preserve(workspace): first-notes navigation pending shared contract/restack

[seonghobae]

Preservation status

This PR remains Open / Draft because it still contains unique buyer-visible first-notes and reduced-motion work, but it is no longer safe to treat as an independently mergeable Workspace/GrooveMap writer.

Fresh authority:

• Protected target: develop@314ddeae7b775a4957594b599358c8255617eb2e.
• Actual current head: a1a38fc4e537f22d7811592e49baeb9d816faeff.
• Current compare is diverged: ahead 13 / behind 4, with the old acdbea... merge base. The PR is not mergeable in its current shape.

Valid delta to preserve

The branch contains useful rehearsal behavior that must not be lost merely because the stack is stale:

• selected-role first-note/range navigation into the existing Groove Map;
• aggregation of selected-role transcription across song sections;
• fail-closed unavailable first-notes action;
• keyboard focus of the Groove Map;
• prefers-reduced-motion handling for interaction-triggered scroll;
• role-aware English/Korean copy and focused regression coverage.

PR-0 therefore does not permit a simple close. These deltas need verified succession or an ordinary non-force restack/consolidation.

Repair findings before any merge

Shared transcription admission

This branch introduced a consumer-local isUsableTranscriptionNote() that validates onset/offset and also assumes velocity must be finite in [0, 1]. That is not a canonical BandScope contract: current repository fixtures include both normalized-looking values such as 0.7 and MIDI-like values such as 100, while the active shared admission owner #1254 deliberately does not invent a velocity scale.

Timing validity belongs to the shared TranscriptionNote admission boundary now owned by #1254, not to a Workspace-specific duplicate. Once #1254 (or a verified successor) is protected ancestry, this PR must adopt that released/shared contract and remove its local timing/velocity policy rather than maintaining two validators.

Workspace/GrooveMap single writer

PR #910 is the current protected-base Workspace/GrooveMap vertical and now owns the live role-setup interaction, role-aware Groove Map loading/empty states, focus behavior, and truthful loading-control contract. #905 and #910 overlap Workspace.tsx, GrooveMap.tsx, locale resources, tests, and component documentation. Parallel merge would create competing product semantics.

Required path: preserve unique #905 deltas, compare them against #910 current head, then ordinary non-force restack/consolidate after the shared timing prerequisite. Do not force-push, destructively rebase, or close this PR until all valid behavior/tests/evidence are either protected ancestry or explicitly present in a verified successor.

Merge gate

Keep Draft. Merge only after:

1. shared timing admission from fix(shared): enforce valid transcription timing intervals #1254/successor is protected ancestry;
2. consumer-local duplicate timing/velocity validation is removed;
3. feat(workspace): set up tonight's part before the first entrance #910 overlap is reconciled without losing unique first-notes/reduced-motion behavior;
4. the resulting exact head is a current protected-base descendant with all applicable required checks terminal-success;
5. zero valid unresolved findings and a qualifying independent non-author last-push approval exist.

Queued/pending/stale/predecessor/self evidence is non-passing.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@seonghobae, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 38 minutes

Limit details: You’ve used all 1 included review currently available under your plan.

You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository.

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 130dccb3-b371-415c-9aba-70035e91369e

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between acdbea6 and b527477.

📒 Files selected for processing (13)

• AGENTS.md
• ARCHITECTURE.md
• CHANGELOG.md
• CLAUDE.md
• apps/desktop/src/features/workspace/GrooveMap.tsx
• apps/desktop/src/features/workspace/Workspace.cue-action.test.tsx
• apps/desktop/src/features/workspace/Workspace.first-notes-reduced-motion.test.tsx
• apps/desktop/src/features/workspace/Workspace.test.tsx
• apps/desktop/src/features/workspace/Workspace.tsx
• apps/desktop/src/locales/en/common.json
• apps/desktop/src/locales/ko/common.json
• docs/design-system/component-contract.md
• docs/doctoring/reduced-motion-first-notes-navigation.md

---

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.}

[cursor]

Bugbot is not enabled for your account, so this pull request was not reviewed.

Enable Bugbot in the Cursor dashboard to get automatic reviews on future PRs.

[opencode-agent]

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

• Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

• Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

• Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

• Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head bc3a69b736b5d84197b0abd55d92ce308e29657e.

• Head SHA: bc3a69b736b5d84197b0abd55d92ce308e29657e

• Workflow run: 32103329810

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (10 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (10 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Docs: component-contract.md"]
  S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs: component-contract.md"]
  R2 --> V2["docs review"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: bc3a69b736b5d84197b0abd55d92ce308e29657e
• Workflow run: 32103329810
• Workflow attempt: 1
• Gate result: REQUEST_CHANGES (approval step)

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

• Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

• Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

• Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

• Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head bc3a69b736b5d84197b0abd55d92ce308e29657e.

• Head SHA: bc3a69b736b5d84197b0abd55d92ce308e29657e

• Workflow run: 32103329810

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (10 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (10 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Docs: component-contract.md"]
  S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs: component-contract.md"]
  R2 --> V2["docs review"]

Loading

[seonghobae]

@opencode-agent Please run one fresh exact-current-head coverage/review pass on 4ac0046c288de17ddfd0147038a478a20e783da2 against protected develop@acdbea6344fe1231c39535b575f4de35e4c607c9. The only existing OpenCode CHANGES_REQUESTED review is bound to predecessor head bc3a69b736b5d84197b0abd55d92ce308e29657e, so it is not current-head evidence.

Protected central .github/main is now 9e0f806b745abdef724316117d9a849ba555dc99 and materially changed the prior coverage materialization boundary, including bounded relative requirement-include handling and trusted-uv version/platform validation fixes. Current BandScope head has repository ci, release, SBOM, cross-platform build, Bandit, Semgrep and secret scan terminal-success; inherited dependency-security failures remain #783-owned and must not be suppressed or reclassified as branch-local success.

Do not reuse predecessor evidence. Bind coverage/docstring/review output only to this exact head, publish the exact first failing boundary if the central contract still fails, and approve only if the current contract actually passes. Do not merge or enable auto-merge.

[opencode-agent]

Queued @opencode-agent for PR #905 at head a1a38fc4e537f22d7811592e49baeb9d816faeff. Central exact-name Actions artifacts are the durable dispatch ledger; existing review workflows remain authoritative for the final verdict and failure evidence.

[opencode-agent]

Already queued @opencode-agent on this exact request for PR #905 at head a1a38fc4e537f22d7811592e49baeb9d816faeff. Central exact-name Actions artifacts are the durable dispatch ledger; existing review workflows remain authoritative for the final verdict and failure evidence.

[opencode-agent]

Already queued @opencode-agent on this exact request for PR #905 at head a1a38fc4e537f22d7811592e49baeb9d816faeff. Central exact-name Actions artifacts are the durable dispatch ledger; existing review workflows remain authoritative for the final verdict and failure evidence.

[opencode-agent]

Already queued @opencode-agent on this exact request for PR #905 at head a1a38fc4e537f22d7811592e49baeb9d816faeff. Central exact-name Actions artifacts are the durable dispatch ledger; existing review workflows remain authoritative for the final verdict and failure evidence.

[opencode-agent]

Already queued @opencode-agent on this exact request for PR #905 at head a1a38fc4e537f22d7811592e49baeb9d816faeff. Central exact-name Actions artifacts are the durable dispatch ledger; existing review workflows remain authoritative for the final verdict and failure evidence.

[opencode-agent]

Already queued @opencode-agent on this exact request for PR #905 at head a1a38fc4e537f22d7811592e49baeb9d816faeff. Central exact-name Actions artifacts are the durable dispatch ledger; existing review workflows remain authoritative for the final verdict and failure evidence.

[opencode-agent]

Already queued @opencode-agent on this exact request for PR #905 at head a1a38fc4e537f22d7811592e49baeb9d816faeff. Central exact-name Actions artifacts are the durable dispatch ledger; existing review workflows remain authoritative for the final verdict and failure evidence.

[opencode-agent]

Already queued @opencode-agent on this exact request for PR #905 at head a1a38fc4e537f22d7811592e49baeb9d816faeff. Central exact-name Actions artifacts are the durable dispatch ledger; existing review workflows remain authoritative for the final verdict and failure evidence.

[opencode-agent]

Already queued @opencode-agent on this exact request for PR #905 at head a1a38fc4e537f22d7811592e49baeb9d816faeff. Central exact-name Actions artifacts are the durable dispatch ledger; existing review workflows remain authoritative for the final verdict and failure evidence.

[opencode-agent]

Already queued @opencode-agent on this exact request for PR #905 at head a1a38fc4e537f22d7811592e49baeb9d816faeff. Central exact-name Actions artifacts are the durable dispatch ledger; existing review workflows remain authoritative for the final verdict and failure evidence.

[opencode-agent]

Already queued @opencode-agent on this exact request for PR #905 at head a1a38fc4e537f22d7811592e49baeb9d816faeff. Central exact-name Actions artifacts are the durable dispatch ledger; existing review workflows remain authoritative for the final verdict and failure evidence.