Prevent vale style review from removing code blocks

[nearestnabors]

Summary

• Adds safeguards to prevent the vale-style-review automation from removing code blocks from documentation
• The LLM was making overly aggressive suggestions that removed entire code examples (as seen in PR Editorial improvements for #698 #700)

Changes

• Add getLinesInCodeBlocks() function to detect lines inside fenced code blocks
• Skip any suggestion targeting lines inside code blocks
• Reject suggestions where suggested text is <70% of original length
• Strengthen LLM prompt with explicit "NEVER MODIFY CODE" instructions
• Extract validation helpers to reduce cognitive complexity

Test plan

• Run pnpm vale:review --pr <number> on a PR with code blocks and verify no code is modified
• Verify suggestions are still generated for prose content outside code blocks

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

---

Note

Hardens the vale-style-review script to avoid destructive edits and never touch code blocks.

• Detects fenced code blocks (```/~~~) per CommonMark (indent ≤3, tab stops of 4) via new helpers: countLeadingWhitespace, `countLeadingFenceChars`, `isFenceCandidate`, `isValidClosingFence`, `getLinesInCodeBlocks`; skips any suggestions on those lines
• Strengthens LLM prompt with explicit “NEVER MODIFY CODE” and guidance to omit code-related issues
• Adds validation helpers: hasValidFields, wouldRemoveContent (≥70% length), isDestructiveChange (>50% length change) and applies them in formatReviewComments
• Introduces constants MIN_SUGGESTED_LENGTH_RATIO, MAX_FENCE_INDENT, TAB_STOP_WIDTH; adjusts logging and filtering but preserves overall workflow

^{Written by Cursor Bugbot for commit 606e9b4. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.}

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Review	Updated (UTC)
docs	Ready	Preview, Comment	Jan 23, 2026 4:23pm

[cursor]

Bugbot Autofix resolved both bugs found in the latest run.

• ✅ Fixed: Inconsistent length validation with trimmed vs untrimmed strings
  • Updated isDestructiveChange to use trimmed lengths, making it consistent with wouldRemoveContent.
• ✅ Fixed: Prompt contradicts actual validation logic for length
  • Changed prompt from 'NEVER be shorter' to 'should not be significantly shorter' to match the actual 70% threshold.

[cursor]

Bugbot Autofix resolved the bug found in the latest run.

• ✅ Fixed: Nested code blocks incorrectly detected
  • Fixed by tracking opening backtick count and only closing code blocks when encountering lines with at least as many backticks, preventing nested blocks from being incorrectly parsed.

[cursor]

Bugbot Autofix resolved both of the 2 bugs found in the latest run.

• ✅ Fixed: Closing fence incorrectly accepts non-whitespace content
  • Added validation to ensure closing fences only accept whitespace after backticks per CommonMark specification.
• ✅ Fixed: Indentation limit not enforced for code fences
  • Implemented leading space counting to enforce the 3-space indentation limit for code fence markers per CommonMark specification.

[cursor]

Cursor Bugbot has reviewed your changes and found 1 potential issue.

^{Bugbot Autofix is ON. A Cloud Agent has been kicked off to fix the reported issue.}

[cursor]

Bugbot Autofix resolved the bug found in the latest run.

• ✅ Fixed: Code block detection misses tilde-fenced blocks
  • Updated code block detection to support both backtick (```) and tilde (~~~) fenced code blocks per CommonMark specification, ensuring Vale suggestions are never applied to code inside either fence type.

[teallarson]

docs/.vale.ini

Line 18 in 35be995

BlockIgnores = (?s)```[\s\S]*?```

should be telling Vale to ignore code blocks already.

I think maybe it's missing parentheses around the rule:

(?s)([\s\S]*?)

or

(?s)*([\s\S]*?)

if there may be leading whitespace (I don't think that would be true for a code block)

[nearestnabors]

Claude Code:

The issue: Vale's BlockIgnores regex doesn't work for fenced code blocks because:

1. For .md files: Vale parses Markdown natively and creates code scopes. IgnoredScopes = code
   works for most content, BUT lines starting with # inside code blocks get misidentified as
   headings.
2. For .mdx files: Vale doesn't have native MDX support - it treats MDX as plain text, so:
   - No code scopes are created → IgnoredScopes = code doesn't help
   - BlockIgnores regex is supposed to work but has known issues
   (BlockIgnores not working for .mdx files errata-ai/vale#115, Vale is picking up errors for stuff in code blocks in GitHub markdown errata-ai/vale#387)

The bottom line: The commenter's suggestion about parentheses won't fix it - it's a Vale
limitation for MDX files. That's exactly why this PR's vale-style-review.ts script adds its own
getLinesInCodeBlocks() function to detect code blocks independently.