[KHAEntertainment]

https://entire.com/gh/khaentertainment/-/trails/4/changes/showrunner/1

Closes #159

What this PR does

Documentation only: five new files, nothing under skills/dev/ or the plugin payload.

• docs/templates/REVIEW.fragment.md: Kilo fragment, text identical to provider strategy §3, plus placement notes and activation limits (§5).
• docs/templates/coderabbit.fragment.yaml: CodeRabbit fragment, block identical to provider strategy §4 with auto_review.enabled: true stated, plus activation limits (§5).
• docs/pilot/supaconsole/PROJECT_CONTEXT.draft.md: Verification Gate = CI build job commands; Acceptance Check ops/e2e.sh verify; External Review Policy (Required coderabbit, Ignored kilo, auto requests coderabbit only); T2 paths prisma/**, src/app/api/auth/**.
• docs/pilot/supaconsole/dev.json.example: both repositories KHAEntertainment/SupaConsole; not named .dev.json.
• docs/pilot/supaconsole/README.md: owner checklist (all unchecked), facts re-read read-only on 2026-10-27, observed CodeRabbit evidence (labelled not a qualification run).

What is NOT done (owner actions, listed as unchecked steps in the README)

Confirming Issues on SupaConsole; any SupaConsole commit or PR (PROJECT_CONTEXT.md, .dev.json, YAML); any CodeRabbit or Kilo setting; the clean-PR completion qualification; installing the Skill; launching the pilot.

Findings the owner should read (README, "Observed CodeRabbit evidence")

• Issues are already enabled on SupaConsole; main is 6f2b8c5, not b720c68; CI build now uses npm run lint / npm test (same tools).
• CodeRabbit auto-review runs from "Organization UI"; review objects exist (CHANGES_REQUESTED, and APPROVED on clean docs-only PRs docs: record the identity-as-capability and guard-as-lint decisions (ADR-008, ADR-009) #21, Make the Verification Gate a committed script that cannot report success on checks it never ran #22 bound to head).
• Conflict: the strategy §4 fragment sets request_changes_workflow: false; committing it without inheritance would replace the organization setting and could remove those review objects. Fragment left verbatim; flagged for the owner (README step 5).

Acceptance criteria

• AC-1 ✓ both fragments under docs/templates/, identical to §3/§4, activation limits stated.
• AC-2 ✓ draft names coderabbit as the one required reviewer; project's own requirements preserved by statement.
• AC-3 ✓ README "Evidence to record on the first pilot PR" states the configuration-source step, its limitation, and the effective enabled setting where accessible.
• AC-4 ✓ README step 6 requires the clean-PR qualification before task 1 and the separate-package route if no inspectable completion object exists.
• AC-5 ✓ no file under skills/dev/ or the plugin payload changed.
• AC-6 ✓ only read-only GitHub API reads outside this repository.

Checks

• python3 scripts/validate_skill.py: exit 0
• bash scripts/check_plugin_root.sh: exit 0 (payload unchanged)
• YAML parse of the CodeRabbit fragment (PyYAML): exit 0
• Everything else (full suite, verify.sh, Verification Gate): CI-owned, not run locally.

Test changes and why: none

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on this repository. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

Run configuration

• Source mode: Auto
• Repository: Unavailable
• Branch: Unavailable
• File: No configuration file from this repository applied
• Commit: Unavailable
• Layers: Repository UI
• Review profile: CHILL
• Plan: Advanced
• Run ID: 4f522b8a-46c6-48e2-b017-4b2685e93807

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:

• 🔍 Trigger review

• Autofix · Keep fixing CodeRabbit findings and required CI, and resolving merge conflicts

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.}

[kilo-code-bot]

WARNING: CI command order claim contradicted by gate table and observed CI

Line 27 states the commands are "in CI order after npm ci," but the bullet list below lists lint -> tsc -> prisma generate -> test, while the gate table on line 40 lists prisma generate -> tsc -> lint -> test, matching the observed CI order in README.md line 28. The owner may run commands in the wrong order when setting up SupaConsole.

[kilo-code-bot]

Code Review Summary

Status: No Issues Found | Recommendation: Merge

Files Reviewed (5 files)

• docs/pilot/supaconsole/PROJECT_CONTEXT.draft.md - 0 issues
• docs/pilot/supaconsole/README.md - 0 issues
• docs/pilot/supaconsole/dev.json.example - 0 issues
• docs/templates/REVIEW.fragment.md - 0 issues
• docs/templates/coderabbit.fragment.yaml - 0 issues

Previous Review Summary (commit e72de4e)

Current summary above is authoritative. Previous snapshots are kept for context only.

Previous review (commit e72de4e)

Status: 1 Issues Found | Recommendation: Address before merge

Overview

Severity	Count
CRITICAL	0
WARNING	1
SUGGESTION	0

Issue Details (click to expand)

CRITICAL

File	Line	Issue

WARNING

File	Line	Issue
docs/pilot/supaconsole/PROJECT_CONTEXT.draft.md	27	CI command order claim contradicted by gate table and observed CI

SUGGESTION

File	Line	Issue

Files Reviewed (5 files)

• docs/pilot/supaconsole/PROJECT_CONTEXT.draft.md - 1 issue
• docs/pilot/supaconsole/README.md - 0 issues
• docs/pilot/supaconsole/dev.json.example - 0 issues
• docs/templates/REVIEW.fragment.md - 0 issues
• docs/templates/coderabbit.fragment.yaml - 0 issues

Fix these issues in Kilo Cloud

---

_{Reviewed by nemotron-3.5-super-vl:free · Input: 44.9K · Output: 6.9K · Cached: 108.4K}

_{Review guidance: REVIEW.md from base branch main}