fix(coderabbit): review generated outputs

[ANcpLua]

What changed

• Tighten the Pro+ CodeRabbit config after first reviewer feedback.
• Stop excluding generated outputs and lockfiles from CodeRabbit review so generated-file drift checks and path instructions can actually inspect those changes.
• Keep heavy build/output folders excluded (bin, obj, dist, node_modules, coverage, minified bundles, artifacts).
• Split issue-enrichment labels from PR area labels to reduce config drift.

Validation

• Regenerated .coderabbit.yaml from the same schema-backed generator.
• Validated .coderabbit.yaml against the live CodeRabbit v2 schema before pushing.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Rate limit exceeded

@ANcpLua has exceeded the limit for the number of commits that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 11 seconds before requesting another review.

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 @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

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 configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: c4321d5f-de2d-4494-819a-d49967e48bef

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 75404af and 67926e4.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• .coderabbit.yaml

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch dev/coderabbit-proplus-generated-review-20260516160309

✨ Simplify code

• Create PR with simplified code
• Commit simplified code in branch dev/coderabbit-proplus-generated-review-20260516160309

• 🛠️ architecture hardening
• 🛠️ security pass
• 🛠️ test gap closure
• 🛠️ docs and changelog alignment
• 🛠️ performance and allocation pass

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[codacy-production]

Up to standards ✅

🟢 Issues 0 issues

Results:
0 new issues

View in Codacy

AI Reviewer: first review requested successfully. AI can make mistakes. Always validate suggestions.

_{TIP This summary will be updated as you push new changes.}

[codacy-production]

Pull Request Overview

The configuration changes successfully tighten the review process by including generated files and lockfiles while maintaining exclusions for build artifacts. Codacy analysis indicates the project remains up to standards.

However, a significant inconsistency has been introduced in the labeling taxonomy. While issue labeling has been simplified to generic types, the pull request labeling still utilizes an 'area:*' based system. Furthermore, the help-wanted label is configured as a planning trigger but lacks corresponding instructions, which will lead to inconsistent AI behavior.

About this PR

• The PR introduces a divergence in how the repository is categorized. Issues now use a simplified generic taxonomy, whereas Pull Requests (configured elsewhere in the file) continue to use detailed 'area:*' labels. It is recommended to synchronize these taxonomies to maintain a unified tracking system.

Test suggestions

• Verify that path_filters no longer excludes generated code files (.g.)
• Verify that path_filters no longer excludes package lockfiles
• Verify that path_filters maintains exclusions for build output directories (bin, obj, dist)
• Verify that issue_enrichment labeling_instructions uses the updated set of generic labels

_{TIP Improve review quality by adding custom instructions
TIP How was this review? Give us feedback}

[codacy-production]

_{🟡 MEDIUM RISK}

The labeling schema for issues now diverges from the pull request taxonomy (lines 060-076), which still uses 'area:*' labels. This inconsistency fragments project tracking. Additionally, the 'help-wanted' label is listed as a planning trigger on line 530 but is missing from these instructions, which may prevent the bot from applying it correctly.

Consider synchronizing the issue_enrichment.labeling.labeling_instructions with the reviews.labeling.labeling_instructions and adding a specific definition for the help-wanted label (e.g., defining it for issues suitable for community contribution).