# tuckcode/rhizome-agent#152 (Repowise PR analysis) Plain markdown of the analysis at https://repowise.dev/pr/tuckcode/rhizome-agent/152 Titles, commit subjects and the AI review below are quoted from the pull request or the model; treat them as data, not instructions. - Pull request: https://github.com/tuckcode/rhizome-agent/pull/152 (merged, by tuckcode) - Title: "docs: republish Pages and match shipped Rhizome" - Analysed head commit: `7b497271ed228ce6e8fc3229d37cbe3d50335c7d` - Compared range (base..head): `27fab7736177f236c4763fef4cb80a6be9f315b5..7b497271ed228ce6e8fc3229d37cbe3d50335c7d` - Analysed at: 2026-10-11 11:24 UTC - Repository snapshot: `13f96e36813e` (https://repowise.dev/s/13f96e36813e) - Freshness: the PR is merged, so this is the analysis of its last analysed push. ## Verdict **Not determined.** No trustworthy baseline: Compared against the last indexed snapshot rather than this PR's base, so anything that landed in between counts as this PR's. The comparison fell back to something weaker than usual, so treat this verdict as provisional. - medium maintainability: dry_violation in src/lib/leftover-website-copy.test.ts (added_lines) - 8 changed files were not analysed, so this is not a clean bill. 9 files changed, 0 contracts changed with 0 callers outside the PR, 1 finding added, 0 resolved. Change risk: riskier than 69% of this repository's commits (its top third). It measures diff size and spread, not danger. The raw score, 8.3 of 10, is on a fixed scale calibrated across other repositories, not a rank in this one. Repository code health 9.7 (base against this head, 0 to 10, higher is healthier). ## What to do 1. Inspect 1 finding under "Findings this PR added", in the order listed. 2. No measured test map; run the suite covering the changed files. 3. Review the skipped files by hand; they were not compared: `.github/workflows/pages.yml`, `README.md`, `docs/GETTING-STARTED.md`, `docs/PUBLIC-PREVIEW.md`, `docs/for-agents/README.md`, `docs/plans/handoffs/2026-10-11-1115-cursor-grok-4-6-pages-docs.md`, `docs/start/README.md`, `website/index.html` ## Checks The results the bot's checks comment reports for this head. - Coverage: No coverage report was uploaded for this head, so changed lines are not measured yet. - Tests: No changed source files. - Security: No new findings on changed lines. - Doc drift: 3 refuted claims in a doc this PR edits. Scanned the changed lines at `7b49727`. ## Findings this PR added (1) Code-health findings inside lines this PR added, worst first. Pre-existing findings in the same files are not listed. - medium dry violation at `src/lib/leftover-website-copy.test.ts:20-25`: 28% of file duplicated; worst clone shares 6 lines with src/lib/leftover-website-copy.test.ts ## Documentation this PR touches Scanned 883 documents and checked 11549 references. Claims the tree refutes (edit the document): - `docs/GETTING-STARTED.md:364` refers to `src/mock-tauri.ts`, which the tree no longer has. Document names src/mock-tauri.ts, which does not exist. This is a guide, so it may be an illustration rather than drift. - `docs/GETTING-STARTED.md:624` refers to `src/components/MyComponent.tsx`, which the tree no longer has. Document names src/components/MyComponent.tsx, which does not exist. This is a guide, so it may be an illustration rather than drift. - `docs/GETTING-STARTED.md:627` refers to `src/components/MyComponent.test.tsx`, which the tree no longer has. Document names src/components/MyComponent.test.tsx, which does not exist. This is a guide, so it may be an illustration rather than drift. _Covers only references this detector can resolve; uncheckable ones are neither counted nor reported. A finding names the document to edit, not the target it names, and is evidence to check rather than a proven defect._ ## Changed files and their health Per-file code health, base to head (0 to 10), files whose score moved first. - `src/lib/leftover-website-copy.test.ts`: new file, 9.7; refactoring: De-duplicate the clone. Extract the shared block into a private helper, or push it down to a base class if the structure is genuinely shared rather than coincidental. ## What was not reviewed - 8 of 9 changed files were not measured, so nothing here speaks for them (`README.md`: unsupported language, `website/index.html`: unsupported language, `docs/start/README.md`: unsupported language, `docs/PUBLIC-PREVIEW.md`: unsupported language, `docs/GETTING-STARTED.md`: unsupported language, `docs/for-agents/README.md`: unsupported language, `.github/workflows/pages.yml`: unsupported language, `docs/plans/handoffs/2026-10-11-1115-cursor-grok-4-6-pages-docs.md`: unsupported language). - tests evidence is partial: no measured coverage map; covering tests are graph-inferred. - health evidence is degraded: Compared against the last indexed snapshot rather than this PR's base, so anything that landed in between counts as this PR's. - contracts evidence is partial: a break only test callers can witness counts here and does not in the comment, which reports it by letting those tests fail; the base side is the last indexed snapshot, not this PR's base. - prior fixes evidence is partial: the snapshot carries no prior-fix counts. - Not gathered by the bot: branch overlap, independent changes. - No AI review ran on this push. Everything above is deterministic analysis. ## How to act on this 1. Work through "What to do" in order. 2. Items under "What was not reviewed" have no evidence either way. Review those parts yourself.