🎨 Palette: [UX 개선] 스티키 헤더 앵커 링크 겹침 현상 해결

[seonghobae]

💡 What

styles.css 파일의 html 태그에 scroll-padding-top: 81px; 속성을 추가했습니다.

🎯 Why

스티키 헤더(높이 81px)를 사용하는 웹페이지에서 앵커 링크를 클릭하여 이동할 때, 브라우저의 기본 스크롤 동작이 타겟 요소를 뷰포트 맨 위로 맞추기 때문에 헤더 아래로 콘텐츠가 가려지는 문제가 있었습니다. 이로 인해 사용자가 목적지에 도착했을 때 제목이 가려져 혼란을 겪을 수 있습니다.

📸 Before/After

• Before: 앵커 링크 클릭 시 대상 섹션의 제목이 상단 고정 헤더 뒤에 가려짐.
• After: 대상 섹션이 헤더 바로 아래에 올바르게 위치함.

♿ Accessibility

• 앵커 링크 탐색 시 대상 콘텐츠가 완전히 보이도록 보장하여, 키보드 및 스크린 리더 사용자를 포함한 모든 사용자가 맥락을 잃지 않고 콘텐츠를 이용할 수 있도록 접근성을 개선했습니다.

---

PR created automatically by Jules for task 15849613391618775867 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.

[opencode-agent]

Pull request overview

OpenCode model attempts did not emit a usable current-head control block, so the approval gate used deterministic current-head evidence instead of model prose.

Findings

No blocking findings.

Summary

• Result: APPROVE
• Reason: coverage-evidence passed, peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, mergeability was clean, and no unresolved human review threads remained.
• Deterministic evidence: current-head changed-file evidence (.gitignore, styles.css); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
• Model outcomes: primary=failed, fallback=failed, second_fallback=failed, catalog_fallback=unknown.
• Head SHA: a298d69c2664456c0daaae82b6387dbf9c9dd6fe
• Workflow run: 28384077045
• Workflow attempt: 1

Deterministic fallback approval was used only after model-output instability and did not bypass coverage, failed-check, mergeability, or human-review gates.

Change Flow DAG

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: a298d69c2664456c0daaae82b6387dbf9c9dd6fe
• Workflow run: 28459522929
• Workflow attempt: 1
• Gate result: REQUEST_CHANGES (approval step)

Pull request overview

OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.

Findings

1. HIGH .gitignore:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency

• Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
• Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
• Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
• Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
• Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.

Summary

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
• Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
• Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.gitignore, styles.css); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
• Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
• Head SHA: a298d69c2664456c0daaae82b6387dbf9c9dd6fe
• Workflow run: 28459522929
• Workflow attempt: 1

No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

Pull request overview

OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.

Findings

1. HIGH .gitignore:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency

• Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
• Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
• Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
• Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
• Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.

Summary

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
• Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
• Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.gitignore, styles.css); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
• Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
• Head SHA: a298d69c2664456c0daaae82b6387dbf9c9dd6fe
• Workflow run: 28459522929
• Workflow attempt: 1

No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

HIGH OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency

• Problem: the model pool exhausted without a valid current-head review control block, so this changed line cannot be approved from deterministic check state alone.
• Impact: PR-intent mismatches, missing files, robustness bugs, UX/DX regressions, and CodeGraph-backed flow changes could be missed.
• Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or add the missing source/test/docs/generated verification evidence needed for a source-backed approval.
• Verification: rerun the OpenCode Review workflow and confirm it emits APPROVE or source-backed REQUEST_CHANGES for this head SHA.