docs: add C4 container diagram (current system + roadmap)#40
Conversation
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Warning Review limit reached
More reviews will be available in 54 minutes and 20 seconds. Learn how PR review limits work. Your organization has used up its prepaid credits, and credit purchases are no longer available. Enable the review add-on in the billing tab to keep reviews running — you're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file). ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based credits. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan refill rate. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, the refill rate gradually slows as usage increases. The highest same-day bursts are limited more strictly. Please see our Fair Usage Limits Policy for further information. ℹ️ Review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: ⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughA new file ChangesC4 Container Architecture Diagram
Estimated code review effort🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
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 |
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request adds a new C4 container diagram (docs/c4-container.puml) for the Doppelganger project, detailing the Ingestion Pipeline, Training & Inference, Roadmap, and External Systems. The review feedback points out a missing relationship in the diagram between the Redactor container and the external LLM system, which is needed to accurately represent optional LLM-based redaction.
Important
The consumer version of Gemini Code Assist on GitHub is being sunset. Starting June 18, 2026, new organization installations will be blocked, and all code review activity will officially cease on July 17, 2026.
For more details on the timeline and next steps, please review the Help Documentation.
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
docs/c4-container.puml (1)
8-9: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🔵 Trivial | 💤 Low valueClarify relationship labels for planned roadmap features.
The roadmap section and its "(planned)" relationships are clearly annotated. Consider documenting (in comments or a separate ADR) the decision logic for which roadmap items relate to which existing containers, especially cross-boundary flows like "guardrails → redactor" and "rag → chat", to help future contributors understand the integration strategy.
Also applies to: 32-39, 66-72
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@docs/c4-container.puml` around lines 8 - 9, Add clarifying comments in the C4 diagram to document the decision logic for planned roadmap features and their relationships to existing containers. Specifically, for the relationships in the "Roadmap (exploratory)" boundary (including the planned connections like guardrails to redactor and rag to chat at lines 32-39 and 66-72), add inline comments explaining the integration strategy and why each roadmap item connects to its specific existing container. This will help future contributors understand the architectural decisions and integration approach for these planned features.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Nitpick comments:
In `@docs/c4-container.puml`:
- Around line 8-9: Add clarifying comments in the C4 diagram to document the
decision logic for planned roadmap features and their relationships to existing
containers. Specifically, for the relationships in the "Roadmap (exploratory)"
boundary (including the planned connections like guardrails to redactor and rag
to chat at lines 32-39 and 66-72), add inline comments explaining the
integration strategy and why each roadmap item connects to its specific existing
container. This will help future contributors understand the architectural
decisions and integration approach for these planned features.
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 12e05f15-e2c1-405a-9cc9-c913536eca13
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
docs/c4-container.pngis excluded by!**/*.png
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
docs/c4-container.puml
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
1 participant
Summary
Adds a C4 Container diagram giving a one-page overview of Doppelganger — the current system plus the full exploratory roadmap.
docs/c4-container.puml— source (PlantUML, C4-PlantUML stdlib)docs/c4-container.png— rendered diagramWhat it shows
(planned)relationshipsNotes
!include <C4/C4_Container>stdlib so it renders offline; render withplantuml -tpng docs/c4-container.puml.🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Summary by CodeRabbit