bump goldsky cli 8.6.6 -> 13.3.4

[thedavidmeister]

Summary

• Bumps goldsky cli from 8.6.6 to 13.3.4 in the dev shell.
• Updates per-platform sha256 hashes for the new release.

Test plan

• nix develop -c goldsky --version reports 13.3.4 on aarch64-darwin
• Verify on x86_64-linux / x86_64-darwin in CI

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores
  • Updated goldsky dependency to version 13.3.4 (previously 8.6.6) with corresponding system configuration updates

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: dd9d282e-ea30-4266-80cb-ff4b24babbc8

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 9babaac and 436da5c.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• flake.nix

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The goldsky Nix derivation in flake.nix was updated from version 8.6.6 to 13.3.4, with the release name and system-specific SHA hashes updated accordingly for x86_64-linux, x86_64-darwin, and aarch64-darwin architectures.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Dependency Version Bump flake.nix	Updated goldsky derivation version from 8.6.6 to 13.3.4; updated download URL release name and replaced SHA hashes for three system architectures.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

Poem

🐰 A version hops from eight to thirteen,
With hashes fresh, no bugs in between,
Three systems patched with cryptographic care,
Goldsky shines brighter through the Nix air! ✨

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly and accurately summarizes the main change: bumping the goldsky CLI version from 8.6.6 to 13.3.4, which is the primary purpose of this pull request.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

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

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch bump-goldsky-13.3.4

---

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.}

[github-actions]

@coderabbitai assess this PR size classification for the totality of the PR with the following criterias and report it in your comment:

S/M/L PR Classification Guidelines:

This guide helps classify merged pull requests by effort and complexity rather than just line count. The goal is to assess the difficulty and scope of changes after they have been completed.

Small (S)

Characteristics:

• Simple bug fixes, typos, or minor refactoring
• Single-purpose changes affecting 1-2 files
• Documentation updates
• Configuration tweaks
• Changes that require minimal context to review

Review Effort: Would have taken 5-10 minutes

Examples:

• Fix typo in variable name
• Update README with new instructions
• Adjust configuration values
• Simple one-line bug fixes
• Import statement cleanup

Medium (M)

Characteristics:

• Feature additions or enhancements
• Refactoring that touches multiple files but maintains existing behavior
• Breaking changes with backward compatibility
• Changes requiring some domain knowledge to review

Review Effort: Would have taken 15-30 minutes

Examples:

• Add new feature or component
• Refactor common utility functions
• Update dependencies with minor breaking changes
• Add new component with tests
• Performance optimizations
• More complex bug fixes

Large (L)

Characteristics:

• Major feature implementations
• Breaking changes or API redesigns
• Complex refactoring across multiple modules
• New architectural patterns or significant design changes
• Changes requiring deep context and multiple review rounds

Review Effort: Would have taken 45+ minutes

Examples:

• Complete new feature with frontend/backend changes
• Protocol upgrades or breaking changes
• Major architectural refactoring
• Framework or technology upgrades

Additional Factors to Consider

When deciding between sizes, also consider:

• Test coverage impact: More comprehensive test changes lean toward larger classification
• Risk level: Changes to critical systems bump up a size category
• Team familiarity: Novel patterns or technologies increase complexity

Notes:

• the assessment must be for the totality of the PR, that means comparing the base branch to the last commit of the PR
• the assessment output must be exactly one of: S, M or L (single-line comment) in format of: SIZE={S/M/L}
• do not include any additional text, only the size classification
• your assessment comment must not include tips or additional sections
• do NOT tag me or anyone else on your comment

[coderabbitai]

Tip

For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes.

SIZE=S