"The variable name `huge` is somewhat informal. Consider a more descriptive name like exceeds-size-limit? or too-large? to better convey the intent and follow the pattern of boolean variable names like skippable seen elsewhere in the codebase."

I downvoted and commented with:

"Dear copilot, I don't wish to impose on your sense of propriety but your suggestion seems to hail from outside of the Clojure ecosystem, demands unnecessary verbosity and, strangely, explicit formality. It would be helpful not to let Java and Objective-C codebases influence your suggestions for Clojure. Question mark suffixed vars and bindings, while common in Clojure codebases, are not used in clojure.core as they are for functions, and some Clojurists prefer not to extend the convention. And why not `huge?`? Most important, such a killjoy suggestion (particularly when the adjective selected for the binding was succinct and apt: epitomizing Clojure's compact elegance) which attempts to sanitize our codebase of lightness and mirth, is unwelcome. It stands as further evidence that your design and configuration is often overreaching and distracting with the ultimate effect of cheapening your review value reputation. With repetition of marginal output, your suggestions become noise to users and we may ignore high quality insights amidst the AI slop."