[kixelated]

Adds a recurring pre-cut review of the workspace's Cargo features, and the feature rules it checks against.

Changes

• New quest/m2/release/feature-flags.md [M], "Cargo feature review before the cut":
  • It reviews every crate's features, defaults, scoping and forwarding, plus the feature sets of shipped binaries, bindings and packaging.
  • It proposes changes only; each one the maintainer approves becomes an m1 quest that holds the cut.
  • Its first run checks moq-cli's s3, gcs and azure first: they enable object_store vendor features directly, while moq-archive, which owns storage, has none. It also checks moq-cli's other defaults.
• quest/m2/release/cut.md and README.md: the cut requires the new review and re-creates it each release, alongside the API shape and feature reviews.
• rs/AGENTS.md: a new # Features section with two rules:
  • Lean defaults, and fewer features.
  • Vendor features live in the crate that owns the integration and are forwarded by dependents.

The moq-cli defaults check moves here from quest/m2/cli-packaging.md, which #6835 drops from that quest.

Decisions (2026-10-26, maintainer)

Maintainer brief: audit feature flags before release. Avoid compiling anything expensive or needing system dependencies by default. Keep features organized and scoped, e.g. s3 belongs in moq-archive. Fewer features are better, because each one fragments the codebase.

Goal: before each release, every Cargo feature is justified. Defaults are lean, each remaining feature lives in its owning crate, and compile-time-only features are removed.

• ✅ Yes (Recommended)
• Defaults only

When should it run?

• ✅ Pre-cut gate (Recommended)
• Post-release audit

What may each run change on its own?

• Apply clear cases, ask the rest (Recommended)
• ✅ Propose only

Should the feature policy also be written into rs/AGENTS.md?

• ✅ Yes, add to rs/AGENTS.md (Recommended)
• Audit quest only

Is this the right wording for the new # Features section in rs/AGENTS.md?

• Use this wording (three bullets) (Recommended)
• ✅ Shorter: two bullets

Where does the cli-packaging "check moq-cli's current defaults" step live?

• ✅ Move it to this audit (Recommended)
• Keep in cli-packaging

Public API: none (quests and agent instructions only). Wire: none. just check passes.

(Written by Claude Opus 5.5)

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

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

Next included review available in 5 minutes.

Check out review usage here.

View limit details

Limit details: You’ve used all 4 included reviews currently available.

Learn how review limits work.

Review configuration:

Run configuration

• Source mode: Auto
• Repository: Unavailable
• Branch: Unavailable
• File: No configuration file from this repository applied
• Commit: Unavailable
• Layers: Organization UI
• Review profile: CHILL
• Plan: Advanced
• Run ID: 117e3bde-be72-4c86-bf46-199e00d2c8c5

Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 88e1a94 and a0b4116.

Files selected for processing: 4

• quest/m2/release/README.md
• quest/m2/release/cut.md
• quest/m2/release/feature-flags.md
• rs/AGENTS.md

• Autofix · Keep fixing CodeRabbit findings and required CI, and resolving merge conflicts

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.}

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-26T02:16:08.150490Z	a0b4116	PR opened

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[kixelated]

Automated review by review (OpenAI)

Reviewed commit: a0b4116972cc96e448d2f2e4c4867e4b09152011.

No actionable bugs found in this planning/instruction change. The direction is coherent: a proposal-only feature audit gates the cut, approved changes return to m1, and the cut explicitly recreates the audit for the next release. Reusing the existing API-review recurrence pattern keeps the added process straightforward; reviewing defaults and distribution feature sets together avoids treating forwarding cleanup alone as sufficient.

Verification: static inspection of the diff, release prerequisites/recurrence, related packaging plan, and the seeded moq-cli/moq-archive manifests. No builds, tests, or feature-matrix checks were run; this does not verify the eventual audit or packaging implementation.

[kixelated]

Merge summary: no review findings on a0b4116. Codex gave a thumbs-up, and the OpenAI review found nothing actionable. CodeRabbit was rate limited. Spot-checked the seeded facts against the manifests: moq-cli s3/gcs/azure enable object_store/aws/gcp/azure directly, moq-archive has no features, and the per-crate feature counts (21/17/14/13/11) match. The rs/AGENTS.md wording is unchanged from the maintainer's pick. quest check --base origin/main passes. Landing as is.

(Written by Claude Opus 5.5)