Drop the Build Environment section from CLAUDE.md

[thedavidmeister]

Deletes the ## Build Environment section. Build and test invocation is an org standard carried by rainix, not something a repo restates — and this repo's restatement had gone stale.

Every command it named is gone from rainix. At the pinned rev, sol-tasks is [rainix-sol-artifacts] only; nix develop -c rainix-sol-prelude fails with exec: rainix-sol-prelude: not found, and rainix-rs-prelude, rainix-sol-test, rainix-sol-static, rainix-rs-test and test-wasm-build went the same way. An agent following the section could not build. The lines date to 4ddba8de (February), so this is not residue from the #563 migration.

Nothing replaces it. What CI actually runs is in .github/workflows/, which is the authority a reader should reach for, and the org convention is that agent context carries only what the code and CI cannot show.

nix develop -c rainlang-prelude survives under ## Generated code, where it belongs: that task is defined in this repo's own flake, and the regeneration loop it starts is repo-specific rather than an org standard.

CLAUDE.md goes 3966 → 3535 bytes against the 4096 agent-context-cap, so this is a net trim.

QA

• Discriminating tests: n/a — documentation-only diff with no executable content. The check that matters was run by hand and is what motivated the deletion: nix develop -c rainix-sol-prelude errors not found at the pinned rainix rev, so the documented sequence cannot be followed.
• Mutations applied: n/a — no logic in the diff.
• Oracle: rainix's own sol-tasks definition at the pinned rev, and .github/workflows/ for what CI actually invokes — both independent of this file.
• Category check: no linked issue; found while cutting the 0.1.9 release and deliberately kept out of that PR so a doc rewrite would not ride along with a release freeze. Covers the stale section only; the rainlang-prelude reference under Generated code is verified still valid and left alone.

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Review was skipped due to path filters

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)

• CLAUDE.md is excluded by !CLAUDE.md

CodeRabbit blocks several paths by default. You can override this behavior by explicitly including those paths in the path filters. For example, including **/dist/** will override the default block on the dist directory, by removing the pattern from both the lists.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: d4aee097-651d-4579-8afb-f23a09bd5ede

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:

• 🔍 Trigger review

---

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.}

[github-actions]

@coderabbitai assess this PR size classification for the totality of the PR with the following criterias and report it in your comment:

S/M/L PR Classification Guidelines:

This guide helps classify merged pull requests by effort and complexity rather than just line count. The goal is to assess the difficulty and scope of changes after they have been completed.

Small (S)

Characteristics:

• Simple bug fixes, typos, or minor refactoring
• Single-purpose changes affecting 1-2 files
• Documentation updates
• Configuration tweaks
• Changes that require minimal context to review

Review Effort: Would have taken 5-10 minutes

Examples:

• Fix typo in variable name
• Update README with new instructions
• Adjust configuration values
• Simple one-line bug fixes
• Import statement cleanup

Medium (M)

Characteristics:

• Feature additions or enhancements
• Refactoring that touches multiple files but maintains existing behavior
• Breaking changes with backward compatibility
• Changes requiring some domain knowledge to review

Review Effort: Would have taken 15-30 minutes

Examples:

• Add new feature or component
• Refactor common utility functions
• Update dependencies with minor breaking changes
• Add new component with tests
• Performance optimizations
• More complex bug fixes

Large (L)

Characteristics:

• Major feature implementations
• Breaking changes or API redesigns
• Complex refactoring across multiple modules
• New architectural patterns or significant design changes
• Changes requiring deep context and multiple review rounds

Review Effort: Would have taken 45+ minutes

Examples:

• Complete new feature with frontend/backend changes
• Protocol upgrades or breaking changes
• Major architectural refactoring
• Framework or technology upgrades

Additional Factors to Consider

When deciding between sizes, also consider:

• Test coverage impact: More comprehensive test changes lean toward larger classification
• Risk level: Changes to critical systems bump up a size category
• Team familiarity: Novel patterns or technologies increase complexity

Notes:

• the assessment must be for the totality of the PR, that means comparing the base branch to the last commit of the PR
• the assessment output must be exactly one of: S, M or L (single-line comment) in format of: SIZE={S/M/L}
• do not include any additional text, only the size classification
• your assessment comment must not include tips or additional sections
• do NOT tag me or anyone else on your comment