[dezren39]

What

pkgs/mcpx/docs/dependencies.md said Nine direct Go modules and listed nine. pkgs/mcpx/go.mod has eleven direct requires. This PR makes the doc and the Nix comment agree with the code.

Missing from both:

• github.com/mattn/go-runewidth — cell width in the TUI (internal/tui/data.go): wide characters, combining marks and emoji take one or two cells, and truncation must agree with the terminal, not len().
• golang.org/x/net — publicsuffix + idna in the elicitation answer review (internal/cli/elicit.go): registrable domain under a URL about to be answered, both host forms, punycode warning (mcpx: Phase 3 of #1675 — review-first mcpx elicit surface + nix#255 truth-up #1678).

pkgs/mcpx/package.nix carried the same drift the other way ("Five direct Go dependencies") while the doc pointed at it for the per-dependency trade. It now says Eleven too and carries the six purposes it was missing.

Verification

# every go.mod direct require appears in the first doc table, and nothing else does
python3 - <<'PY'
import re
d=open('pkgs/mcpx/docs/dependencies.md').read()
tbl=d[d.index('| module'):d.index('\n\nThe three `charmbracelet`')]
doc=re.findall(r'^\| `([^`]+)`\s*\|',tbl,re.M)
gomod=open('pkgs/mcpx/go.mod').read()
block=re.search(r'^require \((.*?)^\)',gomod,re.M|re.S).group(1)
direct=sorted(l.split()[0] for l in block.split('\n') if l.strip() and 'indirect' not in l)
assert sorted(doc)==direct, (doc,direct)
print(len(direct), "direct modules; doc matches")
PY

Output: 11 direct modules; doc matches. The count sentence reads Eleven and the package.nix comment reads Eleven.

No test: doc-only change (two Markdown/Nix-comment rows); verification is the go.mod-vs-doc recount script above, and there is no behavior to regression-test.

Fixes #1883 (item 12 residue).

---

^{Open in [code]smith · Need help on this PR? Tag @codesmith-bot with what you need.}

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	⚠️ Failed 2026-11-03T13:50:21.171738Z We couldn’t complete this review. Comment @codex review to try again.	acc4ae4	PR opened

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" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository.

Next included review available in 3 minutes.

Check out review usage here.

View limit details

Limit details: You’ve used the included review currently available.

Learn how review limits work.

Review configuration:

Run configuration

• Source mode: Auto
• Repository: Unavailable
• Branch: Unavailable
• File: No configuration file from this repository applied
• Commit: Unavailable
• Layers: defaults
• Review profile: CHILL
• Plan: Advanced
• Run ID: 27dbe9e9-bbf1-42f3-93fa-9c4e3304c363

Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between a0b54cf and 8d695a5.

Files selected for processing: 2

• pkgs/mcpx/docs/dependencies.md
• pkgs/mcpx/package.nix

• Autofix · Keep fixing CodeRabbit findings and required CI, and resolving merge conflicts

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

CodeRabbit Verify

• Run CodeRabbit Verify to test the changes in this pull request.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.
To continue using code reviews, you can upgrade your account or add credits to your account and enable them for code reviews in your settings.