chore: migrate frontend scripts and dependencies to Bun

[npv12]

Important

Migrate frontend build and scripts from Node.js/npm to Bun, updating workflows, scripts, and documentation accordingly.

• Build System Migration:
  • Replace npm with bun for dependency management and script execution in frontend-build.yml, frontend-deploy.yml, frontend-lint.yml, and frontend-pr.yml.
  • Update README.md and frontend/AGENTS.md to reflect Bun usage.
• Scripts:
  • Change npm commands to bun in justfile and frontend/scripts/generate-icons.sh.
  • Add vercel.json to specify Bun version.
• Misc:
  • Update README.md to include Bun in the tech stack.

^{This description was created by for 0ba828c. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed everything up to c625b53 in 1 minute and 53 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 1451 lines of code in 10 files
• Skipped 1 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 6 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. .github/workflows/frontend-build.yml:29

• Draft comment:
  Consider pinning a specific Bun version instead of using 'latest' to avoid unexpected breaking changes.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 30% vs. threshold = 50% This comment is suggesting a best practice (pinning versions) rather than pointing out a bug. The author deliberately chose 'latest', so this comment is essentially asking them to reconsider that choice. While version pinning is generally good practice, this falls into the category of "asking the author to confirm their intention" or "speculative" - it's not a definite issue, just a potential future problem. The comment uses "Consider" which is softer language, but it's still suggesting the author might want to do something different without there being a clear bug. This seems like it could be useful advice, but it also might be the author's intentional choice for this CI workflow to always use the latest Bun version. This could be considered actionable advice about a best practice for CI/CD workflows. Version pinning in CI is a common recommendation to ensure reproducibility. The comment provides a concrete suggestion with a code example, making it actionable rather than just informative. While version pinning is a best practice, the author explicitly chose 'latest' in their migration from Node.js to Bun. This comment is essentially second-guessing that decision without evidence that it's wrong. It's speculative about "unexpected breaking changes" that may never occur, and the author may have intentionally wanted to always use the latest version in this workflow. This comment should be deleted. It's speculative about potential future issues and is essentially asking the author to reconsider their intentional choice to use 'latest'. There's no evidence of a bug or clear problem, just a suggestion about best practices that the author may have already considered.

2. .github/workflows/frontend-deploy.yml:27

• Draft comment:
  Verify that 'bun install --global vercel@latest' installs the Vercel CLI as expected; Bun’s global install behavior might differ from npm.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 1% The comment is asking the PR author to verify the behavior of a command, which violates the rule against asking the author to confirm or ensure behavior. It does not provide a specific suggestion or point out a specific issue with the code.

3. .github/workflows/frontend-pr.yml:27

• Draft comment:
  Ensure that replacing npm global install with 'bun install --global' functions correctly for Vercel CLI in preview deployments.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 1% The comment is asking the author to ensure that a change functions correctly, which violates the rule against asking the author to ensure behavior is intended or tested. It doesn't provide a specific suggestion or ask for a specific test to be written.

4. frontend/scripts/generate-icons.sh:21

• Draft comment:
  The switch from 'npx' to 'bunx' is appropriate; ensure that required packages are available in Bun's context.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 1% None

5. justfile:100

• Draft comment:
  Confirm that 'bun outdated' provides comparable output to 'npm outdated'. Bun’s feature parity in this area should be verified.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 1% The comment is asking the PR author to confirm the behavior of a command, which violates the rule against asking for confirmation or verification of behavior. It does not provide a specific code suggestion or request for a test, nor does it point out a specific issue with the code.

6. justfile:112

• Draft comment:
  Review whether 'bun audit' offers functionality equivalent to 'npm audit fix'. Ensure it meets your security audit needs.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 1% The comment is asking the PR author to review and ensure that a tool meets their needs, which violates the rule against asking the author to ensure behavior is intended or to double-check things. It doesn't provide a specific suggestion or point out a specific issue with the code.

Workflow ID: wflow_uOyMF82FHMdSnfoJ

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Caution

Changes requested ❌

Reviewed 5353a12 in 1 minute and 32 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 35 lines of code in 2 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 1 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. .github/workflows/frontend-pr.yml:33

• Draft comment:
  Typo noticed: There's an extra closing curly bracket in the token variable syntax. It should be ${{ secrets.VERCEL_TOKEN }} instead of ${{ secrets.VERCEL_TOKEN }}}.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

Workflow ID: wflow_2lGF90zRAfNFPnIW

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Extra closing brace in token interpolation; remove the extra } so that it's ${{ secrets.VERCEL_TOKEN }}.

Suggested change

	run: vercel pull --yes --environment=preview --token=${{ secrets.VERCEL_TOKEN }}}
	run: vercel pull --yes --environment=preview --token=${{ secrets.VERCEL_TOKEN }}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed 4bbec8c in 1 minute and 27 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 13 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 1 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. .github/workflows/frontend-deploy.yml:29

• Draft comment:
  Using 'latest' might lead to unstable builds; prefer pinning a specific Bun version for reproducibility.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% This comment is making a suggestion about best practices rather than pointing out a clear bug or issue. The change was intentional (from 'stable' to 'latest'), so the author clearly wanted this behavior. The comment uses "might lead to" which is speculative language. It's also somewhat informative/advisory rather than pointing to a concrete problem. The rules say not to make speculative comments like "If X, then Y is an issue" - this fits that pattern with "might lead to unstable builds". Additionally, this is a judgment call about deployment strategy, not a clear code defect. The comment does raise a legitimate concern about reproducibility in CI/CD pipelines, which is a real engineering consideration. Version pinning is generally considered a best practice, so this could be seen as actionable advice rather than purely speculative. While version pinning is a best practice, the author intentionally changed from 'stable' to 'latest', indicating a deliberate choice. The comment uses speculative language ("might lead to") and doesn't point to a concrete issue. It's more of an advisory comment about best practices rather than identifying a clear problem that needs fixing. This comment should be deleted. It's speculative ("might lead to"), advisory rather than pointing to a concrete issue, and the author clearly made an intentional choice to use 'latest'. The rules state not to make speculative comments or purely informative suggestions.

Workflow ID: wflow_tV1jz9ZBFo0zVt37

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed 0ba828c in 1 minute and 25 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 18 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. .github/workflows/frontend-pr.yml:29

• Draft comment:
  Using 'latest' for bun-version can introduce build instability. Consider pinning to a stable version for reproducibility.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% The comment is about a change that was actually made (stable -> latest). However, I need to consider: 1) Is this speculative? The comment says it "can introduce" instability, which sounds conditional. 2) The PR author intentionally changed from 'stable' to 'latest', so they likely had a reason. 3) This is more of a best practice suggestion rather than pointing out a definite bug. 4) The comment is asking the author to reconsider their intentional change without strong evidence that it's wrong. 5) Looking at line 31, vercel@latest is also used, so there's already a pattern of using 'latest' in this workflow. The comment does point to a legitimate concern about reproducibility in CI/CD pipelines, which is a real software engineering principle. The author may not have considered the implications of using 'latest' vs a pinned version. This could be valuable feedback even if it's a suggestion rather than a bug fix. While reproducibility is important, the comment is speculative ("can introduce") and the author intentionally made this change. The workflow also uses vercel@latest on line 31, suggesting a deliberate pattern. Without evidence of actual instability or a specific requirement for pinned versions in this project, this is more of a general best practice suggestion that questions the author's intentional decision. This comment should be deleted. It's speculative ("can introduce"), questions an intentional change without strong evidence of a problem, and the workflow already uses 'latest' for other dependencies (vercel@latest), suggesting this is a deliberate pattern choice by the team.

2. .github/workflows/frontend-pr.yml:33

• Draft comment:
  Extraneous '}' removed from the VERCEL_TOKEN parameter, fixing a potential syntax error.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 1% This comment is purely informative, as it only states what was changed without providing any actionable feedback or suggestions. It doesn't ask for confirmation or suggest improvements.

Workflow ID: wflow_HeO1OHBJYvGSjYx1

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}