🎨 Palette: 리포트 메트릭 카드의 HTML 접근성 향상 및 포커스 스타일 개선

[seonghobae]

💡 What:
HTML 리포트 (fit_diagnostics.json 등을 통한 생성물) 내 메트릭 표기 카드의 접근성 및 키보드 네비게이션 시각적 피드백을 향상시켰습니다.

🎯 Why:

• 메트릭 쌍의 키-값을 <dl> 형식으로 사용함으로써, 스크린 리더 사용자에게 보다 명확한 의미(semantics)를 전달합니다.
• :focus-visible를 적용함으로써 키보드 사용자는 여전히 초점을 확인할 수 있고, 마우스 사용자는 불필요한 테두리 표시를 겪지 않게 됩니다.
• 시각적인 요소에 aria-hidden="true"를 추가해 스크린리더 노이즈를 감소시켰습니다.

📸 Before/After:
(해당 변경 사항에 대한 시각적인 레이아웃 캡쳐 검증(Playwright) 완료함 - 시각적 형태가 깨지지 않음을 확인함)

♿ Accessibility:

• Definition list <dl> 도입을 통한 의미론적 마크업 개선
• focus-visible 도입
• 장식용 요소에 aria-hidden 추가

---

PR created automatically by Jules for task 2487983188387228128 started by @seonghobae

[google-labs-jules]

👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down.

I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job!

For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with @jules. You can find this option in the Pull Request section of your global Jules UI settings. You can always switch back!

New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs.

---

For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task.

[seonghobae]

Review follow-up pushed at 890b0b3.

What changed after local review:

• Added regression assertions that generated report metrics use <dl class="metrics-grid">, <dt>, and <dd> markup.
• Tightened the focus-style assertion to require .table-wrap:focus-visible instead of the loose .table-wrap:focus substring.
• Added an assertion that decorative bar tracks render with aria-hidden="true".

Local verification:

• py -m pytest tests/test_report.py -> 10 passed.
• git diff --check reported only the Windows CRLF warning for tests/test_report.py.

Local note: this Windows worktree shows a dirty .Jules/palette.md because the repository tracks both .Jules/... and .jules/... paths on a case-insensitive filesystem. That file was not staged or pushed; the PR diff is .jules/palette.md, python/fast_mlsirm/report.py, and tests/test_report.py only.

Merge order note: this remains behind lower-numbered PRs #18, #27, #47, #95, and #98.

[google-labs-jules]

Review follow-up pushed at 890b0b3.

What changed after local review:

• Added regression assertions that generated report metrics use <dl class="metrics-grid">, <dt>, and <dd> markup.
• Tightened the focus-style assertion to require .table-wrap:focus-visible instead of the loose .table-wrap:focus substring.
• Added an assertion that decorative bar tracks render with aria-hidden="true".

Local verification:

• py -m pytest tests/test_report.py -> 10 passed.
• git diff --check reported only the Windows CRLF warning for tests/test_report.py.

Local note: this Windows worktree shows a dirty .Jules/palette.md because the repository tracks both .Jules/... and .jules/... paths on a case-insensitive filesystem. That file was not staged or pushed; the PR diff is .jules/palette.md, python/fast_mlsirm/report.py, and tests/test_report.py only.

Merge order note: this remains behind lower-numbered PRs #18, #27, #47, #95, and #98.

Acknowledged. Thank you for the follow-up and adding the tests.

[seonghobae]

Updated current head to c8cf319 to absorb the non-duplicative part of #112 and restore stronger accessibility regressions.

What changed:

• Kept report table focus styling on :focus-visible and added an explicit regression that .table-wrap:focus { is absent from rendered report CSS.
• Restored semantic metric assertions for <dl>/<dt>/<dd> and decorative bar aria-hidden=true coverage.
• Applied the same :focus-visible table-wrapper rule to the generated evidence/report scripts that 🎨 Palette: 테이블 컨테이너 포커스 상태 UX 및 접근성 개선 #112 touched.

Local verification on this head:

• py -m pytest tests/test_report.py tests/test_benchmark_report.py tests/test_buyer_evidence_packet.py tests/test_commercial_release_builder.py tests/test_figma_evidence_sync.py tests/test_pr_queue_governance.py tests/test_procurement_due_diligence.py tests/test_release_evidence_index.py -> 31 passed
• py -m pytest tests -> 128 passed, 3 skipped
• git diff --check -> no whitespace errors; Windows reported expected LF-to-CRLF warnings only

#112 can now be closed as superseded by this lower-numbered, tested accessibility PR.

[google-labs-jules]

Updated current head to c8cf319 to absorb the non-duplicative part of #112 and restore stronger accessibility regressions.

What changed:

• Kept report table focus styling on :focus-visible and added an explicit regression that .table-wrap:focus { is absent from rendered report CSS.
• Restored semantic metric assertions for <dl>/<dt>/<dd> and decorative bar aria-hidden=true coverage.
• Applied the same :focus-visible table-wrapper rule to the generated evidence/report scripts that 🎨 Palette: 테이블 컨테이너 포커스 상태 UX 및 접근성 개선 #112 touched.

Local verification on this head:

• py -m pytest tests/test_report.py tests/test_benchmark_report.py tests/test_buyer_evidence_packet.py tests/test_commercial_release_builder.py tests/test_figma_evidence_sync.py tests/test_pr_queue_governance.py tests/test_procurement_due_diligence.py tests/test_release_evidence_index.py -> 31 passed
• py -m pytest tests -> 128 passed, 3 skipped
• git diff --check -> no whitespace errors; Windows reported expected LF-to-CRLF warnings only

#112 can now be closed as superseded by this lower-numbered, tested accessibility PR.

Acknowledged. Thank you for updating the PR and applying the focus-visible rule to the other generated reports to ensure consistency.

[seonghobae]

Consolidated the remaining small report UX duplicates into this lower-numbered PR: decorative bar chart wrapper is now aria-hidden and table rows keep the hover affordance while focus outlines remain keyboard-only via :focus-visible. Verification: py -m pytest tests/test_report.py -q -> 10 passed.

[google-labs-jules]

Consolidated the remaining small report UX duplicates into this lower-numbered PR: decorative bar chart wrapper is now aria-hidden and table rows keep the hover affordance while focus outlines remain keyboard-only via :focus-visible. Verification: py -m pytest tests/test_report.py -q -> 10 passed.

Acknowledged. Thank you for the consolidation and verification.

[opencode-agent]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: a27e1ebe1cf97918232a4757406b2452d544c4d0
• Workflow run: 29016274154
• Workflow attempt: 2
• Gate result: APPROVE (approval step)

Pull request overview

OpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues.

Findings

No blocking findings.

Summary

Approval sufficiency: bounded evidence supplied affirmative approval evidence for changed files, coverage/docstring posture, risk surfaces, and current-head verification; approval is not based merely on the absence of known blockers.
Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence was initialized and bounded current-head evidence reviewed for changed-file evidence including .jules/palette.md, python/fast_mlsirm/report.py, scripts/build_benchmark_report.py, scripts/build_buyer_packet.py, scripts/build_commercial_release.py, and 5 more.
Linter/static: workflow/static review evidence is bounded by the current-head GitHub Checks gate and changed-file evidence.
TDD/regression: coverage execution evidence and focused changed hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Coverage: coverage execution evidence reports supported repository test suites passed.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports configured repository docstring gates passed or docstring coverage was advisory.
DAG: CodeGraph/source-backed behavior map connects .jules/palette.md to the affected review, runtime, or workflow path and required checks.
PoC/execution: coverage-evidence job executed on the current head and reported PASS.
DDD/domain: workflow and repository-governance invariants were reviewed against changed files in bounded evidence.
CDD/context: CodeGraph evidence, changed-file history, and focused hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Similar issues: changed-file history evidence was reviewed for comparable local precedents.
Claim/concept check: bounded evidence, repository source, current-head workflow evidence, and, where numeric, scientific, statistical, or literature-backed claims are affected, original-paper/formula evidence and parameter-recovery expectations were used for claims.
Standards search: standards and external-source checks are delegated to configured OpenCode web_search/Context7/DeepWiki sources when applicable; no evidence-backed standards blocker is present in bounded evidence.
Compatibility/convention: changed workflow/script conventions, object naming, and reserved-word safety for schema/API/config/code surfaces were checked in bounded evidence.
Breaking-change/backcompat: deployment evidence and changed-file history were checked for backward-compatibility risk.
Performance: changed surfaces were checked for performance risk in bounded evidence.
Developer experience: changed automation, review, test, setup, and maintenance surfaces were checked for helpful or obstructive DX impact in bounded evidence.
User experience: connected user, operator, API, CLI, documentation, review-comment, status-check, rendering, and workflow-reader behavior was checked for contradictions against code, docs, and tests in bounded evidence.
Visual/DOM: Playwright visual, DOM locator, ARIA snapshot, console, and responsive evidence were checked when a web UI surface was present; for non-web surfaces, API/CLI/log/docs/workflow interaction evidence was reviewed instead.
Accessibility/i18n: accessibility, localization, and human-readable text surfaces were checked where UI, CLI, API message, docs, logs, or review text changed.
Supply-chain/license: dependency, package, model, container, and external-tool changes were checked in bounded evidence.
Packaging: package, build, test, lint, and security contracts were checked in bounded evidence.
Security/privacy: workflow-token, review-gate, and repository-automation security/privacy boundaries were checked in bounded evidence.

• Result: APPROVE
• Reason: The PR improves accessibility and focus styling for report metrics, with verified test coverage and no unresolved review threads.
• Head SHA: a27e1ebe1cf97918232a4757406b2452d544c4d0
• Workflow run: 29016274154
• Workflow attempt: 2

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (9 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (9 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Test: test_report.py"]
  S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test: test_report.py"]
  R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

Pull request overview

OpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues.

Findings

No blocking findings.

Summary

Approval sufficiency: bounded evidence supplied affirmative approval evidence for changed files, coverage/docstring posture, risk surfaces, and current-head verification; approval is not based merely on the absence of known blockers.
Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence was initialized and bounded current-head evidence reviewed for changed-file evidence including .jules/palette.md, python/fast_mlsirm/report.py, scripts/build_benchmark_report.py, scripts/build_buyer_packet.py, scripts/build_commercial_release.py, and 5 more.
Linter/static: workflow/static review evidence is bounded by the current-head GitHub Checks gate and changed-file evidence.
TDD/regression: coverage execution evidence and focused changed hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Coverage: coverage execution evidence reports supported repository test suites passed.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports configured repository docstring gates passed or docstring coverage was advisory.
DAG: CodeGraph/source-backed behavior map connects .jules/palette.md to the affected review, runtime, or workflow path and required checks.
PoC/execution: coverage-evidence job executed on the current head and reported PASS.
DDD/domain: workflow and repository-governance invariants were reviewed against changed files in bounded evidence.
CDD/context: CodeGraph evidence, changed-file history, and focused hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Similar issues: changed-file history evidence was reviewed for comparable local precedents.
Claim/concept check: bounded evidence, repository source, current-head workflow evidence, and, where numeric, scientific, statistical, or literature-backed claims are affected, original-paper/formula evidence and parameter-recovery expectations were used for claims.
Standards search: standards and external-source checks are delegated to configured OpenCode web_search/Context7/DeepWiki sources when applicable; no evidence-backed standards blocker is present in bounded evidence.
Compatibility/convention: changed workflow/script conventions, object naming, and reserved-word safety for schema/API/config/code surfaces were checked in bounded evidence.
Breaking-change/backcompat: deployment evidence and changed-file history were checked for backward-compatibility risk.
Performance: changed surfaces were checked for performance risk in bounded evidence.
Developer experience: changed automation, review, test, setup, and maintenance surfaces were checked for helpful or obstructive DX impact in bounded evidence.
User experience: connected user, operator, API, CLI, documentation, review-comment, status-check, rendering, and workflow-reader behavior was checked for contradictions against code, docs, and tests in bounded evidence.
Visual/DOM: Playwright visual, DOM locator, ARIA snapshot, console, and responsive evidence were checked when a web UI surface was present; for non-web surfaces, API/CLI/log/docs/workflow interaction evidence was reviewed instead.
Accessibility/i18n: accessibility, localization, and human-readable text surfaces were checked where UI, CLI, API message, docs, logs, or review text changed.
Supply-chain/license: dependency, package, model, container, and external-tool changes were checked in bounded evidence.
Packaging: package, build, test, lint, and security contracts were checked in bounded evidence.
Security/privacy: workflow-token, review-gate, and repository-automation security/privacy boundaries were checked in bounded evidence.

• Result: APPROVE
• Reason: The PR improves accessibility and focus styling for report metrics, with verified test coverage and no unresolved review threads.
• Head SHA: a27e1ebe1cf97918232a4757406b2452d544c4d0
• Workflow run: 29016274154
• Workflow attempt: 2

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (9 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (9 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Test: test_report.py"]
  S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test: test_report.py"]
  R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]

Loading

[seonghobae]

Current-head rerun/update for PR #105:

• Head verified: a27e1ebe1cf97918232a4757406b2452d544c4d0.
• Re-ran the previously cancelled required workflow jobs for Security Scan and OpenCode Review.
• Current-head security jobs are now green: dependency-review, trivy-fs, osv-scan, and scorecard all succeeded on the rerun.
• Current-head coverage/review jobs are now green: coverage-source-tree, coverage-evidence, required-workflow-bootstrap, and opencode-review all succeeded.
• OpenCode approved the current head and reported no blocking findings.
• Repository code-scanning alerts: no open alerts at this check.
• Dependabot alerts: no open alerts at this check.
• Auto-merge has been enabled for this PR.

Remaining blocker, if GitHub still shows blocked: org/repo native branch ruleset approvals are still required (reviewDecision=REVIEW_REQUIRED), even though required checks and OpenCode are green. I am leaving that high-sensitivity governance intact rather than weakening rules.

[google-labs-jules]

Current-head rerun/update for PR #105:

• Head verified: a27e1ebe1cf97918232a4757406b2452d544c4d0.
• Re-ran the previously cancelled required workflow jobs for Security Scan and OpenCode Review.
• Current-head security jobs are now green: dependency-review, trivy-fs, osv-scan, and scorecard all succeeded on the rerun.
• Current-head coverage/review jobs are now green: coverage-source-tree, coverage-evidence, required-workflow-bootstrap, and opencode-review all succeeded.
• OpenCode approved the current head and reported no blocking findings.
• Repository code-scanning alerts: no open alerts at this check.
• Dependabot alerts: no open alerts at this check.
• Auto-merge has been enabled for this PR.

Remaining blocker, if GitHub still shows blocked: org/repo native branch ruleset approvals are still required (reviewDecision=REVIEW_REQUIRED), even though required checks and OpenCode are green. I am leaving that high-sensitivity governance intact rather than weakening rules.

Acknowledged. Thank you for the detailed current-head verification update and for leaving the governance rules intact. The PR looks ready to go once the final manual reviews are completed.