[realtonyyoung]

Fixes AI-4366 (no GitHub issue)

What & why

The desktop setup's first step opened with a pitch ("Your coding agents, with a memory" and a paragraph about what kcap stores). Anyone who reaches the installer has already chosen kcap, so the page now asks one question, "How do you want to use kcap?", and drops the paragraph

Verification

EditionStepViewModelTests: 10 passed. Copy-only, so no new test

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Onboarding
  • Updated the edition-selection page title to “How do you want to use kcap?”
  • The page now describes choosing an edition after kcap has already been selected.

[linear-code]

AI-4366

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review.

Recent review info

Run configuration

• Source mode: Auto
• Repository: Unavailable
• Branch: Unavailable
• File: No configuration file from this repository applied
• Commit: Unavailable
• Layers: Organization UI
• Review profile: ASSERTIVE
• Plan: Advanced
• Run ID: 51b14e19-3e3d-48dd-9ef5-88c654baffd3

Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 23dba00 and 136708e.

Files selected for processing: 1

• src/Capacitor.App/ViewModels/Onboarding/EditionStepViewModel.cs

Included review availability: This review used your included allowance. Your plan provides up to 10 included reviews per hour; 3 remain after this review.

Walkthrough

The edition page title changes to “How do you want to use kcap?”. Its documentation describes the page’s position in onboarding and the destinations for each edition choice. The public Lede property is removed.

Changes: Edition page

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Update edition page copy and contract src/Capacitor.App/ViewModels/Onboarding/EditionStepViewModel.cs	The documentation describes the edition choices and their next steps. The title changes, and the public Lede property is removed.

Priority: Low

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~3 minutes

Change: Other

Possibly related PRs

• kurrent-io/kcap-cli#1884: Both PRs change the edition page content and its view-model contract.

Suggested reviewers: alexeyzimarev

Merge Risk: Minimal · up to 13670

The copy-only onboarding update has no identified merge-blocking risk.

Architecture risk: Low · up to 13670

The change affects 1 system.

Changed systems: src

Architecture concerns
No architecture-level concerns identified.

Review details

Systems and components

• observed — src (service) was modified; 1 changed file maps to changed impact.

Before / after behavior

• observed — Modified behavior in src/Capacitor.App/ViewModels/Onboarding/EditionStepViewModel.cs: The XML summary no longer describes the page as introducing Capacitor; it describes the page as choosing an edition after kcap has been selected. It retains the stated routes: Cloud and existing-workspace choices continue to Sign-in, and Local continues to Install.
• observed — Modified behavior in src/Capacitor.App/ViewModels/Onboarding/EditionStepViewModel.cs: Title changes from “Your coding agents, with a memory” to “How do you want to use kcap?”. The public Lede property and its descriptive text are removed; the other wizard properties retain their declarations and values.

Pre-merge checks: 5

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check		Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check		The title clearly describes the main change: the setup's first step now asks only for the edition.
Docstring Coverage		Docstring coverage is 100.00% which is sufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 1 functions across 1 files.
Linked Issues check		Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check		Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

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

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

[qodo-code-review]

PR Summary by Qodo

Ask for edition choice on the first setup step

✨ Enhancement 🕐 Less than 5 minutes

AI Description

• Replaces the first setup step’s product pitch with a question about how to use kcap.
• Removes the introductory paragraph so the edition choices remain the focus.

Diagram

graph TD
  A["Edition step"] --> B["Wizard bindings"] --> C["Onboarding header"]
  D["Default lede"] --> B

Loading

High-Level Assessment

Changing the edition step’s copy directly is appropriate. The existing wizard binding already hides an empty lede, so changing the view or navigation would add unnecessary scope.

Files changed (1) +4 / -7

Enhancement (1) +4 / -7

EditionStepViewModel.csFocus the first setup step on edition choice +4/-7

Focus the first setup step on edition choice

• Changes the headline to ask how the user wants to use kcap and removes the introductory paragraph. Updates the class summary to reflect the page’s narrower purpose; edition choices and routing remain unchanged.

src/Capacitor.App/ViewModels/Onboarding/EditionStepViewModel.cs

[qodo-code-review]

Code Review by Qodo

🐞 Bugs (0) 📘 Rule violations (0) 🔗 Cross-repo conflicts (0) 📜 Skill insights (0)

1. Onboarding comment repeats product copy ✓ Resolved

Description

The modified XML summary explains that installers already chose kcap and repeats that the page asks
only for an edition, instead of documenting a non-obvious behavior-critical constraint. Because the
surrounding properties already expose the page behavior, later readers must maintain product-flow
rationale in a source comment that can become stale.

Code

src/Capacitor.App/ViewModels/Onboarding/EditionStepViewModel.cs[R9-11]

+/// The first page: which edition this machine sets up. Whoever reaches the installer has already
+/// chosen kcap, so the page asks only that. Cloud and "already have a workspace" continue to
+/// Sign-in, Local to Install.

Relevance

●●● Strong

Recent accepted precedents remove UI-restating comments and retain only non-obvious behavioral
rationale.

PR-#1775
PR-#1766
PR-#1677

ⓘ Recommendations generated based on similar findings in past PRs

Evidence

The changed XML summary states that anyone reaching the installer has already chosen kcap and that
the page asks only for the edition. The compliance rule requires comments to document non-obvious,
behavior-critical constraints rather than restating visible behavior or recording historical product
context.

Rule 2762993: Restrict comments to documenting non-obvious, behavior‑critical constraints
src/Capacitor.App/ViewModels/Onboarding/EditionStepViewModel.cs[9-11]

Agent prompt

The issue below was found during a code review. Follow the provided context and guidance below and implement a solution

## Issue description
The modified XML summary records product-flow rationale and repeats visible page behavior rather than documenting a durable, non-obvious constraint. This creates source documentation that can become stale as the onboarding flow or product messaging changes.

## Fix Focus Areas
- src/Capacitor.App/ViewModels/Onboarding/EditionStepViewModel.cs[9-11]

## Recommended Fix
Remove the product-history explanation from the XML summary, or rewrite it to describe only a durable behavior-critical constraint that is not already clear from the view-model properties and UI copy.

ⓘ Copy this prompt and use it to remediate the issue with your preferred AI generation tools

---

Context sources

⚠️ Tickets: not configured — No jira, linear integration is connected for the linked tickets

✅ Compliance rules (platform): 59 rules

✅ Cross-repo context — repo relationships

Review mode: Auto: 🚀 Fast: Localized copy-only UI change with no runtime logic or contract impact.

Tip of the day

💡 Did you know, you can choose which labels appear on a finding, and whether they show icons or text

More tips ↗ | Customize Qodo ↗ | Qodo docs ↗