[ptr727]

Splits the over-length comment, docstring, and help-text sentences in scripts/local_review.py, scripts/canonical_review.py, tests/test_local_review.py, and tests/test_canonical_review.py. The four files read zero on prose_lint.py --check sentence-length (183 hits before). Comment-only change: the syntax trees with docstrings blanked are identical to develop.

Part of #3531

Notes:

• The module docstring of local_review.py is the --help description, which argparse reflows. Its new bullet lists therefore print inline. No test asserts on that text.
• Three local review passes (opus) raised split-drift findings, all fixed. A fourth, narrow pass over the last fix found none.

Copies left for the comment sweep

None known. scripts/README.md already reads zero and its wording was adopted where the sentence was the same.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[coderabbitai]

Important

• 🔍 Trigger review

This repository does not receive automatic reviews because it has fewer than 10 stars.

Run configuration

• Source mode: Auto
• Repository: ptr727/ProjectTemplate
• Branch: feature/3531-cmt-review-engines
• File: .coderabbit.yaml
• Commit: eb0815b
• Layers: Repository YAML
• Review profile: CHILL
• Plan: Advanced
• Run ID: f62ea7f4-d2bc-411e-8779-d8cc52619ad4

• 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.}

[ptr727]

A recorded local strict-review pass covers head 59866b5bb352f34bedb9bade47accfab972d56d5, the content this pull request carries at that commit against develop, and it recorded 28 findings.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 81.60%. Comparing base (0d4e6f1) to head (eb0815b).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop    #3607   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    81.60%   81.60%           
========================================
  Files           26       26           
  Lines         9070     9070           
========================================
  Hits          7402     7402           
  Misses        1668     1668           

Flag	Coverage Δ
python-3.13	81.60% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[Copilot]

🟡 Changes recommended

Four unresolved findings remain active: unclear or ungrammatical wording in two comments or docstrings, a --help text that will print as a run-on line, and overly long docstring lines in several files.

4 open issues

• Fix ungrammatical diff-reading explanation · New
• Clarify git failure path sorts last · New
• Rewrap long docstring paragraphs consistently · New
• Keep argparse help description readable · New

What changed in this PR

This PR splits over-long comment, docstring, and help-text sentences in the local and canonical review engines and their tests. The goal is to get these files to read zero on the prose_lint.py --check sentence-length check. It is a comment-only change, so runtime behavior should not change. It is a small part of the work tracked in issue #3531, which asks how carriers should handle sentence-length hits on hub-verbatim text.

Changes:

• Splits long sentences in comments, docstrings, and the --help description of scripts/local_review.py and scripts/canonical_review.py into shorter sentences.
• Makes the same split in the docstrings and comments of tests/test_local_review.py and tests/test_canonical_review.py.
• Turns some inline lists into bullets, and makes the module docstring's list print inline in --help.

File	Description
tests/​test_local_review.py	Splits long docstring and comment sentences in the local review test cases.
tests/​test_canonical_review.py	Splits long docstring and comment sentences in the canonical review test cases.
scripts/​local_review.py	Splits long sentences in the module docstring, helper comments, and CannotRun docstring. The module docstring is also the --help text.
scripts/​canonical_review.py	Splits long sentences in the module docstring, constants, and helper comments.

_{Review effort: Lite}

[ptr727]

A recorded local strict-review pass covers head 7083c71488d11536aeba32cdc33f2c96ab08476f, the content this pull request carries at that commit against develop, and it recorded 4 findings.

[Copilot]

🟡 Changes recommended

One unresolved active finding remains: a nit-level over-long docstring first paragraph at tests/test_canonical_review.py line 93 that still needs rewrapping to match the other test files.

1 open issue

• Rewrap long docstring paragraph to about 100 columns · New

4 resolved since last review

• Keep argparse help description readable
• Rewrap long docstring paragraphs consistently
• Clarify git failure path sorts last
• Fix ungrammatical diff-reading explanation

_{Review effort: Lite}

[ptr727]

A recorded local strict-review pass covers head 2f8ba1c535f86a8f1c4cddc174b374ef93ef1ce0, the content this pull request carries at that commit against develop, and it recorded 1 finding.

[Copilot]

🔵 Needs a closer look

Two findings that passed the severity filter were omitted from the published review, including a misleading explanation of when a path sorts last in scripts/canonical_review.py, so a human reviewer needs to assess them before approval.

No open issues 🎉

1 resolved since last review

• Rewrap long docstring paragraph to about 100 columns

_{Review effort: Lite}

[ptr727]

A recorded local strict-review pass covers head 6570e2aa1b25df5ae84da9a714983dbf18246a61, the content this pull request carries at that commit against develop, and it recorded 1 finding.

[ptr727]

Round 3 headline named the canonical_review.py explanation of which paths sort last. Reworded in the new head to: 'In the ordinary case that is a path for which git failed. In a repository with no commits at all it is every path, since git exits 128 rather than answering.' Same meaning as the original sentence on develop.

[Copilot]

🟡 Changes recommended

An unresolved finding remains in scripts/canonical_review.py at line 538: the sentence has an unclear referent, and line 540 runs to 120 columns against the 100-column limit in pyproject.toml, even though an earlier thread reply said the text was reworded.

1 open issue

• Clarify git log path wording and wrap paragraph · New

_{Review effort: Lite}

[ptr727]

A recorded local strict-review pass covers head 1130efef9c0c573da620cb4a7d8c3fd3bb5cbd05, the content this pull request carries at that commit against develop, and it recorded 1 finding.

[Copilot]

🔵 Needs a closer look

Two low-severity findings in the test files were omitted from the published review, so a human reviewer needs to assess them before the review can be treated as complete.

No open issues 🎉

1 resolved since last review

• Clarify git log path wording and wrap paragraph

_{Review effort: Lite}

[ptr727]

A recorded local strict-review pass covers head 4e2d6fba31dce7ebf2ba681d852d569461de7833, the content this pull request carries at that commit against develop, and it recorded 0 findings.

[Copilot]

🟡 Changes recommended

The only active finding is a nit in scripts/canonical_review.py at line 705, where the examples come after the claim they illustrate and the paragraph wrap leaves a short orphaned line.

1 open issue

• Reorder example and rewrap paragraph for clarity · New

_{Review effort: Lite}

[ptr727]

A recorded local strict-review pass covers head 4ae89f4ad60ccab56f66f6dc4c88f76ea21ac4ad, the content this pull request carries at that commit against develop, and it recorded 0 findings.

[Copilot]

🔵 Needs a closer look

The published review omitted a finding in tests/test_canonical_review.py (a lead sentence that says two kinds of case but describes three, plus a line over 100 columns), so a human reviewer needs to assess these hidden findings before approval.

No open issues 🎉

1 resolved since last review

• Reorder example and rewrap paragraph for clarity

_{Review effort: Lite}

[ptr727]

Triage of the round-7 headline (tests/test_canonical_review.py). (1) 'Two kinds of case live here' followed by a third, smaller set is the original wording on develop, so it is pre-existing and outside this comment-length sweep. A follow-up could reword it. (2) The line over 100 columns is the quoted 'Run as' command in the module docstring. It is kept on one line on purpose, as on develop, so the command stays copy-pasteable. No change.

[ptr727]

A recorded local strict-review pass covers head eb0815bdcb01cba451e285c8bf6991c04ce50124, the content this pull request carries at that commit against develop, and it recorded 0 findings.

[ptr727]

Round-7 headline fixed in eb0815b: the test module docstring now says 'Three kinds of case live here.', matching the three sets it describes. The quoted 'Run as' command stays on one line. A fresh opus pass over the new head found no drift.

[Copilot]

🟢 Approval recommended

The change touches only comments, docstrings, and help text, with code and test assertions unchanged and the syntax trees matching develop once docstrings are blanked, so no active issues were found.

No open issues 🎉

_{Review effort: Lite}