Clarify visible-page semantics - #15
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 109a898840
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| Here, visible means CSS-rendered or potentially visible. The extractor excludes | ||
| content hidden by `hidden` or `inert`, `display: none`, hidden or collapsed | ||
| visibility, or zero opacity. It does not guarantee that extracted content is |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Qualify the descendant visibility guarantee
When a rendered body or comment contains a nested opacity: 0 or [inert] element, isVisiblyRendered checks only the extraction root and its ancestors before reading the root's complete innerText; opacity and inert do not remove that descendant text from innerText. The new wording therefore promises an exclusion the implementation does not enforce. Either limit the claim to body/comment extraction roots and their ancestors or filter hidden descendants before export.
AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L62-L73
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
Summary
Closes #14
Scope
This PR addresses GPTPro re-audit finding F004 only. F003, runtime extraction, permissions, dependencies, workflows, releases, and packaging are unchanged.
Verification
Boundaries