Simplify EBBO section

[fhenneke]

This PR streamlines the EBBO section in the documentation a bit.

The docs and the corresponding CIP included some wording which was not particularly clear to me. I removed some sentences and remarks and also fied some formatiing and typo.

Most of the old formulations were part of the CIP and can be found in the link already included.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Tightened EBBO violation intro and clarified certificate semantics
  • Reordered and clarified reimbursement steps (value-loss first, request second, notification third)
  • Clarified reimbursement source allowing execution from rewards address if needed; specified 72-hour processing and outcomes
  • Simplified escalation to a CIP-based slashing flow (removed deny-list/forum steps and note about reclaiming bond)
  • Minor wording and consistency improvements

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Preview	Updated (UTC)
docs	Ready	Preview	Nov 27, 2025 0:48am

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

Clarified and reordered EBBO reimbursement procedures, tightened timing language (72-hour processing), allowed reimbursement from rewards address if needed, and replaced forum-based escalation with a CIP-only slashing flow; removed redundant post-slash retrieval wording and small wording tweaks.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)

Change Summary

EBBO Documentation Updates docs/cow-protocol/reference/core/auctions/ebbo_specifics.md

Reworded EBBO violation reimbursement section; set 3-month inspection window; reordered reimbursement steps (value-loss calc → reimbursement request → incident notification); clarified 72-hour processing and outcomes; allowed reimbursement execution from rewards address when solver cannot access submission account; removed forum/deny-list escalation and post-slash retrieval note; minor wording and consistency edits.

Sequence Diagram(s)

N/A — documentation-only changes.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~8 minutes

• Single-file, documentation-only edits.
• Review focus:
  • Confirm procedural step order and timing (3-month inspection, 72-hour processing).
  • Verify wording around reimbursement source and allowed execution from rewards address.
  • Ensure escalation now references CIP-based slashing only and removed forum-related flow.

Suggested reviewers

• pretf00d

Poem

🐰 I hopped through paragraphs, trimmed every line,
Tuned the timing, made each step align.
No forum fuss — a CIP decree,
Reimbursements neat, rules tidy as can be. 🥕

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title 'Simplify EBBO section' accurately summarizes the main change—streamlining and clarifying the EBBO documentation section.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description provides context for the changes and mentions why they were made, though it lacks detailed structured formatting and contains a typo ('fied' instead of 'fixed').
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch fix_ebbo_section

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between fe76c00 and ea5857e.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• docs/cow-protocol/reference/core/auctions/ebbo_specifics.md (2 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

🪛 LanguageTool

docs/cow-protocol/reference/core/auctions/ebbo_specifics.md

[uncategorized] ~17-~17: If this is a compound adjective that modifies the following noun, use a hyphen.
Context: ...e team’s monitoring infrastructure or a third party reaching out (for example by the user t...

(EN_COMPOUND_ADJECTIVE_INTERNAL)

🔇 Additional comments (1)

docs/cow-protocol/reference/core/auctions/ebbo_specifics.md (1)

17-36: Inconsistency between AI summary and actual changes.

The AI summary claims "Removed the denoting flow involving deny-listing, forum posting, and forum-based voting; escalations now rely on a CIP-based slashing flow," but line 30 (which is not marked as changed) still describes the full forum escalation pathway: deny-listing → forum post → Snapshot vote after 72 hours.

Clarify whether the escalation section (line 30) was intended to be modified to remove the forum-based flow as the summary describes, or whether the summary's characterization of the changes is inaccurate.

Tip

📝 Customizable high-level summaries are now available in beta!

You can now customize how CodeRabbit generates the high-level summary in your pull requests — including its content, structure, tone, and formatting.

• Provide your own instructions using the high_level_summary_instructions setting.
• Format the summary however you like (bullet lists, tables, multi-section layouts, contributor stats, etc.).
• Use high_level_summary_in_walkthrough to move the summary from the description to the walkthrough section.

Example instruction:

"Divide the high-level summary into five sections:

1. 📝 Description — Summarize the main change in 50–60 words, explaining what was done.
2. 📓 References — List relevant issues, discussions, documentation, or related PRs.
3. 📦 Dependencies & Requirements — Mention any new/updated dependencies, environment variable changes, or configuration updates.
4. 📊 Contributor Summary — Include a Markdown table showing contributions:
   | Contributor | Lines Added | Lines Removed | Files Changed |
5. ✔️ Additional Notes — Add any extra reviewer context.
   Keep each section concise (under 200 words) and use bullet or numbered lists for clarity."

Note: This feature is currently in beta for Pro-tier users, and pricing will be announced later.

---

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: 1

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 7408f18 and 05c03c3.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• docs/cow-protocol/reference/core/auctions/ebbo_specifics.md (2 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

🪛 LanguageTool

docs/cow-protocol/reference/core/auctions/ebbo_specifics.md

[uncategorized] ~17-~17: If this is a compound adjective that modifies the following noun, use a hyphen.
Context: ...e team’s monitoring infrastructure or a third party reaching out (for example by the user t...

(EN_COMPOUND_ADJECTIVE_INTERNAL)

🪛 markdownlint-cli2 (0.18.1)

docs/cow-protocol/reference/core/auctions/ebbo_specifics.md

22-22: Unordered list indentation
Expected: 0; Actual: 2

(MD007, ul-indent)

🔇 Additional comments (2)

docs/cow-protocol/reference/core/auctions/ebbo_specifics.md (2)

17-26: Verify content clarity and completeness.

The reworded reimbursement procedures section simplifies the language effectively. However, please confirm:

1. Line 17: The phrase "reaching out" is now the primary verb describing how violations are reported—verify this matches the intended procedural flow from the original documentation.
2. Lines 21–22: The reworded instruction now allows reimbursement "from the rewards address" as an alternative. Ensure this provides sufficient clarity and doesn't introduce ambiguity about who bears responsibility or how accountability is traced.
3. Line 24: The "72 hours of this notification" timeline is clear, but confirm this aligns with the escalation timeline described in the Slashing section (line 30).

---

36-36: Approve content simplification.

The revised paragraph on bond replenishment is clearer and better integrated. The removal of redundant post-slash behavior description and the addition of CoW DAO participation language improves the flow and reduces duplication of CIP-referenced procedures.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

docs/cow-protocol/reference/core/auctions/ebbo_specifics.md (1)

17-17: Consider hyphenating "third-party" for consistency with technical writing conventions.

While "third party" as a noun phrase is grammatically acceptable, hyphenating it to "third-party" is increasingly standard in technical documentation for clarity and consistency. The static analysis tool flagged this pattern.

Consider applying this change if your style guide prefers hyphenation:

-The following steps are taken, in case an EBBO violation is detected, either by the core team's monitoring infrastructure or a third party reaching out (for example by the user themselves or by solvers).
+The following steps are taken, in case an EBBO violation is detected, either by the core team's monitoring infrastructure or a third-party reaching out (for example by the user themselves or by solvers).

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 05c03c3 and fe76c00.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• docs/cow-protocol/reference/core/auctions/ebbo_specifics.md (2 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

🪛 LanguageTool

docs/cow-protocol/reference/core/auctions/ebbo_specifics.md

[uncategorized] ~17-~17: If this is a compound adjective that modifies the following noun, use a hyphen.
Context: ...e team’s monitoring infrastructure or a third party reaching out (for example by the user t...

(EN_COMPOUND_ADJECTIVE_INTERNAL)

🔇 Additional comments (2)

docs/cow-protocol/reference/core/auctions/ebbo_specifics.md (2)

19-26: Well-structured reordering of reimbursement procedures.

The reordering improves logical flow: calculate loss → request reimbursement → enforce deadline. The markdown indentation (3 spaces) now correctly follows linting standards, addressing the previous formatting concern. The addition of the rewards address fallback option on line 22 provides useful procedural flexibility.

---

30-36: ** Discrepancy between AI summary and actual escalation mechanism content.**

The AI summary states that the deny-listing, forum posting, and Snapshot vote flow was removed to create "a concise CIP-based slashing flow." However, line 30 in the current file still contains the complete deny-listing and forum posting procedure and is not marked as changed. Meanwhile, line 36 appears to be new content about bond replenishment.

This creates an inconsistency: either the escalation mechanism was not simplified as claimed, or the file's current state does not reflect the changes described in the summary. Please clarify whether line 30's content (deny-listing, forum post, 72-hour wait, Snapshot vote) remains intentionally or if it should have been removed/simplified.

[acanidio-econ]

The English could probably be improved, but I leave that to someone else. No comments on the content