fix: address review feedback from Update DIP-0009 BLS notation and DIP-0013 recovery logic[bot] on #177

[thepastaclaw]

Addresses 6 review comment(s) from @coderabbitai[bot] on #177.

Review comments addressed:

• [⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor

New subfeatures 4' and 5' have no specification links.

Ev](#177 (comment))

• [

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Updated specification naming conventions for Identity Keys and cryptographic curve identifiers for consistency.
  • Enhanced top-up funding key recovery process documentation with conditional flow requirements for unbound keys and verification procedures.
  • Refined bloom filter implementation guidance with improved per-category specifications and hash regeneration thresholds for wallet implementations.

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Two specification documents updated: DIP-0009 corrects BLS curve notation from "bls12381" to "BLS12-381", and DIP-0013 adds conditional recovery flow logic for unbound top-up funding keys and refines bloom filter guidance to per-category granularity.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
DIP-0009 BLS Curve Notation dip-0009/assignments.md	Updated Identity Keys entry: changed BLS curve description from "bls12381" to "BLS12-381" for consistency.
DIP-0013 Recovery Flow & Bloom Filter Logic dip-0013.md	Added conditional recovery flow: unbound recovered keys require wallet to identify and select target identity before top-up. Updated bloom filter guidance to per-category granularity: maintain 30 address hashes per category (unbound and bound top-up keys) with regeneration triggered per category when 25+ hashes found.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~12 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Title Check	✅ Passed	Title check skipped as CodeRabbit has written the PR title.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ 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.}

[thepastaclaw]

@coderabbitai review

[coderabbitai]

✅ Actions performed

Review triggered.

Note: CodeRabbit is an incremental review system and does not re-review already reviewed commits. This command is applicable only when automatic reviews are paused.

[coderabbitai]

Caution

Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.

⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)

dip-0013.md (1)

89-90: ⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor

bls12381 is inconsistent with the BLS12-381 notation fixed in dip-0009/assignments.md.

Line 89 still uses the old lowercase bls12381 identifier while this PR corrected the same curve name to BLS12-381 in dip-0009/assignments.md. Both documents describe the same key type, so the notation should match.

✏️ Proposed fix

-`1'` - BLS keys based on the bls12381 curve as defined here:
+`1'` - BLS keys based on the BLS12-381 curve as defined here:

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@dip-0013.md` around lines 89 - 90, Update the curve identifier in dip-0013.md
to match dip-0009/assignments.md by replacing the lowercase token "bls12381"
used in the entry "`1'` - BLS keys based on the bls12381 curve..." with the
standardized "BLS12-381" notation; ensure the same exact casing and hyphenation
"BLS12-381" is used wherever the curve is referenced in this document so both
docs consistently describe the same key type.

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

dip-0013.md (1)

169-178: LGTM — conditional recovery flow and per-category bloom filter guidance are logically sound.

The sequencing is correct: unbound-key detection → identity selection → platform query → top-up transition. The per-category bloom filter split (unbound vs. bound-per-identity, each with the 30/25/30 thresholds) is also consistent with the Invitation Funding Keys pattern at lines 195–197.

Optionally, the static analysis tool flags all "top up" occurrences in this block as compound modifiers that should be hyphenated ("top-up"). The rest of the document uses the same unhyphenated style (e.g., "Identity Top Up Funding keys" heading), so this is a document-wide style choice rather than a new defect — applying it here without updating the rest would introduce inconsistency.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@dip-0013.md` around lines 169 - 178, The reviewer flagged inconsistent
hyphenation of the phrase "top up" in this block versus the rest of the document
(e.g., "Identity Top Up Funding keys" and "Invitation Funding Keys"); do not
change only this block to "top-up" — instead decide on a document-wide style and
apply it consistently: either update all occurrences of "top up" to "top-up"
throughout the DIP (search for "top up", "Top Up", and related headings like
"Identity Top Up Funding keys") or leave them all unhyphenated; ensure headings,
body text, and the bloom-filter guidance use the chosen style consistently.

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

Outside diff comments:
In `@dip-0013.md`:
- Around line 89-90: Update the curve identifier in dip-0013.md to match
dip-0009/assignments.md by replacing the lowercase token "bls12381" used in the
entry "`1'` - BLS keys based on the bls12381 curve..." with the standardized
"BLS12-381" notation; ensure the same exact casing and hyphenation "BLS12-381"
is used wherever the curve is referenced in this document so both docs
consistently describe the same key type.

---

Nitpick comments:
In `@dip-0013.md`:
- Around line 169-178: The reviewer flagged inconsistent hyphenation of the
phrase "top up" in this block versus the rest of the document (e.g., "Identity
Top Up Funding keys" and "Invitation Funding Keys"); do not change only this
block to "top-up" — instead decide on a document-wide style and apply it
consistently: either update all occurrences of "top up" to "top-up" throughout
the DIP (search for "top up", "Top Up", and related headings like "Identity Top
Up Funding keys") or leave them all unhyphenated; ensure headings, body text,
and the bloom-filter guidance use the chosen style consistently.