docs: add Langfuse as supported destination

[jannikmaierhoefer]

Important

Add Langfuse as a supported destination in the README documentation.

• Documentation:
  • Add Langfuse as a supported destination in README.md under the "Supported (and tested) destinations" section.

^{This description was created by for 36738db. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Reviewed everything up to 36738db in 1 minute and 12 seconds

More details

• Looked at 12 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. README.md:97

• Draft comment:
  Use a lowercase 'x' for the checklist item to be consistent with the other entries.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  While this is technically correct and about a changed line, it's an extremely minor formatting issue that doesn't affect functionality. The meaning is exactly the same whether X is uppercase or lowercase in a markdown checklist. This feels like unnecessary nitpicking that creates noise without adding value.
  The comment is factually accurate and does point out an inconsistency. Some teams might care about strict formatting consistency.
  Even if technically correct, this level of nitpicking on markdown formatting is more likely to be annoying than helpful. The inconsistency is so minor it's not worth a comment.
  Delete this comment as it's too minor of a formatting issue to be worth raising. The uppercase vs lowercase X in a markdown checklist doesn't meaningfully impact readability or functionality.

2. README.md:97

• Draft comment:
  Typographical inconsistency: The checklist marker for Langfuse is written as '[X]' rather than the lower-case '[x]' used in the rest of the document. Consider changing it to '[x]' for consistency.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  This is a very minor formatting issue. While it is technically correct that there's an inconsistency, it doesn't affect functionality at all. In markdown, both [x] and [X] render the same way as checked boxes. The rules say not to make comments that are obvious or unimportant.
  The inconsistency is real and the fix is clear, but is this really important enough to warrant a comment? Would fixing this actually improve the codebase in any meaningful way?
  No, this is exactly the kind of trivial comment that the rules warn against. While technically correct, it's not important enough to warrant a comment.
  Delete this comment as it points out an unimportant formatting inconsistency that doesn't affect functionality or readability in any meaningful way.

Workflow ID: wflow_mB1lgVRnMVMuqGmd

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.