🔇 Denoiser: Add rejected patterns to CONSISTENTLY_IGNORED.md

[lucasew]

Analyzed closed pull requests to identify recurring patterns of rejected changes.
Created .jules/CONSISTENTLY_IGNORED.md with rules for:

• JSDoc Documentation Format
• Header Sanitization via Del()
• Manual Context Cleanup
• CI/CD Workflow Overhaul

---

PR created automatically by Jules for task 17306576171435659683 started by @lucasew

[google-labs-jules]

👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down.

I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job!

For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with @jules. You can find this option in the Pull Request section of your global Jules UI settings. You can always switch back!

New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs.

---

For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @lucasew, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request introduces a new documentation file, .jules/CONSISTENTLY_IGNORED.md, to formalize patterns of changes that have been repeatedly rejected by human reviewers. Its purpose is to provide clear guidelines, particularly for automated agents, on specific coding practices and architectural decisions that should be avoided, thereby streamlining future development and review processes.

Highlights

• JSDoc Documentation Format for Go: Documented that using JSDoc-style comments (/** ... */) for Go code is consistently rejected, as Go prefers standard // comments for go doc compatibility.
• Header Sanitization via Del(): Noted that relying on http.Header.Del() for security sanitization of non-canonical headers is rejected; delete(headerMap, key) should be used instead.
• Manual Context Cleanup: Added a rule against manually calling cancel() on multiple error return paths, advocating for the defer func() { if err != nil { cancel() } }() pattern.
• CI/CD Workflow Overhaul: Specified that large overhauls of CI/CD workflows, such as replacing granular steps with mise run ci or removing scorecard.yml, are consistently rejected.

Changelog

• .jules/CONSISTENTLY_IGNORED.md
  • Added a new file documenting patterns of changes consistently rejected by human reviewers.

Activity

• The pull request was automatically created by Jules for a task started by @lucasew.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request introduces a CONSISTENTLY_IGNORED.md file, which is a great initiative to guide automated changes and prevent recurring rejected patterns. The rules defined are relevant and well-justified based on the provided codebase context. I've added a couple of suggestions to improve the clarity of one rule's justification and to standardize the Markdown formatting for better readability.

[gemini-code-assist]

For better readability and standard Markdown structure, consider using a proper bulleted list for describing the pattern details. This makes the document easier to parse visually.

This formatting improvement should be applied consistently to all similar sections in this file (lines 13-15, 19-21, and 25-27).

Suggested change

	**- Pattern:** Using `/** ... */` JSDoc-style comments for Go code.
	**- Justification:** Go code should use standard `//` comments for documentation to be compatible with `go doc` and idiomatic style.
	**- Files Affected:** `*.go`
	- **Pattern:** Using `/** ... */` JSDoc-style comments for Go code.
	- **Justification:** Go code should use standard `//` comments for documentation to be compatible with `go doc` and idiomatic style.
	- **Files Affected:** `*.go`

[gemini-code-assist]

This justification is correct, but could be more explicit about why Header.Del() fails. Explaining the canonicalization process makes the reasoning clearer and reinforces the correct pattern, which is especially helpful for an automated agent.

Suggested change

	**- Justification:** `Header.Del()` canonicalizes keys and fails to remove non-canonical variations that might be present in the map. Use `delete(headerMap, key)` instead.
	**- Justification:** `http.Header.Del()` first canonicalizes the key (e.g., `Tailscale_User_Login` becomes `Tailscale-User-Login`) before deleting. This means it will fail to remove the original non-canonical header if it exists in the map. To reliably sanitize headers, you must iterate over the map and use `delete(headerMap, key)` to remove the key as-is.

[lucasew]

Reset all but the consistently ignored file

[google-labs-jules]

Reset all but the consistently ignored file

Understood. I will revert all changes except for the creation of .jules/CONSISTENTLY_IGNORED.md.