feat: make PDF auto-generation configurable via auto_pdf_score_threshold#28
feat: make PDF auto-generation configurable via auto_pdf_score_threshold#28ageem23 wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
The two evaluation paths disagree on when to auto-generate a tailored CV
PDF, and neither value is configurable:
- Path A (modes/pipeline.md) hardcodes a PDF gate at score >= 3.0.
- Path B (batch/batch-prompt.md) has no score gate at all — Paso 4 runs
for every evaluated offer and the report header hardcodes a PDF path.
The same offer therefore behaves differently depending on which path
processed it, and there is no single place to tune the behavior.
This introduces a single config key, auto_pdf_score_threshold in
config/profile.yml, that both paths read:
- A PDF is auto-generated only when score >= auto_pdf_score_threshold.
- When the key is absent it defaults to 5.1 — effectively disabled, since
the max possible score is 5.0. Reports are always written; PDFs become
an opt-in / on-demand action via /career-ops pdf {company-slug}.
- When a PDF is skipped, the report header says so explicitly and the
tracker line / output JSON reflect pdf as not generated.
Removes the hardcoded 3.0, gives the batch path a gate it lacked, and
makes both paths consistent and user-tunable.
Addresses santifer#714.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded
You’ve run out of usage credits. Purchase more in the billing tab. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. ℹ️ Review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: ASSERTIVE Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (3)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
|
Welcome to career-ops, @ageem23! Thanks for your first PR. A few things to know:
We'll review your PR soon. Join our Discord if you have questions. |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@batch/batch-prompt.md`:
- Line 270: The ordered-list prefix in the markdown uses "15." instead of the
expected "2." and triggers markdownlint MD029; locate the list items referencing
"Paso 5" (with `pdf_emoji` = `✅`) and "Paso 6" (setting `"pdf"` to the output
path) and change the numeric prefix from 15. to the correct ordered number
(e.g., 2.) or normalize the entire ordered list to use consistent numbering (or
all "1." implicit numbering) so the sequence is valid and the markdownlint MD029
warning is resolved.
- Line 203: The report header currently references the non-canonical path
"career-ops/output/cv-candidate-{company-slug}-{{DATE}}.pdf" which mismatches
the actual generation location used by the PDF generation command; update the
header to use the canonical "output/cv-candidate-{company-slug}-{{DATE}}.pdf"
path (matching the generation command and the guideline that output files go in
output/) so consumers can find the generated file; verify the text surrounding
the "PDF:" entry and the generation command "/career-ops pdf {company-slug}"
remain consistent.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 24ff4591-8970-4cb8-bb64-d98877a8f33c
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
batch/batch-prompt.mdconfig/profile.example.ymlmodes/pipeline.md
…back Change the default (key absent) from 5.1 to 3.0. 3.0 was the original hardcoded gate in modes/pipeline.md, so an unconfigured install keeps the interactive pipeline's prior behavior, and the batch path now matches it instead of generating a PDF for every offer. Also address CodeRabbit review on PR #28: - batch-prompt.md: use the canonical `output/...` path in the report header (was `career-ops/output/...`, which mismatched the generate-pdf.mjs command). - batch-prompt.md: convert the trailing post-generation instruction from an ordered-list item (`15.`) to a plain paragraph so it no longer trips markdownlint MD029. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Pushed CodeRabbit feedback
Default threshold: 5.1 → 3.0 The default when |
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Actions performedReview triggered.
|
1 participant
What
Makes auto-PDF generation configurable via a single
auto_pdf_score_thresholdkey in
config/profile.yml, read by both evaluation paths.Addresses santifer#714.
Why
The two evaluation paths disagreed on when to auto-generate a tailored CV PDF,
and neither value was configurable:
modes/pipeline.mdscore >= 3.0, hardcodedbatch/batch-prompt.mdSo the same offer behaved differently depending on which path processed it, and
tuning the behavior meant editing system-layer mode files.
Change
score >= auto_pdf_score_threshold.5.1(effectively disabled; max score is 5.0).Reports are always written; PDFs become opt-in / on-demand via
/career-ops pdf {company-slug}.line / output JSON reflect that no PDF was generated.
Files
modes/pipeline.md— replace hardcoded3.0.batch/batch-prompt.md— add the gate toPaso 4+ the**PDF:**header.config/profile.example.yml— document the new key.Testing
node test-all.mjs→ 67 passed, 0 failed (1 expected warning:cv-sync-check.mjswithout user data).Notes
This PR is based on
upstream-baseline(a snapshot ofsantifer/career-ops:main)so the diff is the isolated PDF-gate change only — intended for CodeRabbit + CI
review before it goes upstream against santifer#714.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Documentation