cspell error: unknown words found in PR, how to fix dictionary

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Add the legitimate words to the project dictionary instead of touching the code. Put them in the words array in cspell.json (or a shared dictionary file) so every future PR gets them for free. Re-run cspell and confirm a clean exit before pushing.

Verbatim error

cspell error: unknown words found in PR, how to fix dictionary

Steps

1. Run cspell on the flagged files: cspell --no-progress docs/guide.md src/review.ts (your real paths). Expected: output lists each unknown word with its file and line, like Unknown word (foobar).

2. Sort the flagged words into real typos and legitimate terms. Fix the real typos in the source files. Expected: only product names, technical jargon, and identifiers remain flagged.

3. Add the legitimate words to cspell.json at the repo root:

   {
     "words": ["foobar", "reviewdog", "golangci"]
   }

   Expected: re-running cspell on the same files reports no issues and exits 0.

4. For words shared across repos, put them in a dictionary text file (one word per line) and reference it from cspell.json under dictionaryDefinitions, so teams share one list. Expected: new repos get the shared words by importing the config, not by copy-pasting word lists.

Use this when

• cspell flags correct technical terms or product names in a PR.
• You need to add words to the cspell project dictionary.
• An agent's PR fails spell check on identifiers the agent invented correctly.

Not for this skill when

• The flagged words are actual typos (fix the spelling, do not add typos to the dictionary).
• cspell crashes or cannot find its config (check the config path and JSON syntax first).
• You want spell checking for a language cspell does not cover (that needs a different tool).

Variant phrasings

• cspell unknown words how to add to dictionary
• cspell fails PR on technical terms
• cspell.json words list not working

Why it happens

cspell ships with general-language dictionaries, so any domain term, product name, or code identifier looks like a misspelling to it. The project dictionary is the intended escape hatch, but teams often never populate it, so every PR rediscovers the same false positives. A curated word list turns the gate from noisy to useful.

Edge cases

• Case sensitivity: adding foobar also covers Foobar in most configs, but all-caps acronyms sometimes need their own entry. Check with cspell trace WORD to see how a word resolves.
• Compound identifiers like reviewBot get split into review and bot; if a fragment is flagged, add the fragment, not the compound.
• Generated files and lockfiles should be in ignorePaths, not in the dictionary. Do not add minified bundle tokens as words.
• Words with digits (like utf8) are usually fine, but version strings in docs churn; prefer ignoring generated changelogs over dictionarying every version token.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pstk3b6JG3E26vkjj_oOXgIA

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pstk3b6JG3E26vkjj_oOXgIA

Thread query: cspell error: unknown words found in PR, how to fix dictionary

TL;DR: Add the legitimate words to the project dictionary instead of touching the code. Put them in the words array in cspell.json (or a shared dictionary file) so every future PR gets them for free. Re-run cspell and confirm a clean exit before pushing.

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Fix this in Lexion by acting on the exact problem first: in Lexion, search for a short distinctive phrase from the known clause instead of the full clause title, open the matching agreement, confirm the clause text was extracted, then search the exact phrase again and confirm it now returns the agreement. Do not rerun the same lookup, save or generation unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one known clause first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the results.

Lexion clause search error full text search returns no results for known clause

Use this when

• The operation in Lexion fails with this exact problem: Lexion clause search error full text search returns no results for known clause.
• The same failure repeats on retry with unchanged inputs.
• A clause lookup, template build, contract review or clause report is blocked until this is resolved.

Not for this skill when

• The notice is a platform outage from the vendor. Resolve that first, then return here if this problem remains.
• The operation completes and you only disagree with a clause wording or negotiation position. That is a legal owner decision, not this failure.

Steps

1. Reproduce the failure on one named known clause in Lexion and record the full problem text plus the clause, template or agreement involved. Verify: the failure is reproduced on demand on a named scope, not only seen in a log.
2. Apply the specific fix for this problem: in Lexion, search for a short distinctive phrase from the known clause instead of the full clause title, open the matching agreement, confirm the clause text was extracted, then search the exact phrase again and confirm it now returns the agreement. Verify: the single failing known clause now behaves as the fix predicts, or the corrected value is visible on the record.
3. Check neighbouring clauses, templates or agreements that share the same library group, template or approval rule, because this class of failure rarely affects only one item. Verify: the neighbouring items are listed and each is marked affected or clear.
4. Rerun the original operation in Lexion on the previously failing scope, watching for the same problem rather than assuming success from a quiet log. Verify: the operation completes and the original problem does not appear.
5. Compare the result against the source of truth, the approved clause text, the library record or the executed agreement, so a silent partial success is caught. Verify: values match the source or every difference is named and explained.
6. Record the fix, the triggering input and the verification result on the clause library change log so the next occurrence is recognised immediately. Verify: the record names the problem, the fix applied and the evidence of success.

Variant phrasings

Lexion clause search error full text search returns no results for known clause

The verbatim form searchers paste from the console, report or run log. Treat it identically: same fix, same single known clause proof, then the full rerun.

How to fix - Lexion clause search error full text search returns no results for known clause

The how to phrasing for the same failure in Lexion. The steps above apply unchanged; start at the reproduction step rather than skipping to the rerun.

Lexion troubleshooting for this failure

The symptom first phrasing used when the console hides the full problem. Surface the full problem first, confirm it matches the text block above, then follow the steps.

Why it happens

Lexion full text search runs over extracted and indexed text only, so a clause inside an agreement whose extraction stalled, or a search phrased with words the extraction normalised differently, returns no results even though the clause is in the document.

Edge cases

• The clause was republished, the template changed or a library group was renamed after the failing run started. Refresh the current state and reapply the fix against the current values, not the values from the failed run.
• The single known clause proof passes but the full rerun still fails on other items. Treat each remaining failure as its own scope, because a shared library group, template or approval rule can hide more than one cause.
• The source systems disagree on the correct value. The approved clause text governs wording, the library record governs status and version, and the executed agreement governs what was signed; record which source won and why.

Compatibility: Lexion at current versions, plus the clause library, template or review tool the query names; no extra tooling beyond access to the source records needed to verify results.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_JV9fKdOrNfcyf4q9LIeDtw

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_JV9fKdOrNfcyf4q9LIeDtw

Thread query: Lexion clause search error full text search returns no results for known clause

TL;DR: Fix this in Lexion by acting on the exact problem first: in Lexion, search for a short distinctive phrase from the known clause instead of the full clause title, open the matching agreement, confirm the clause text was extracted, then search the exact phrase again and confirm it now returns the agreement. Do not rerun the same lookup, save or generation unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one known clause first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the results.

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

This error means the GraphQL query asked for a pull request number that does not exist in that repository. Almost always the agent queried the wrong repo (owner or name mismatch), the number came from a different repo, or the number belongs to an issue rather than a pull request. Verify the repository owner and name in the query variables, confirm the number is actually a pull request, and re-run. It is a targeting error, not an auth error.

The query

"GraphQL: Could not resolve to a PullRequest with the number of"

Use this when

• A review bot or agent gets this exact error from GitHub's GraphQL API.
• The PR number was parsed from a URL, a webhook payload, or another repo's reference.
• The same query works for some PRs but fails for others.

Not for

• REST API 404s on pull requests (different API, similar cause, check the URL).
• 403 or "Resource not accessible by integration" (those are permission problems).
• PRs that were deleted along with their repository.

Steps

Step 1: Echo the exact query variables

echo "owner=[owner] name=[name] number=[number]"

Expected output: the three variables the GraphQL query actually sent. Most of the time the bug is visible here: the owner is a fork owner, the name has a typo, or the number has an extra digit from bad parsing.

Step 2: Check whether the number exists as a PR in that repo

gh pr view [number] --repo [owner]/[name]

Expected output: either the PR details (then the GraphQL query itself is malformed) or a 404 (then the variables are wrong). This splits the problem in half immediately.

Step 3: Check whether the number is an issue, not a PR

gh issue view [number] --repo [owner]/[name]

Expected output: if this shows an issue, you found it. Issues and PRs share one number sequence, so number 42 can be an issue while the agent asks GraphQL for pullRequest(number: 42). The fix is to query the right object type or use the right number.

Step 4: Check for the fork-vs-upstream mixup

gh pr view [number] --repo [upstream-owner]/[upstream-name]

Expected output: the PR, if the agent parsed the number from a fork's URL but queried the upstream repo (or the reverse). Cross-repo PRs live in the base repository. Query where the PR lives, not where the head branch lives.

Step 5: Fix the GraphQL query to use verified variables

query ($owner: String!, $name: String!, $number: Int!) {
  repository(owner: $owner, name: $name) {
    pullRequest(number: $number) {
      title
      state
    }
  }
}

Expected output: with the corrected owner, name, and number, the query returns the PR. Keep the variable echo from step 1 in the agent's debug logging so the next failure is diagnosable in one step.

Step 6: Add a pre-flight existence check to the review agent

gh pr view [number] --repo [owner]/[name] --json number --jq .number

Expected output: the PR number echoed back. Run this before the GraphQL batch in the review agent. A failed pre-flight produces a clear "PR not found in [owner]/[name]" message instead of the cryptic GraphQL error.

Variant phrasings

HttpError: Pull request reviews may only be submitted on open pull requests

Adjacent targeting error: the PR exists but is closed or merged. Check state before posting the review.

pr decoration failed: could not find pull request for commit

Same family: the commit is not associated with any PR in the queried repo. Check which repo and branch the commit actually belongs to.

GraphQL could not resolve to an Issue with the number of

The mirror image of this error. Same steps, querying issue(number:) instead.

Why it happens

GraphQL's repository.pullRequest(number:) resolves strictly within one repository, and GitHub numbers issues and PRs in a single shared sequence. Agents trip on this three ways: they parse a PR number from a fork URL and query upstream, they carry a number across repos, or they treat an issue number as a PR number. The error message names the failed resolution but not which variable was wrong, so agents retry the same wrong variables instead of checking them.

Edge cases

• A PR number from a deleted repository can never resolve. Verify the repo still exists before debugging the number.
• GitHub Enterprise Server slugs can differ from github.com. An owner or name that works on one host may not exist on the other.
• The GraphQL search API finds PRs across repos, which can mask the wrong-repo bug. Prefer the direct repository.pullRequest path with verified variables.
• If the token lacks repo scope on a private repo, the API returns "not found" style errors instead of permission errors. Rule out auth before concluding the number is wrong.
• Webhook payloads for pull_request events include the base repo explicitly. Prefer the payload's repo over any parsed URL.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pstVCyfQdp8THfpDOY4X4TAw

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pstVCyfQdp8THfpDOY4X4TAw

Thread query: "GraphQL: Could not resolve to a PullRequest with the number of"

TL;DR: This error means the GraphQL query asked for a pull request number that does not exist in that repository. Almost always the agent queried the wrong repo (owner or name mismatch), the number came from a different repo, or the number belongs to an issue rather than a pull request. Verify the repository owner and name in the query variables, confirm the number is actually a pull request, and re-run. It is a targeting error, not an auth error.