Update coderabbit config to enable autoreview

[rgsl888prabhu]

Description

This enables coderabbit auto review option along with few tools.

Checklist

• I am familiar with the Contributing Guidelines.
• Testing
  • New or existing tests cover these changes
  • Added tests
  • Created an issue to follow-up
  • NA
• Documentation
  • The documentation is up to date with these changes
  • Added new documentation
  • NA

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores

  • Enabled automated high-level review summaries and auto-reviewing
  • Switched linting focus to Markdown while keeping shell script checks enabled
  • Added a configuration flag for sequence diagrams (disabled by default)

• Documentation

  • Updated release notes references and improved release notes formatting and linking across docs

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

Enabled high-level summaries and auto-review in CodeRabbit config, replaced ESLint with Markdownlint while keeping Shellcheck, added sequence_diagrams: false, and updated several documentation links and release-notes formatting.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
CodeRabbit configuration \.coderabbit.yaml	reviews.high_level_summary set to true; reviews.auto_review.enabled set to true; removed reviews.tools.eslint; added reviews.tools.markdownlint with enabled: true; ensured reviews.tools.shellcheck.enabled: true; added reviews.sequence_diagrams: false.
README link update README.md	Updated Latest Release Notes link target from RELEASE-NOTES.md to docs/cuopt/source/release-notes.rst.
Release notes formatting RELEASE-NOTES.md	Converted plain-text/reStructuredText-like headers and references to Markdown headings and inline links; adjusted section heading levels and minor wording/typo fixes.
Docs toctree & stub docs/cuopt/source/index.rst, docs/cuopt/source/release-notes.md	index.rst toctree entry changed from release-notes.rst to release-notes (no extension); added docs/cuopt/source/release-notes.md linking to ../../../RELEASE-NOTES.md.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

Poem

🐇 I hopped through config late at night,
Toggled summaries and linting light,
Markdown now hums where ESLint slept,
Shellcheck guards the scripts I kept,
Release notes point the path just right.

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title Check	✅ Passed	The pull request title "Update coderabbit config to enable autoreview" directly corresponds to the primary changes in the changeset, specifically the updates to .coderabbit.yaml where reviews.auto_review.enabled is changed from false to true. The title is clear, specific, and accurately summarizes the main objective stated in the PR description: "This PR enables the coderabbit auto review option along with a few tools." While the changeset also includes documentation updates to release notes and markdown files, these appear to be secondary supporting changes aligned with the coderabbit configuration update. The title is appropriately focused on the primary intent of the PR and would help teammates understand the core change when scanning commit history.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changes. Docstring coverage check skipped.

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

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.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

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

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

RELEASE-NOTES.md (1)

109-109: Refine the phrasing of "very large tests."

The phrase "very large" is an over-used intensifier. Consider replacing it with a more specific descriptor such as "extensive," "large-scale," or "high-complexity" to better convey the intent.

- Split very large tests into smaller individual test cases ([#152](https://github.com/NVIDIA/cuopt/pull/152))
+ Split large-scale tests into smaller individual test cases ([#152](https://github.com/NVIDIA/cuopt/pull/152))

📜 Review details

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 15ca24f and ef3b3d2.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)

• RELEASE-NOTES.md (6 hunks)
• docs/cuopt/source/index.rst (1 hunks)
• docs/cuopt/source/release-notes.md (1 hunks)

✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (2)

• docs/cuopt/source/index.rst
• docs/cuopt/source/release-notes.md

🧰 Additional context used

🪛 LanguageTool

RELEASE-NOTES.md

[style] ~109-~109: As an alternative to the over-used intensifier ‘very’, consider replacing this phrase.
Context: ...hub.com//pull/200)) - Split very large tests into smaller individual test case...

(EN_WEAK_ADJECTIVE)

🔇 Additional comments (2)

RELEASE-NOTES.md (2)

1-81: Inconsistent GitHub PR reference format across release sections.

The 25.10 release section (lines 7–81) does not include inline GitHub PR links, while the 25.08 (lines 87–114) and 25.05 (lines 157–196) sections do. For consistency and better traceability, consider adding inline PR links to the 25.10 section as well, matching the format used in newer release notes.

Is this intentional? If not, would you like me to help add GitHub PR links to the 25.10 section?

---

1-3: Markdown formatting changes look good.

The conversion to proper Markdown heading hierarchy (# → ## → ###) and the addition of inline GitHub PR links improve readability and traceability. The formatting is consistent with Markdown best practices.

Also applies to: 83-200

[rgsl888prabhu]

/merge