docs: complete issue #99 phase 4 canonical usage docs#106
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughDocumentation refactor repositioning ExStruct from extraction-centric to a dual-capability platform emphasizing patch-based editing workflows, interface selection guidance, canonical dry-run → inspect → apply flow, MCP positioning, and updated Quick Start examples for Python extraction and engine configuration. (≤50 words) Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes Possibly related PRs
Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
📝 Coding Plan
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. Comment |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
![devin-ai-integration[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/811515?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Owner
Author
|
Addressed the Codacy warning and review wording issues in
Validation rerun:
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
README.md (1)
48-49: Prefer fully qualified command names in mixed command lists.For copy/paste clarity, consider using
exstruct make,exstruct ops, andexstruct validateexplicitly whereverexstruct patchis already fully qualified.✏️ Suggested doc tweak
-| Run local operator or AI-agent edit workflows | `exstruct patch`, `make`, `ops`, `validate` | Canonical operational interface; JSON-first and dry-run friendly. | +| Run local operator or AI-agent edit workflows | `exstruct patch`, `exstruct make`, `exstruct ops`, `exstruct validate` | Canonical operational interface; JSON-first and dry-run friendly. | -If you previously used `exstruct_patch` / `exstruct_make` only because editing -was MCP-first, migrate new local workflows to `exstruct patch` or -`exstruct make` unless you specifically need MCP host controls or the shared +If you previously used `exstruct_patch` / `exstruct_make` only because editing +was MCP-first, migrate new local workflows to `exstruct patch` / `exstruct make` +unless you specifically need MCP host controls or the shared patch contract inside Python.Also applies to: 145-147
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@README.md` around lines 48 - 49, Update the mixed command list entries so all commands are fully qualified: replace the short forms `make`, `ops`, and `validate` in the table row that currently shows `exstruct patch`, `make`, `ops`, `validate` with `exstruct make`, `exstruct ops`, and `exstruct validate` respectively; apply the same change to the other occurrence noted (the row around the other mention of `exstruct-mcp` / MCP tools) so every command in mixed lists is explicitly prefixed with `exstruct` for copy/paste clarity.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Inline comments:
In `@docs/cli.md`:
- Around line 40-43: Update the wording for the `patch` (and `make`) description
to clarify that JSON is emitted only after parsing and execution have
successfully completed and returned a payload; replace “once request parsing and
execution begin” with phrasing such as “after successful parsing and execution
complete and return a payload,” and keep the note that invalid JSON, validation
failures, and runtime errors are printed to stderr and exit 1 before any JSON is
produced.
---
Nitpick comments:
In `@README.md`:
- Around line 48-49: Update the mixed command list entries so all commands are
fully qualified: replace the short forms `make`, `ops`, and `validate` in the
table row that currently shows `exstruct patch`, `make`, `ops`, `validate` with
`exstruct make`, `exstruct ops`, and `exstruct validate` respectively; apply the
same change to the other occurrence noted (the row around the other mention of
`exstruct-mcp` / MCP tools) so every command in mixed lists is explicitly
prefixed with `exstruct` for copy/paste clarity.
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 9629780e-ad99-4cde-8a1f-41f241edda03
📒 Files selected for processing (9)
README.ja.mdREADME.mddev-docs/specs/editing-cli.mddocs/api.mddocs/cli.mddocs/mcp.mdtasks/feature_spec.mdtasks/lessons.mdtasks/todo.md
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- docs/api.md
- tasks/todo.md
1 task
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
tasks/feature_spec.mdsection2026-03-18 issue #99 phase 4 canonical usage documentation, and2026-03-18 pr #106 codacy and review follow-up.Acceptance Criteria (MCP UX Hardening)
Validation
uv run task build-docsuv run task precommit-runDocs-only change; no runtime behavior changed, so no new tests were needed.
docs/mcp.md,docs/README.ja.md, release notes).Updated
README.md,README.ja.md,docs/api.md,docs/cli.md,docs/mcp.md, and internal task/spec docs. Release notes were not changed because there is no shipped runtime change.Notes
4e4ca8daddresses the Codacy warning and the PR review wording issuesSummary by CodeRabbit