Add web pt2

[Kitenite]

Description

Related Issues

Type of Change

• Bug fix
• New feature
• Documentation update
• Release
• Refactor
• Other (please describe):

Testing

Screenshots (if applicable)

Additional Notes

---

Important

Add new UI components, editor modes, and utility functions to enhance web application functionality.

• UI Enhancements:
  • Added HotkeyLabel component in hotkey-label.tsx for displaying keyboard shortcuts.
  • Updated tailwind.config.ts to include new color schemes and animations.
• Editor Features:
  • Introduced EditorMode, EditorTabValue, and SettingsTabValue enums in index.ts for better mode and tab management.
• Utility Functions:
  • Added capitalizeFirstLetter() in string.ts for string manipulation.
• Miscellaneous:
  • Updated package.json dependencies to include @onlook/ui-v4 and other related packages.

^{This description was created by for 086b2ab. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Reviewed everything up to e23dd8f in 1 minute and 49 seconds

More details

• Looked at 153 lines of code in 5 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 8 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. packages/ui-v4/package.json:51

• Draft comment:
  Potential mismatch: 'globals.css' is listed in the files array (line 15-18) as 'globals.css' but the exports map it to './src/globals.css'. Ensure the file path is correct.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

2. packages/ui-v4/package.json:7

• Draft comment:
  Verify that 'src/index.ts' exists and is intended as the main entry point, as it isn't included in the 'files' array.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

3. apps/web/package.json:49

• Draft comment:
  Avoid using a wildcard version ('*') for '@onlook/ui-v4'. Consider using a fixed version or workspace alias to ensure version consistency.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%

1. The '' version is commonly used for internal workspace packages in monorepos. 2. @onlook/ui-v4 follows the same pattern as other internal package @onlook/typescript. 3. For internal packages, '' is actually the recommended approach as it allows workspace linking. 4. The comment seems to misunderstand monorepo package conventions.
   Maybe there's a specific reason they want version locking even for internal packages? Maybe this isn't actually a monorepo package?
   The package naming convention and presence of other similar internal packages strongly suggests this is a monorepo setup where '*' is the correct choice.
   The comment should be deleted as it suggests changing established monorepo versioning conventions that are actually correct as-is.

4. apps/web/src/app/_components/main.tsx:21

• Draft comment:
  Background style 'bg-gray-100' was removed from the top bar div. Confirm that this change is intentional and aligns with the design specs.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

5. apps/web/src/app/_components/main.tsx:29

• Draft comment:
  Switched from a native to the UI-v4 component for sign-out. Ensure that the new component meets accessibility and styling requirements.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to ensure that the new component meets accessibility and styling requirements. This falls under the category of asking the author to double-check things, which is against the rules.

6. apps/web/src/app/login/page.tsx:3

• Draft comment:
  Updated imports for Button and Icons to use '@onlook/ui-v4'. Verify these components integrate well with the current UI and that there are no breaking style changes.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

7. packages/ui-v4/package.json:1

• Draft comment:
  Ensure that the declared entry points (main, module, types) pointing to 'src/index.ts' are correct. Typically a build step transpiles TS to JS for consumption.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to ensure that the entry points are correct, which is against the rules. It doesn't provide a specific suggestion or point out a specific issue with the code. Therefore, it should be removed.

8. Global:1

• Draft comment:
  The issue description mentions adding better onboarding docs for Next.js, Remix, Webpack, and Babel. No documentation changes were found in the diff. Please confirm if documentation updates are included or planned in a separate PR.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_iAkjuR3gwX0EBef9

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 2e8abcb in 57 seconds

More details

• Looked at 22 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 4 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. apps/web/src/app/login/page.tsx:22

• Draft comment:
  Avoid shadowing the state variable 'lastSignInMethod'. Consider renaming the local variable (e.g., 'storedSignInMethod') for clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. apps/web/src/app/login/page.tsx:30

• Draft comment:
  Using optional chaining for localStorage (localStorage?.setItem) is unnecessary in a 'use client' component since localStorage is available, though it's a safe guard.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 10% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. apps/web/src/app/login/page.tsx:22

• Draft comment:
  Consider wrapping the localStorage.getItem call in a try/catch to handle potential security or private-mode exceptions. Also, the PR description mentions onboarding docs updates, but this diff only adjusts localStorage usage—please verify that all intended docs changes are included.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. apps/web/src/app/login/page.tsx:30

• Draft comment:
  For consistency, consider wrapping localStorage.setItem in a try/catch to gracefully handle any exceptions.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

Workflow ID: wflow_3GGJ5H0Rq89vMXiN

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 0bf060a in 2 minutes and 19 seconds

More details

• Looked at 393 lines of code in 12 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 17 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. apps/web/src/app/_components/main.tsx:27

• Draft comment:
  Missing import for Button component. Ensure you import Button from '@onlook/ui-v4/button'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

2. apps/web/src/app/projects/_components/top-bar.tsx:1

• Draft comment:
  Remove unnecessary commented-out code to keep the file clean, unless it is used for future work.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  The commented code takes up significant space and makes the file harder to read. However, it appears to be intentionally commented out as part of work in progress, since there are also commented out onSelect handlers in the active code that reference the commented out functions. This suggests the code will be used in the future when implementing the full functionality.
  The comment may be too aggressive in suggesting removal - the commented code could be serving as a template or placeholder for planned functionality. Also, since this is a new file, the commented code isn't creating maintenance burden yet.
  While keeping commented code isn't ideal, in this case it appears to be an intentional part of incremental development rather than forgotten legacy code.
  The comment should be deleted since the commented code appears to be intentionally preserved for future implementation rather than being unnecessary cruft.

3. apps/web/src/app/projects/page.tsx:3

• Draft comment:
  Consider removing commented-out unused code unless it serves as documentation or is intended for future reference.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. apps/web/package.json:28

• Draft comment:
  Verify that dependency versions for @onlook/ui-v4 and mobx-react-lite are compatible with your project. This change may affect dependency resolution.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. apps/web/src/lib/utils.ts:1

• Draft comment:
  Ensure that moving the 'cn' utility usage to '@onlook/ui-v4/utils' across the project doesn't break existing class name merging functionality.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

6. apps/web/src/app/auth/confirm/route.ts:1

• Draft comment:
  Confirm that removal of the auth confirmation route is intentional and doesn’t affect any active authentication flows.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

7. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/TopBar/index.tsx:110

• Draft comment:
  Prefer named exports over default exports. Confirm that all consumer imports have been updated accordingly.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

8. apps/web/next.config.ts:4

• Draft comment:
  Ensure the env file import without the '.js' extension is supported by your build configuration.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

9. apps/web/package.json:28

• Draft comment:
  Using '*' for the '@onlook/ui-v4' dependency may lead to unexpected breaking changes. Consider pinning a specific version for stability.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  The @onlook prefix suggests this is an internal package, likely within a monorepo. Using "" for internal packages is a common and valid pattern in monorepos to always use the latest version. The comment seems to be applying a rule that makes sense for external dependencies but not for internal ones.
  I could be wrong about this being an internal package - the prefix alone isn't definitive proof. There could be security or stability reasons to pin even internal dependencies.
  The package.json is in an @onlook scoped package, the UI package has the same scope, and another internal package (@onlook/typescript) follows the same "" pattern, providing strong evidence this is an internal monorepo package.
  The comment should be deleted as it's suggesting a change that goes against standard monorepo practices for internal dependencies.

10. apps/web/src/app/_components/main.tsx:27

• Draft comment:
  Ensure the Button component is imported in this file; there is no visible import statement for it.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

11. apps/web/src/app/_components/main.tsx:35

• Draft comment:
  Review the replacement of the native with the Button component for the Sign In action to ensure styling and accessibility remain as expected.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

12. apps/web/src/app/_components/post.tsx:1

• Draft comment:
  Removal of the LatestPost component is acceptable if it is no longer used. Confirm that no other parts of the app depend on this file.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

13. apps/web/src/app/auth/confirm/route.ts:1

• Draft comment:
  The deletion of the email OTP confirmation route should be verified to ensure it is no longer required in the authentication flow.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

14. apps/web/src/app/projects/_components/top-bar.tsx:1

• Draft comment:
  The new TopBar component contains several commented-out functions (e.g., signOut, openPromptCreation). Ensure these stubs are either implemented or cleaned up before final release.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

15. apps/web/src/app/projects/page.tsx:10

• Draft comment:
  The Projects page currently renders a TopBar but does not display any project content (renderTab returns null). Confirm if this stub is intentional or if further implementation is expected.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  The comment violates several rules: 1) It's asking the author to confirm their intention, which is explicitly forbidden 2) The commented-out code clearly shows this is a work in progress 3) The comment isn't suggesting any specific code changes 4) The stub implementation is likely intentional as part of incremental development.
  Maybe the comment is trying to prevent a broken implementation from being merged to production?
  If this were a production-breaking issue, it would be caught in testing/QA. Additionally, the extensive commented-out code suggests this is an intentional WIP commit.
  The comment should be deleted as it merely asks for confirmation of intent without suggesting specific changes, which violates our commenting rules.

16. apps/web/src/lib/utils.ts:1

• Draft comment:
  Removal of the local 'cn' utility is valid if all its references have been updated to use '@onlook/ui-v4/utils'. Verify that no parts of the code still depend on the deleted file.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

17. apps/web/src/app/projects/page.tsx:1

• Draft comment:
  Issue [FEAT] Add better onboarding docs #123 mentions adding framework documentation (Next.js, Remix, Webpack, Babel) for onboarding, but no documentation updates are present in this PR. Please ensure these documentation changes are included to fully resolve the issue.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to ensure that documentation updates are included, which violates the rule against asking the author to ensure something is done. It also references an issue number, which is not relevant to the code changes themselves.

Workflow ID: wflow_OdoAS492GZRV7JRQ

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on a15f9b2 in 50 seconds

More details

• Looked at 215 lines of code in 6 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 12 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. apps/studio/common/helpers/index.ts:46

• Draft comment:
  Removal of timeSince is fine if replaced across the app. Confirm that timeAgo covers all use cases previously handled by timeSince.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/ProjectsTab/Select/Info.tsx:41

• Draft comment:
  Switching to timeAgo with toISOString conversion looks correct. Ensure project.updatedAt is valid and timeAgo handles ISO strings.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. apps/web/package.json:38

• Draft comment:
  Removal of i18next and next-i18next dependencies appears intentional in favor of next-intl. Verify that all i18n features are covered by next-intl.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. apps/web/src/app/projects/_components/info.tsx:7

• Draft comment:
  Consider removing unused commented imports (e.g., ProjectSettingsButton) if not needed to keep code clean.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. apps/web/src/app/projects/_components/info.tsx:27

• Draft comment:
  Ensure that converting project.updatedAt to ISO string is compatible with timeAgo's expected input.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

6. apps/web/src/app/projects/_components/projects-select.tsx:5

• Draft comment:
  Changing the import path from './Info' to './info' may affect case-sensitive file systems; ensure consistency in naming conventions.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

7. General:1

• Draft comment:
  The PR description states it addresses onboarding documentation improvements, but the changes focus on component refactoring and i18n updates. Ensure that the onboarding docs/framework documentation updates are included or referenced as needed.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

8. apps/studio/common/helpers/index.ts:47

• Draft comment:
  Removed 'timeSince' function. Please ensure that the new 'timeAgo' utility fully replicates its functionality.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

9. apps/studio/src/routes/projects/ProjectsTab/Select/Info.tsx:43

• Draft comment:
  Verify that 'timeAgo(new Date(project.updatedAt).toISOString())' outputs the expected shorthand format (e.g. '2d' for 2 days) as previously provided by timeSince.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

10. apps/web/package.json:39

• Draft comment:
  Removed 'i18next' and 'next-i18next'. Ensure that no web components rely on them and that the migration to 'next-intl' is complete.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

11. apps/web/src/app/projects/_components/info.tsx:6

• Draft comment:
  New 'ProjectInfo' component using next-intl. Confirm that all translation keys (like 'projects.select.lastEdited') exist and consider memoizing the 'variants' object for performance if needed.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

12. apps/web/src/app/projects/_components/projects-select.tsx:6

• Draft comment:
  Updated import to './info' and uncommented usage of ProjectInfo. Remove any leftover commented code if not needed, and ensure filename casing matches on case-sensitive systems.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 30% <= threshold 50%
  None

Workflow ID: wflow_HnKpFORTLxU8O3mo

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 2ac9717 in 1 minute and 18 seconds

More details

• Looked at 78 lines of code in 3 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 10 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. apps/web/src/app/projects/_components/carousel.tsx:27

• Draft comment:
  Cooldown reduced to 50ms; verify this value meets UX expectations.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. apps/web/src/app/projects/_components/carousel.tsx:259

• Draft comment:
  Removed 'relative' class; ensure slide positioning/alignment remains correct.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the author to ensure that the removal of the 'relative' class does not affect slide positioning or alignment. This is a request for confirmation of intended behavior, which violates the rules. The comment does not provide a specific suggestion or point out a clear issue.

3. apps/web/src/app/projects/_components/carousel.tsx:27

• Draft comment:
  SCROLL_COOLDOWN was reduced from 100ms to 50ms; confirm that this change doesn't make scrolling feel too sensitive.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. apps/web/src/app/projects/_components/carousel.tsx:259

• Draft comment:
  Removal of the 'relative' class from the slide container might affect absolute positioning; verify intended layout.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. apps/web/src/app/projects/_components/carousel.tsx:11

• Draft comment:
  Consider revoking object URLs created in getPreviewImage to avoid potential memory leaks.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

6. apps/web/src/app/projects/_components/carousel.tsx:111

• Draft comment:
  Consider parallelizing the image fetches (e.g., using Promise.all) to enhance performance when loading multiple preview images.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

7. apps/web/src/app/projects/_components/select.tsx:45

• Draft comment:
  The function sortProjects is defined but not used; consider removing it to clean up dead code.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

8. apps/web/src/app/projects/_components/select.tsx:20

• Draft comment:
  A temporary projects array marked with a TODO remains in the code; ensure that this is removed or replaced before production.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

9. apps/web/src/app/projects/page.tsx:1

• Draft comment:
  The PR description mentions adding framework documentation, but the code changes focus on UI components; please update the PR description to reflect the actual changes.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

10. apps/web/src/app/projects/_components/carousel.tsx:32

• Draft comment:
  Typo/Type issue: The type 'Timer' used in 'const scrollTimeout = useRef<Timer | null>(null);' isn't defined in this context. Consider replacing it with a defined type such as 'number' or 'ReturnType' for browser environments.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_LQ1ONH2AX4BqePQr

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Incremental review on b8a05f7 in 1 minute and 46 seconds

More details

• Looked at 323 lines of code in 7 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 6 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. apps/web/src/app/_components/theme.tsx:36

• Draft comment:
  Theme is initialized with default theme then updated in useEffect, which may cause a flash if localStorage has a different value.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

2. apps/web/src/app/projects/_components/select.tsx:44

• Draft comment:
  sortProjects mutates the mockProjects array in place. Consider sorting a copy to avoid side effects.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

3. apps/web/src/app/projects/_components/select.tsx:44

• Draft comment:
  The sortProjects function mutates the original array. Consider using a non-mutating approach (e.g., [...unsortedProjects].sort(...)) to prevent potential side effects.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. apps/web/src/app/projects/_components/settings.tsx:1

• Draft comment:
  Ensure that commented-out legacy code (e.g. useProjectsManager) is removed if no longer needed to keep the codebase clean.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. apps/web/src/utils/constants/index.ts:1

• Draft comment:
  Constants look fine; adding the PROJECT route ensures consistency with navigation in edit-app.tsx.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

6. General:1

• Draft comment:
  Note: The PR description mentions adding better onboarding docs and framework documentation; however, the changes only appear to update UI components for projects. Please ensure the commit message and documentation requirements align with the code changes.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_RvWMAqb1TqQ652Bp

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

Initializing theme state to default and then overriding in useEffect may cause a flash of incorrect theme. Consider reading from localStorage during initialization if it’s safe on the client.

Suggested change

	const [theme, setTheme] = useState<Theme>(() => defaultTheme);
	const [theme, setTheme] = useState<Theme>(() => window?.localStorage?.getItem(storageKey) as Theme || defaultTheme);

[ellipsis-dev]

Using redirect() inside a client event handler may not work as expected. Use useRouter().push for client-side navigation.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 9642198 in 1 minute and 21 seconds

More details

• Looked at 273 lines of code in 6 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. packages/ui-v4/src/components/hotkey-label.tsx:17

• Draft comment:
  Using dangerouslySetInnerHTML may expose XSS risks; ensure the content in hotkey.readableCommand is sanitized.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  Security concerns are important, but I need to consider: 1) Is this actually dangerous in context? 2) hotkey.readableCommand is likely internal data for keyboard shortcuts, not user input 3) The component name and usage suggests this is for displaying keyboard shortcuts, which would be controlled internally 4) The comment doesn't provide specific actionable guidance.
  I might be making assumptions about how hotkey.readableCommand is used - it could potentially come from user input somewhere. The security risk could be real.
  While the security risk is theoretically possible, the component's purpose (displaying keyboard shortcuts) strongly suggests readableCommand is internal data, not user input. The comment provides no actionable specifics.
  The comment should be removed as it raises a speculative security concern without strong evidence of actual risk, given the component's clear purpose of displaying keyboard shortcuts.

2. packages/ui-v4/src/components/hotkey-label.tsx:17

• Draft comment:
  Ensure that hotkey.readableCommand is safe for use with dangerouslySetInnerHTML. Consider sanitizing the input to prevent potential XSS.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  While security concerns about dangerouslySetInnerHTML are valid in general, this is a hotkey display component where readableCommand is likely to be internal, controlled content rather than user input. The component name and context suggests this is for displaying keyboard shortcuts, which would typically be hardcoded or generated by the application, not user-provided. The comment seems overly cautious for this specific use case.
  I could be wrong about the source of readableCommand - there might be cases where it comes from user input or external sources that I'm not aware of. The security principle of "defense in depth" suggests sanitization is rarely a bad idea.
  Even if readableCommand could theoretically come from an unsafe source, that would be an issue to handle at the data layer or API level, not in this UI component which is clearly meant for displaying internal hotkey data.
  The comment should be deleted as it raises speculative security concerns about what appears to be an internal display component for keyboard shortcuts.

Workflow ID: wflow_SfXLnkN8Wrgan1ON

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Incremental review on 59e8d1b in 1 minute and 34 seconds

More details

• Looked at 54 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 6 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/top-bar.tsx:70

• Draft comment:
  HotkeyLabel is now uncommented. Verify that hotkey.description used for key is unique and that the Hotkey import provides the expected structure.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/top-bar.tsx:8

• Draft comment:
  Verify that the new import path '@/components/hotkey' is correctly resolved in all environments.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/top-bar.tsx:22

• Draft comment:
  The UNDO/REDO button objects still have their 'click' and 'isDisabled' callbacks commented out, which may result in non-functional buttons. Consider providing a no‐op or placeholder function if functionality is not yet implemented.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

4. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/top-bar.tsx:55

• Draft comment:
  Ensure that the 'hotkey' object includes a 'description' property since it is used as the key in the Tooltip mapping.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

5. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/top-bar.tsx:70

• Draft comment:
  Uncommenting the component now displays the hotkey label. Confirm that this change aligns with the intended UI behavior.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

6. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/top-bar.tsx:1

• Draft comment:
  The PR description mentions adding better onboarding docs and framework documentation, but this diff only shows UI component changes. Ensure that the necessary documentation files are included to fully resolve issue [FEAT] Add better onboarding docs #123.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_t2ze7UcQjHTfccgx

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

Undo/redo buttons still have click and isDisabled properties commented out. Ensure these are handled either by implementing the functionality or removing them if not needed.

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Incremental review on c212ce8 in 2 minutes and 7 seconds

More details

• Looked at 248 lines of code in 2 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 7 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/project-breadcrumb.tsx:38

• Draft comment:
  Remove or clearly document commented-out code if it's no longer needed.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/project-breadcrumb.tsx:46

• Draft comment:
  Consider handling project closure in a more robust way rather than using a hardcoded 100ms delay.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  The timeout appears to be a temporary solution while the actual async operations are commented out. The hardcoded delay could be problematic if the actual operations take longer or shorter than 100ms. However, without seeing the full implementation and understanding the requirements around project closure timing, it's hard to say definitively that this needs to change. The comment is speculative without more context.
  I might be underestimating the importance of proper cleanup timing. A bad timeout could lead to race conditions or UI glitches.
  While timing is important, this appears to be temporary code (evidenced by commented sections and TODO), and the specific timing requirements aren't clear from the available context.
  The comment should be removed as it's speculative without more context about the actual requirements and final implementation plan.

3. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/top-bar.tsx:24

• Draft comment:
  Stub implementations for undo/redo log actions. Ensure these are replaced with real functionality before production.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  The comment is pointing out a real issue - the undo/redo functionality is currently just logging to console rather than doing anything. However, the comment is phrased as "ensure these are replaced" which violates our rule about not making verification requests. The commented out code suggests this is an intentional temporary state during development.
  The stub implementations could be intentional for development/testing purposes. We don't have enough context about whether this is a temporary dev state or meant for production.
  While the implementation may be intentional, having console.log statements instead of real undo/redo functionality is still a concrete issue that should be fixed before production.
  Delete the comment. While it identifies a real issue, it's phrased as a verification request ("ensure") rather than actionable feedback, and we don't have enough context to know if this is intentionally temporary.

4. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/project-breadcrumb.tsx:33

• Draft comment:
  Consider replacing 'Timer' with 'ReturnType' in the useRef type to ensure compatibility in browser environments.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

5. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/project-breadcrumb.tsx:22

• Draft comment:
  Remove unused commented code (e.g. context imports) if not planned for immediate use, to improve code clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

6. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/top-bar.tsx:88

• Draft comment:
  Remove commented-out onClick code for settings if no longer needed to reduce clutter.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

7. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/top-bar.tsx:62

• Draft comment:
  Ensure that 'hotkey.description' used as a key is unique; consider using a dedicated unique identifier if available.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

Workflow ID: wflow_tvg76WMoZqe8wAKh

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

Consider replacing the Timer type with a more explicit type (e.g., ReturnType<typeof setTimeout>) to ensure type safety in browsers.

Suggested change

	const closeTimeoutRef = useRef<Timer | null>(null);
	const closeTimeoutRef = useRef<ReturnType<typeof setTimeout> | null>(null);

[ellipsis-dev]

Clear any pending timeout on component unmount (e.g. via a useEffect cleanup) to avoid potential memory leaks.

[ellipsis-dev]

It appears that the className on the <div> inside the DropdownMenuItem (line 127) contains 'flex row center items-center group'. Typically with Tailwind CSS, one would expect 'flex-row' instead of 'row', and 'center' might be a mistaken extra class. Please verify if 'row' and 'center' are intentional or if they should be corrected.

Suggested change

	<div className="flex row center items-center group">
	<div className="flex flex-row items-center group">

[ellipsis-dev]

Skipped PR review on ad4922c because no changed files had a supported extension. If you think this was in error, please contact us and we'll fix it right away.

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Incremental review on 76418ed in 2 minutes and 34 seconds

More details

• Looked at 223 lines of code in 2 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 10 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/canvas/index.tsx:69

• Draft comment:
  Dependency 'editorEngine' is referenced but not defined (imports and usage are commented out).
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

2. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/canvas/index.tsx:172

• Draft comment:
  Callback 'handleCanvasMouseDown' is passed as prop but is commented out and thus undefined.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

3. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/page.tsx:15

• Draft comment:
  Uncommented code should be removed if not used; commented blocks related to Canvas and WebviewArea clutter the file.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/canvas/index.tsx:69

• Draft comment:
  editorEngine is used in the dependency array and callbacks but its initialization is commented out (see line 20). Uncomment or remove its usage.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

5. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/canvas/index.tsx:168

• Draft comment:
  HotkeysArea, Overlay, and PanOverlay are used in the render but their imports are commented out, which will cause runtime errors.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

6. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/canvas/index.tsx:172

• Draft comment:
  handleCanvasMouseDown is assigned to onMouseDown but its definition is commented out (lines 28-36).
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

7. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/canvas/index.tsx:50

• Draft comment:
  The variable name 'lintedScale' appears to be a typo; consider renaming it to 'clampedScale' for clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

8. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/page.tsx:15

• Draft comment:
  Canvas and WebviewArea usage is commented out. If these components are meant to be part of the page, consider uncommenting or removing the commented code to avoid confusion.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was on unchanged code.

9. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/page.tsx:1

• Draft comment:
  The PR description mentions framework documentation updates (Next.js, Remix, Webpack, Babel), but no documentation changes are present in this diff.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is asking the PR author to update the PR description or to ensure that the documentation changes are included, which violates the rules. It does not provide a specific code suggestion or ask for a specific test to be written.

10. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/canvas/index.tsx:50

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error: The variable 'lintedScale' (line 50) seems to be a typo. It should likely be 'clampedScale', matching the purpose of clamping the zoom value. Please update the variable name to improve clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  While 'clampedScale' would be a more accurate name than 'lintedScale', this is a relatively minor naming issue. The variable's purpose is still fairly clear from context and the function name clampZoom. This feels more like a nitpick than a significant issue that needs addressing.
  The variable name could be misleading to future developers since 'linted' implies code style checking rather than value clamping. Poor variable names can lead to maintenance issues.
  While better naming would be nice, this is a localized variable with clear context from the clampZoom function name. The benefit of changing it is minimal.
  This comment should be removed as it's too minor of a naming suggestion and doesn't materially impact code quality or maintainability.

Workflow ID: wflow_T7Z57UBn83rl6Z8U

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

Unused components referenced: HotkeysArea, Overlay, PanOverlay are used in JSX but their imports are commented out.

[ellipsis-dev]

useEffect adds event listeners for 'wheel', 'mousedown', and 'mouseup' but only lists handleWheel as a dependency. Consider adding middleMouseButtonDown and middleMouseButtonUp to the dependency array.

Suggested change

	}, [handleWheel]);
	}, [handleWheel, middleMouseButtonDown, middleMouseButtonUp]);

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Incremental review on 1904bee in 2 minutes and 43 seconds

More details

• Looked at 427 lines of code in 8 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 11 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/canvas/index.tsx:20

• Draft comment:
  editorEngine is commented out here, but it's referenced later in several callbacks (e.g. line 100 in handlePan and lines 121-127 in middleMouseButtonDown/up). This will cause runtime errors.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

2. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/canvas/index.tsx:121

• Draft comment:
  References to editorEngine in middle mouse button event handlers (e.g., setting editorEngine.mode) will fail because editorEngine is not defined.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

3. apps/studio/src/routes/editor/Canvas/Hotkeys/Delete.tsx:24

• Draft comment:
  Consider adding an explicit dependency array to the useHotkeys callback so that changes in 'editorEngine' or component state (e.g. 'shouldWarnDelete') are reflected.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/canvas/index.tsx:28

• Draft comment:
  The 'handleCanvasMouseDown' function is referenced in the JSX but its definition has been commented out; this will lead to a runtime error.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

5. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/canvas/index.tsx:88

• Draft comment:
  Callbacks such as handlePan and those for middle mouse events reference 'editorEngine', but its declaration is commented out—this will cause 'editorEngine' to be undefined at runtime.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

6. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/canvas/index.tsx:174

• Draft comment:
  The JSX uses and components, but their import statements are commented out. This will result in undefined component errors.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

7. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/canvas/hotkeys/index.tsx:12

• Draft comment:
  Multiple hotkey handlers are commented out, leaving no active behavior. Consider cleaning up the commented code or adding clear TODO comments if these are to be implemented later.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  The comment identifies a real issue - there are many non-functional hotkey handlers. However, this appears to be intentional scaffolding or work-in-progress code. The consistent commenting pattern and presence of preventDefault suggests this is deliberate temporary state. The comment doesn't provide specific actionable guidance beyond "clean up or add TODOs".
  The code could be intentionally structured this way as part of a larger refactoring or implementation plan. The commented code might serve as documentation of the intended behavior.
  While the code structure may be intentional, having non-functional handlers without explanation is still a code quality issue. However, the comment doesn't provide specific enough guidance to be truly helpful.
  The comment should be removed as it points out an obvious state of the code without providing specific actionable guidance, and the current state may be intentional.

8. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/canvas/index.tsx:100

• Draft comment:
  In the 'handlePan' callback, 'editorEngine' is referenced to update canvas position even though its definition is commented out. This will throw a ReferenceError—ensure that 'editorEngine' is either properly defined or the logic is removed.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

9. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/canvas/index.tsx:1

• Draft comment:
  The PR description mentions adding better onboarding documentation, but these changes focus on canvas hotkeys and overlays. Please ensure that the documentation updates (e.g. for Next.js, Remix, Webpack, Babel) are included if they are part of resolving issue [FEAT] Add better onboarding docs #123.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

10. apps/studio/src/routes/editor/Canvas/index.tsx:48

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error: The variable 'lintedScale' seems to be a typo. It would be clearer and more consistent to rename it to 'clampedScale', especially given the use of clampZoom and clampPosition functions.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

11. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/canvas/index.tsx:50

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error: The variable 'lintedScale' appears to be a typo. Consider renaming it to 'clampedScale' for clarity and consistency with the clampZoom function.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_Wl5qa4ZWAIfagI81

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

The deletion logic inside the hotkey callback is entirely commented out. Consider either removing the commented code or adding a TODO noting that this functionality needs to be implemented.

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Incremental review on d7eb264 in 5 minutes and 53 seconds

More details

• Looked at 8322 lines of code in 55 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 19 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. apps/web/src/components/store/editor/engine/code/insert.ts:8

• Draft comment:
  The recursive call in getInsertedElement is clear. Consider adding defensive checks on actionElement.styles and children to avoid unexpected errors.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 40% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. apps/web/src/components/store/editor/engine/copy/index.ts:48

• Draft comment:
  The clearClipboard function uses try/catch. Consider awaiting navigator.clipboard.writeText for consistent promise handling.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  The clipboard operation is fire-and-forget here - the code doesn't care about waiting for it to complete. The try/catch handles errors appropriately. Making it async would require changes to the calling code for no real benefit. The current implementation is actually cleaner for this use case.
  Perhaps there could be race conditions or error handling improvements from properly awaiting the promise? Maybe the calling code needs to know if the operation failed?
  The error is already being logged, and the operation failing wouldn't affect the rest of the functionality. The copy() method continues regardless of clipboard state.
  The comment suggests a change that would add complexity without clear benefits. The current implementation is appropriate for this use case.

3. apps/web/src/components/store/editor/engine/history/helpers.ts:43

• Draft comment:
  Undo action for 'edit-text' swaps originalContent and newContent. Confirm that this logic is exactly what you intend.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. apps/web/src/components/store/editor/engine/image/index.ts:96

• Draft comment:
  When compressing image, ensure that the returned base64 string is valid. Consider handling possible nulls more gracefully.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. apps/web/src/components/store/editor/engine/insert/index.ts:160

• Draft comment:
  In createInsertAction, if location is not found, an error is logged and undefined returned. Consider providing user feedback or fallback behaviors.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

6. apps/web/src/components/store/editor/engine/move/index.ts:135

• Draft comment:
  The move manager uses window.api calls to get element indices. Ensure that these IPC calls handle errors reliably and that expected values are returned.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 40% <= threshold 50%
  None

7. apps/web/src/components/store/editor/engine/theme/index.ts:146

• Draft comment:
  The configuration parsing logic is complex. Consider adding unit tests for processConfigObject and extractVarName to ensure color extraction works for all cases.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  While the functions are complex and handle important logic, suggesting unit tests is more of a general best practice than a specific code issue. The comment doesn't point out any actual bugs or problems with the code. It's also not clear if tests are missing - they could exist in a test file not shown here. The comment is somewhat speculative.
  The functions do handle complex parsing logic that could benefit from tests. Bugs in these functions could cause color extraction issues.
  However, we don't know if tests already exist, and the comment doesn't identify any specific issues or bugs that need fixing. It's more of a general suggestion than a concrete problem.
  The comment should be deleted as it is speculative and doesn't point to a specific issue requiring code changes. We don't have enough context about existing test coverage.

8. apps/web/src/components/store/editor/index.ts:16

• Draft comment:
  Onboarding documentation improvements were part of issue 123. However, the diff does not clearly include direct onboarding docs updates. Ensure that the necessary documentation is added.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

9. apps/web/src/components/store/editor/styles/numberUnit.ts:28

• Draft comment:
  The handleNumberInputKeyDown function is well-structured; consider debouncing rapid key events if needed for performance.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 30% <= threshold 50%
  None

10. apps/web/src/components/store/index.ts:16

• Draft comment:
  The store context correctly sets up EditorEngine context. Verify that all commented contexts (auth, projects, etc.) are documented for onboarding, as per the issue requirements.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is asking the PR author to verify documentation, which is not specific to the code changes in the PR. It doesn't provide a specific code suggestion or point out a specific issue in the code. It seems to be more about process than code quality.

11. apps/web/src/components/store/editor/engine/code/insert.ts:15

• Draft comment:
  Consider adding a null/undefined check for 'actionElement.styles' before calling Object.entries on it, to avoid runtime errors if styles is missing.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  Since this is TypeScript code and actionElement is typed as ActionElement, the compiler would likely catch if styles could be undefined. The parameter is not marked as optional in the function signature. Without seeing the ActionElement type definition, we can't be 100% sure, but TypeScript's type system makes this kind of runtime error unlikely.
  I don't have access to the ActionElement type definition, so I can't be completely certain that styles is required. TypeScript could be configured to be lenient.
  Even with those uncertainties, in a TypeScript codebase, we should trust the type system unless there's strong evidence of a problem. The comment is speculative without such evidence.
  The comment should be deleted as it's speculative without strong evidence that styles could be undefined, and we should trust the TypeScript type system.

12. apps/web/src/components/store/editor/engine/copy/index.ts:49

• Draft comment:
  Consider awaiting the promise returned by navigator.clipboard.writeText('') to ensure proper error handling.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Based on historical feedback, this comment is too similar to comments previously marked by users as bad.

13. apps/web/src/components/store/editor/engine/overlay/index.ts:16

• Draft comment:
  OverlayManager’s reaction depends on 'editorEngine.canvas.position' and 'scale', but the corresponding canvas manager is commented out in EditorEngine. Ensure that the canvas property is defined before using it.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  This is a cross-file issue that requires knowledge of EditorEngine's implementation. The comment makes claims about code in another file that we can't verify. According to the rules, we should ignore cross-file issues and only focus on the current file.
  What if the comment is correct and there really is a bug here that could cause runtime errors?
  While that's possible, we don't have enough context to verify this. The rules explicitly state to ignore cross-file issues and to assume a comment is incorrect unless we have strong evidence.
  Delete the comment because it requires knowledge of another file's implementation which we don't have access to.

14. apps/web/src/components/store/editor/engine/ast/index.ts:194

• Draft comment:
  On line 194, the warning message 'Failed to updateElementInstanceId: Webview not found' includes 'InstanceId' whereas the function is named 'updateElementInstance'. Consider changing the message to 'Failed to updateElementInstance: Webview not found' for consistency.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  While the comment is technically correct about the inconsistency, it's a very minor issue about error message wording. Error messages are for debugging purposes and this small inconsistency doesn't affect functionality. The rules state we should not make comments that are obvious or unimportant. This feels like a very low-priority nitpick.
  The inconsistency could potentially cause confusion during debugging. Error message consistency can be important for maintainability.
  While consistency is good, this is such a minor wording difference that it's unlikely to cause real confusion - both versions clearly refer to the same operation.
  This comment should be removed as it addresses an extremely minor inconsistency that doesn't impact functionality or significantly affect maintainability.

15. apps/web/src/components/store/editor/engine/element/index.ts:57

• Draft comment:
  Consider renaming the variable 'webViewId' to 'webviewId' on line 57 for naming consistency with the rest of the code.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  While this is a valid consistency issue, it's a very minor variable naming inconsistency that would be caught by most linters. The variable is only used in a small scope (3 lines) and doesn't impact functionality. According to the rules, we shouldn't make comments that are obvious or unimportant.
  The inconsistency could cause confusion for future developers. Variable naming consistency is important for code maintainability.
  While consistency is important, this is too minor of an issue to warrant a PR comment. It would be better handled by a linter rule or style guide enforcement.
  Delete the comment as it points out a trivial naming inconsistency that doesn't materially impact the code quality.

16. apps/web/src/components/store/editor/engine/overlay/utils.ts:83

• Draft comment:
  Typo: In the doc comment for getRelativeMousePositionToWebview, please update 'Get the relative mouse position a webview element inside the canvas container.' to 'Get the relative mouse position of a webview element inside the canvas container.'
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  While the comment is technically correct about the grammar, it's a very minor documentation issue that doesn't affect code functionality. The meaning is still clear even with the grammatical error. According to the rules, we should not make purely informative comments or comments that are obvious/unimportant. This seems to fall into that category.
  The grammar error could potentially confuse non-native English speakers. Documentation quality is important for maintainability.
  While documentation quality matters, this particular error is minor enough that it doesn't significantly impact understanding. The function name and parameters make the purpose clear regardless.
  This comment should be deleted as it's too minor and falls under the category of "obvious or unimportant" comments that the rules tell us to avoid.

17. apps/web/src/components/store/editor/engine/theme/index.ts:3

• Draft comment:
  It looks like 'ColorPalletGroup' might be a typo. Consider using 'ColorPaletteGroup' if that’s what you meant.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50%
  While this appears to be a legitimate typo (pallet vs palette), I need to be careful about suggesting changes to import paths without seeing the actual imported file. The file could legitimately be named ColorPalletGroup. Without access to the imported file to verify the correct spelling, this comment is speculative.
  I could be wrong about this being a typo - "pallet" could be an intentional spelling choice or domain-specific term. Making assumptions about import paths without seeing the target files is risky.
  However, "palette" is the standard spelling when referring to color selections in UI/design contexts, and this appears to be UI-related code. Still, without seeing the imported file, we can't be certain.
  Since we can't verify the correct spelling of the imported file name without more context, this comment is speculative and should be removed.

18. apps/web/src/components/store/editor/engine/theme/index.ts:353

• Draft comment:
  The comment 'Base on the class name, find the styles to update' seems to have a typo. Consider changing it to 'Based on the class name, find the styles to update'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  While the comment correctly identifies a grammatical error, it's a very minor issue in a code comment that doesn't affect functionality. The comment is about something that was changed in this diff since this is a new file, but fixing typos in code comments is not a high priority issue that requires a PR comment.
  The comment is technically correct - there is a grammatical error. And it is about changed code since this is a new file.
  However, we should focus PR comments on more substantive issues that affect code quality, readability, or functionality. Minor typos in comments don't meet that bar.
  While technically valid, this comment about a minor grammatical error in a code comment is not important enough to warrant inclusion in the PR review.

19. apps/web/src/components/store/editor/styles/tag.ts:26

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error: In the description for the h1 tag (and similarly for h2, h3, h4, h5, h6), 'Represent six levels of section headings.' should be corrected to 'Represents six levels of section headings.' to maintain grammatical consistency.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  While the grammar inconsistency is real, this is documentation text that will be shown to users. The meaning is perfectly clear either way. The comment is technically correct but doesn't impact functionality or user understanding. Most automated tools would not flag this level of grammar detail. This seems like an overly pedantic comment that doesn't warrant a code change.
  The inconsistent grammar could be seen as unprofessional and might confuse non-native English speakers. Documentation quality is important for maintainability.
  While documentation quality matters, this minor grammar issue doesn't meaningfully impact understanding or maintainability. The plural form "Represent" could even be considered valid here since it refers to multiple heading levels.
  This comment should be removed as it focuses on an extremely minor grammatical issue that doesn't impact functionality or clarity.

Workflow ID: wflow_ocd7JFpYRbsnbT2P

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

In the warning message on line 177 ('Failed to getNodeFromDomId: Document not found'), consider updating 'getNodeFromDomId' to 'getElementFromDomId' to match the function name and avoid confusion.

Suggested change

	console.warn('Failed to getNodeFromDomId: Document not found');
	console.warn('Failed to getElementFromDomId: Document not found');

[ellipsis-dev]

Typographical error: In the error messages for handleElementRemoved, handleElementTextEdited, handleElementGrouped, and handleElementUngrouped, the log message mistakenly uses 'move element event' instead of the correct event-specific description. Update these messages to reflect the correct event type (e.g., 'remove element event', 'text edited event', 'grouped event', and 'ungrouped event').

Suggested change

	console.error('No args found for move element event');
	console.error('No args found for remove element event');

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Incremental review on ed7642d in 3 minutes and 53 seconds

More details

• Looked at 274 lines of code in 5 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 9 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/canvas/index.tsx:19

• Draft comment:
  Ensure that hardcoded scale=1 and position={x: 0, y: 0} are intentional or integrate with editorEngine canvas state.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

2. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/canvas/index.tsx:171

• Draft comment:
  handleCanvasMouseDown is referenced in the JSX but its definition is commented out. Uncomment or define it to avoid runtime errors.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was on unchanged code.

3. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/canvas/index.tsx:152

• Draft comment:
  Add middleMouseButtonDown and middleMouseButtonUp to the useEffect dependency array to prevent stale closures.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

4. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/canvas/index.tsx:173

• Draft comment:
  The component block is commented out. Remove unused code or uncomment it if it should be active.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  Commented out code is generally considered bad practice and should either be removed or uncommented. However, this appears to be an active work in progress - there are other commented sections throughout the file (like handleCanvasMouseDown and canvas state variables) suggesting this is part of a larger refactor. The author likely knows about this commented code since they just commented it out.
  The code could be leftover from an incomplete refactor and needs cleanup. However, the author may be actively working with this code and temporarily commenting things out while refactoring.
  Since this appears to be an active work in progress with multiple commented sections being refactored, pointing out the obvious fact that code is commented out is not helpful - the author is clearly aware and working on it.
  This comment should be removed as it points out something the author is clearly already aware of in what appears to be an active refactor. The comment doesn't provide actionable value.

5. apps/web/src/components/store/editor/engine/element/index.ts:8

• Draft comment:
  Renaming from ElementManager to ElementsManager appears intentional. Ensure that all imports and references across the project are updated accordingly.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

6. apps/web/src/components/store/editor/engine/index.ts:84

• Draft comment:
  Duplicate call to overlay.clear() in the dispose method. Remove the redundant call to maintain clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

7. apps/web/src/components/store/editor/engine/window/index.ts:9

• Draft comment:
  Getter 'isWindowSelected' is not implemented. Either implement it or remove the stub if it's not needed.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

8. General:0

• Draft comment:
  The PR description mentions adding onboarding documentation for various frameworks, but the changes focus on refactoring editor components and state management. Please ensure that the required documentation updates are included to fully resolve issue [FEAT] Add better onboarding docs #123.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

9. apps/web/src/app/project/[id]/_components/canvas/index.tsx:49

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error: 'lintedScale' looks like it should be 'limitedScale' for clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_3hezA2kscvqmKuN0

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

Remove commented-out Overlay and PanOverlay code if not needed, or add a TODO to reintegrate them.

[ellipsis-dev]

The getter isWindowSelected is empty; if it's a placeholder, add a TODO comment, otherwise implement or remove it.

Suggested change

	// return this.webviews.selected.length > 0 && this.elements.selected.length === 0;
	// TODO: Implement isWindowSelected method

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 086b2ab in 3 minutes and 19 seconds

More details

• Looked at 12 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 4 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. apps/web/src/components/store/editor/engine/index.ts:83

• Draft comment:
  Removed overlay.clear() from dispose(). Confirm this is intentional since clearUI() already clears overlay. Ensure no lingering overlay state or memory leak.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

2. apps/web/src/components/store/editor/engine/index.ts:1

• Draft comment:
  PR description mentions onboarding docs for Next.js, Remix, Webpack, and Babel, but the diff shows only code refactoring. Ensure documentation changes are included as intended.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

3. apps/web/src/components/store/editor/engine/index.ts:81

• Draft comment:
  Removing the duplicate call to 'this.overlay.clear()' in dispose() avoids redundant clearing. Confirm that this change doesn’t affect any dependency on the overlay clearance order.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. apps/web/src/components/store/editor/engine/index.ts:87

• Draft comment:
  The remaining call to 'this.overlay.clear()' now occurs later in dispose(). Verify that this ordering (elements, history, action disposal followed by overlay clearing) is intentional and does not introduce any side effects.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

Workflow ID: wflow_RCciAc8TgRxKjbwe

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.