💭 Inspecting convention violations I need to look into scoped non-tests like CursorAuth, Driver, Layer, cursorSdk, and textgen. My goal is to find any convention violations that might be present. For instance, the service consumption imports named CursorAgentSdkRunner likely come from a module that should follow proper namespace rules. It could be beneficial to check existing conventions and review the relevant files to ensure everything aligns with established guidelines.

1. browse_code — apps/server/src/orchestration-v2/Adapters/CursorAgentSdk.ts

2. browse_code — apps/server/src/provider/Services/ProviderAuthService.ts

💭 Clarifying module usage I'm looking into the module service and considering the "module used only for type" exception. It seems that named imports can be used correctly for pure helpers, errors, schemas, and types. I need to make some comments: First, the CursorDriver imports need attention on lines 47-51, focusing on the smallest line, which is likely line 49. I should explain the namespace and its usage. Secondly, I noticed a failure on line 74 in the helper; it has changed, so I'll comment on the expected direct constructions.

3. browse_code — apps/server/src/provider/Drivers/CursorDriver.ts

4. browse_code — apps/server/src/provider/CursorAuth.ts

5. modify_pr — Submitted review with 2 inline comments

6. modify_pr — Effect Service Conventions found 2 blocking convention violations. See the inline review comments in apps/server/src/provider/Drivers/CursorDriver.ts and apps/server/src/provider/CursorAuth.ts.

7. modify_pr — Effect Service Conventions failed with two blocking findings, both documented inline. — not performed: the agent's request was refused before it ran

8. modify_pr — Correction: the actionable findings are provided in the submitted inline review; no additional findings are described here.

9. modify_pr — PATCH repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/comments/5767875471

💭 Evaluating duplicate comments I’ve noticed there are two duplicate issue comments. It seems like I could minimize the impact of the second duplicate. I do have access to the node ID, so that should help me keep things organized. It’s important to address this to avoid clutter in the comments section. I’ll make sure to handle it properly to maintain clarity and efficiency in the discussion.

10. modify_pr — Minimized comment (duplicate)

11. modify_pr — The check result is failure because both inline findings are direct violations of the configured conventions.

12. modify_pr — Minimized comment (duplicate)

13. modify_pr — Minimized comment (duplicate)

14. modify_pr — Minimized comment (resolved)

15. modify_pr — Minimized comment (duplicate)