you make a pull request, our system automatically looks through it. We check for security issues, mistakes in how you're setting up your infrastructure, and common code problems. We do this to make sure your changes are solid and won't cause any trouble later.

Talking to CodeAnt AI

Got a question or need a hand with something in your pull request? You can easily get in touch with CodeAnt AI right here. Just type the following in a comment on your pull request, and replace "Your question here" with whatever you want to ask:

@codeant-ai ask: Your question here

This lets you have a chat with CodeAnt AI about your pull request, making it easier to understand and improve your code.

Example

@codeant-ai ask: Can you suggest a safer alternative to storing this secret?

Preserve Org Learnings with CodeAnt

You can record team preferences so CodeAnt AI applies them in future reviews. Reply directly to the specific CodeAnt AI suggestion (in the same thread) and replace "Your feedback here" with your input:

@codeant-ai: Your feedback here

This helps CodeAnt AI learn and adapt to your team's coding style and standards.

Example

@codeant-ai: Do not flag unused imports.

Retrigger review

Ask CodeAnt AI to review the PR again, by typing:

@codeant-ai: review

Check Your Repository Health

To analyze the health of your code repository, visit our dashboard at https://app.codeant.ai. This tool helps you identify potential issues and areas for improvement in your codebase, ensuring your repository maintains high standards of code health.

[codeant-ai]

CodeAnt AI is reviewing your PR.

---

Thanks for using CodeAnt! 🎉

We're free for open-source projects. if you're enjoying it, help us grow by sharing.

Share on X ·
Reddit ·
LinkedIn

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The pull request updates GEMINI.md with comprehensive governance and structure: instruction scope, repository structure, universal file resolution, standard default paths, file format contracts, commitment boundaries, skill discovery/invocation constraints, proposal mode, context-efficiency guidance, and command-readiness rules. Content is reorganized and formalized.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)

Summary

Documentation / GEMINI GEMINI.md

Added and reorganized documentation: new sections on Instruction Scope, Visual Repository Structure, Universal File Resolution Protocol, Standard Default Paths (Project & Track), Standard File Format Contracts, Commitment Boundary, Skill Discovery & Invocation Constraint, Proposal Mode, Best Practices for Context Efficiency, Command Readiness, and Response Language. Clarified setup-time vs runtime semantics and reformatted language into formal protocol-style contracts.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes

Poem

🐇 I nibble words and stitch the seam,

I build the rules, a tidy dream,
Files aligned and paths made bright,
Proposals hop into the light,
A rabbit's cheer for structure's gleam 🥕

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 2 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Title check	❓ Inconclusive	The title 'Update GEMINI.md' is vague and generic, describing only the file being modified without conveying the substantive nature or purpose of the changes.	Use a more descriptive title that captures the main change, such as 'Add governance structure and operational boundaries to GEMINI.md' or 'Formalize instruction scope and commitment boundaries in GEMINI.md'.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch billlzzz18-patch-2

---

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

🧹 Recent nitpick comments

GEMINI.md (1)

68-82: Clarify the nested numbering in Track Context resolution.

The numbering scheme is ambiguous. Line 78 shows "5. Fallback (structural only)" within the "Track Context" subsection under "1. Identify Index", but the main protocol then continues with "2. Check Index" at line 83. This creates confusion about whether the nested steps 1-5 are substeps or part of the main protocol sequence.

Consider either:

• Using lettered substeps (a, b, c) or bullet points for the Track Context resolution steps
• Increasing indentation to visually distinguish nested substeps from main protocol steps
• Renumbering to make the hierarchy explicit

📝 Suggested formatting improvement

 Track Context:
 
-1. Resolve and read the Tracks Registry via Project Context (header/tracks.md)
-
-2. Find the entry for the specific `<track_id>`
+a. Resolve and read the Tracks Registry via Project Context (header/tracks.md)
 
-3. Follow the linked folder to locate the track directory
+b. Find the entry for the specific `<track_id>`
 
-4. Read `<track_folder>/index.md`
+c. Follow the linked folder to locate the track directory
 
-5. Fallback (structural only):
+d. Read `<track_folder>/index.md`
+
+e. Fallback (structural only):

---

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.}

[codeant-ai]

CodeAnt AI finished reviewing your PR.