Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
2 Skipped Deployments
|
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. 📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know! |
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
📝 Coding Plan for PR comments
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 |
🔗 Linked issue
resolves #2043
🧭 Context
Currently, the logic for retrieving a skill’s license only checks the frontmatter.
As a result, when a skill does not specify a license there, the system displays a misleading "No license specified" warning, even if the parent package already defines a valid license.
📚 Description
This PR improves license handling in
skills.tsby retrieving and passing the package license as a fallback when a skill does not specify its own license.(A related question: if a skill's license differs from the package's license, should we explicitly surface this (or even treat it as a warning)?)