Skip to content

fix(ci): restore PR-head CodeQL SARIF for ruleset merge gate - #912

Merged
seonghobae merged 9 commits into
developfrom
fix/codeql-pr-head-sarif-merge-gate
Jul 4, 2026
Merged

seonghobae merged 9 commits into
developfrom
fix/codeql-pr-head-sarif-merge-gate

Conversation

@seonghobae

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Root cause

Approved PRs (#892, #897, #898, #901, #911) are blocked with:
Code scanning is waiting for results from CodeQL.

The local codeql.yml used upload: never while GitHub default setup is not configured, so no CodeQL analyses exist on PR heads despite the ruleset requiring CodeQL.

Fix

  • Enable upload: always with explicit PR-head ref/sha on CodeQL analyze.
  • Treat gh pr checks --required "no required checks reported" as a ruleset wait state in pr_governance_gate.sh.

Verification

  • bash scripts/ci/test_pr_governance_gate.sh
  • pytest tests/test_release_governance.py -k "codeql or code_scanning or pr_governance"

CodeQL workflow used upload:never while default setup is not configured,
leaving approved PRs blocked on missing CodeQL code-scanning evidence.
Upload SARIF on pull_request heads and treat empty gh pr checks --required
as a ruleset wait state instead of a hard governance blocker.
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Jul 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

PR governance metadata gate is not ready for 7e13e03824c52d26137635f4152f67cd1631a6ad:

  • Required check metadata could not be read: no required checks reported on the 'fix/codeql-pr-head-sarif-merge-gate' branch.

@seonghobae
seonghobae enabled auto-merge July 4, 2026 08:19
@opencode-agent

opencode-agent Bot commented Jul 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

OpenCode Review Overview

  • Head SHA: 7e13e03824c52d26137635f4152f67cd1631a6ad
  • Workflow run: 28708601459
  • Workflow attempt: 1
  • Gate result: APPROVE (approval step)

Pull request overview

OpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues.

Findings

No blocking findings.

Summary

Approval sufficiency: bounded evidence supplied affirmative approval evidence for changed files, coverage/docstring posture, risk surfaces, and current-head verification; approval is not based merely on the absence of known blockers.
Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence was initialized and bounded current-head evidence reviewed for changed-file evidence including .github/workflows/codeql.yml, backend/tests/test_release_governance.py, scripts/ci/pr_governance_gate.sh, scripts/ci/test_pr_governance_gate.sh.
Linter/static: workflow/static review evidence is bounded by the current-head GitHub Checks gate and changed-file evidence.
TDD/regression: coverage execution evidence and focused changed hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Coverage: coverage execution evidence reports supported repository test suites passed.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports configured repository docstring gates passed or docstring coverage was advisory.
DAG: CodeGraph/source-backed behavior map connects .github/workflows/codeql.yml to the affected review, runtime, or workflow path and required checks.
PoC/execution: coverage-evidence job executed on the current head and reported PASS.
DDD/domain: workflow and repository-governance invariants were reviewed against changed files in bounded evidence.
CDD/context: CodeGraph evidence, changed-file history, and focused hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Similar issues: changed-file history evidence was reviewed for comparable local precedents.
Claim/concept check: bounded evidence, repository source, current-head workflow evidence, and, where numeric, scientific, statistical, or literature-backed claims are affected, original-paper/formula evidence and parameter-recovery expectations were used for claims.
Standards search: standards and external-source checks are delegated to configured OpenCode web_search/Context7/DeepWiki sources when applicable; no evidence-backed standards blocker is present in bounded evidence.
Compatibility/convention: changed workflow/script conventions, object naming, and reserved-word safety for schema/API/config/code surfaces were checked in bounded evidence.
Breaking-change/backcompat: deployment evidence and changed-file history were checked for backward-compatibility risk.
Performance: changed surfaces were checked for performance risk in bounded evidence.
Developer experience: changed automation, review, test, setup, and maintenance surfaces were checked for helpful or obstructive DX impact in bounded evidence.
User experience: connected user, operator, API, CLI, documentation, review-comment, status-check, rendering, and workflow-reader behavior was checked for contradictions against code, docs, and tests in bounded evidence.
Visual/DOM: Playwright visual, DOM locator, ARIA snapshot, console, and responsive evidence were checked when a web UI surface was present; for non-web surfaces, API/CLI/log/docs/workflow interaction evidence was reviewed instead.
Accessibility/i18n: accessibility, localization, and human-readable text surfaces were checked where UI, CLI, API message, docs, logs, or review text changed.
Supply-chain/license: dependency, package, model, container, and external-tool changes were checked in bounded evidence.
Packaging: package, build, test, lint, and security contracts were checked in bounded evidence.
Security/privacy: workflow-token, review-gate, and repository-automation security/privacy boundaries were checked in bounded evidence.

  • Result: APPROVE
  • Reason: PR fixes a CI issue with CodeQL SARIF uploads, ensuring compliance with the ruleset merge gate.
  • Head SHA: 7e13e03824c52d26137635f4152f67cd1631a6ad
  • Workflow run: 28708601459
  • Workflow attempt: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Workflow: codeql.yml"]
  S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: codeql.yml"]
  R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Backend: test_release_governance.py"]
  S2 --> I2["API and service runtime"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Backend: test_release_governance.py"]
  R2 --> V2["backend tests"]
  Evidence --> S3["CI script (2 files)"]
  S3 --> I3["review and security gate shell path"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: CI script (2 files)"]
  R3 --> V3["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
Loading

opencode-agent[bot]
opencode-agent Bot previously approved these changes Jul 4, 2026

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues.

Findings

No blocking findings.

Summary

Approval sufficiency: bounded evidence supplied affirmative approval evidence for changed files, coverage/docstring posture, risk surfaces, and current-head verification; approval is not based merely on the absence of known blockers.
Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence was initialized and bounded current-head evidence reviewed for changed-file evidence including .github/workflows/codeql.yml, backend/tests/test_release_governance.py, scripts/ci/pr_governance_gate.sh, scripts/ci/test_pr_governance_gate.sh.
Linter/static: workflow/static review evidence is bounded by the current-head GitHub Checks gate and changed-file evidence.
TDD/regression: coverage execution evidence and focused changed hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Coverage: coverage execution evidence reports supported repository test suites passed.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports configured repository docstring gates passed or docstring coverage was advisory.
DAG: CodeGraph/source-backed behavior map connects .github/workflows/codeql.yml to the affected review, runtime, or workflow path and required checks.
PoC/execution: coverage-evidence job executed on the current head and reported PASS.
DDD/domain: workflow and repository-governance invariants were reviewed against changed files in bounded evidence.
CDD/context: CodeGraph evidence, changed-file history, and focused hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Similar issues: changed-file history evidence was reviewed for comparable local precedents.
Claim/concept check: bounded evidence, repository source, current-head workflow evidence, and, where numeric, scientific, statistical, or literature-backed claims are affected, original-paper/formula evidence and parameter-recovery expectations were used for claims.
Standards search: standards and external-source checks are delegated to configured OpenCode web_search/Context7/DeepWiki sources when applicable; no evidence-backed standards blocker is present in bounded evidence.
Compatibility/convention: changed workflow/script conventions, object naming, and reserved-word safety for schema/API/config/code surfaces were checked in bounded evidence.
Breaking-change/backcompat: deployment evidence and changed-file history were checked for backward-compatibility risk.
Performance: changed surfaces were checked for performance risk in bounded evidence.
Developer experience: changed automation, review, test, setup, and maintenance surfaces were checked for helpful or obstructive DX impact in bounded evidence.
User experience: connected user, operator, API, CLI, documentation, review-comment, status-check, rendering, and workflow-reader behavior was checked for contradictions against code, docs, and tests in bounded evidence.
Visual/DOM: Playwright visual, DOM locator, ARIA snapshot, console, and responsive evidence were checked when a web UI surface was present; for non-web surfaces, API/CLI/log/docs/workflow interaction evidence was reviewed instead.
Accessibility/i18n: accessibility, localization, and human-readable text surfaces were checked where UI, CLI, API message, docs, logs, or review text changed.
Supply-chain/license: dependency, package, model, container, and external-tool changes were checked in bounded evidence.
Packaging: package, build, test, lint, and security contracts were checked in bounded evidence.
Security/privacy: workflow-token, review-gate, and repository-automation security/privacy boundaries were checked in bounded evidence.

  • Result: APPROVE
  • Reason: Correctly fixes CI configuration gap for CodeQL merge gate
  • Head SHA: 2a083da5e5c0b5a122f3baa362df79f0c4a73904
  • Workflow run: 28698898604
  • Workflow attempt: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Workflow: codeql.yml"]
  S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: codeql.yml"]
  R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Backend: test_release_governance.py"]
  S2 --> I2["API and service runtime"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Backend: test_release_governance.py"]
  R2 --> V2["backend tests"]
  Evidence --> S3["CI script (2 files)"]
  S3 --> I3["review and security gate shell path"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: CI script (2 files)"]
  R3 --> V3["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
Loading

Ruleset merge checks evaluate refs/pull/<n>/merge as well as PR heads.
Upload secondary SARIF to the merge preview ref so security-workflow PRs
and post-fix develop PRs satisfy code_scanning without admin bypass.
Uploading merge-preview SARIF in the same job conflicts with head uploads.
Run dedicated merge-preview CodeQL/Scorecard jobs that scan github.sha and
upload to refs/pull/<n>/merge.
@github-advanced-security

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

You are seeing this message because GitHub Code Scanning has recently been set up for this repository, or this pull request contains the workflow file for the Code Scanning tool.

What Enabling Code Scanning Means:

  • The 'Security' tab will display more code scanning analysis results (e.g., for the default branch).
  • Depending on your configuration and choice of analysis tool, future pull requests will be annotated with code scanning analysis results.
  • You will be able to see the analysis results for the pull request's branch on this overview once the scans have completed and the checks have passed.

For more information about GitHub Code Scanning, check out the documentation.

Use the canonical pull merge ref for checkout and SARIF upload so
code-scanning evidence matches the merge commit GitHub rulesets evaluate.
opencode-agent[bot]
opencode-agent Bot previously approved these changes Jul 4, 2026

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues.

Findings

No blocking findings.

Summary

Approval sufficiency: bounded evidence supplied affirmative approval evidence for changed files, coverage/docstring posture, risk surfaces, and current-head verification; approval is not based merely on the absence of known blockers.
Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence was initialized and bounded current-head evidence reviewed for changed-file evidence including .github/workflows/codeql.yml, .github/workflows/scorecard.yml, backend/tests/test_release_governance.py, scripts/ci/pr_governance_gate.sh, scripts/ci/test_pr_governance_gate.sh.
Linter/static: workflow/static review evidence is bounded by the current-head GitHub Checks gate and changed-file evidence.
TDD/regression: coverage execution evidence and focused changed hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Coverage: coverage execution evidence reports supported repository test suites passed.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports configured repository docstring gates passed or docstring coverage was advisory.
DAG: CodeGraph/source-backed behavior map connects .github/workflows/codeql.yml to the affected review, runtime, or workflow path and required checks.
PoC/execution: coverage-evidence job executed on the current head and reported PASS.
DDD/domain: workflow and repository-governance invariants were reviewed against changed files in bounded evidence.
CDD/context: CodeGraph evidence, changed-file history, and focused hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Similar issues: changed-file history evidence was reviewed for comparable local precedents.
Claim/concept check: bounded evidence, repository source, current-head workflow evidence, and, where numeric, scientific, statistical, or literature-backed claims are affected, original-paper/formula evidence and parameter-recovery expectations were used for claims.
Standards search: standards and external-source checks are delegated to configured OpenCode web_search/Context7/DeepWiki sources when applicable; no evidence-backed standards blocker is present in bounded evidence.
Compatibility/convention: changed workflow/script conventions, object naming, and reserved-word safety for schema/API/config/code surfaces were checked in bounded evidence.
Breaking-change/backcompat: deployment evidence and changed-file history were checked for backward-compatibility risk.
Performance: changed surfaces were checked for performance risk in bounded evidence.
Developer experience: changed automation, review, test, setup, and maintenance surfaces were checked for helpful or obstructive DX impact in bounded evidence.
User experience: connected user, operator, API, CLI, documentation, review-comment, status-check, rendering, and workflow-reader behavior was checked for contradictions against code, docs, and tests in bounded evidence.
Visual/DOM: Playwright visual, DOM locator, ARIA snapshot, console, and responsive evidence were checked when a web UI surface was present; for non-web surfaces, API/CLI/log/docs/workflow interaction evidence was reviewed instead.
Accessibility/i18n: accessibility, localization, and human-readable text surfaces were checked where UI, CLI, API message, docs, logs, or review text changed.
Supply-chain/license: dependency, package, model, container, and external-tool changes were checked in bounded evidence.
Packaging: package, build, test, lint, and security contracts were checked in bounded evidence.
Security/privacy: workflow-token, review-gate, and repository-automation security/privacy boundaries were checked in bounded evidence.

  • Result: APPROVE
  • Reason: Enables CodeQL analysis on PR heads to unblock merge gate
  • Head SHA: 7a0cb71a39266286efcd727c633c3c37cbcabbcb
  • Workflow run: 28704596607
  • Workflow attempt: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Workflow (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Backend: test_release_governance.py"]
  S2 --> I2["API and service runtime"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Backend: test_release_governance.py"]
  R2 --> V2["backend tests"]
  Evidence --> S3["CI script (2 files)"]
  S3 --> I3["review and security gate shell path"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: CI script (2 files)"]
  R3 --> V3["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
Loading

GitHub rotates pull-request merge preview SHAs; pinning uploads to a
resolved SHA left Scorecard evidence on stale commits. Upload to
refs/pull/<n>/merge without an explicit sha so analyses track the ref.
Limit PR #912 to CodeQL and governance gate fixes so merge-preview
Scorecard churn on workflow edits does not block landing the gate repair.
opencode-agent[bot]
opencode-agent Bot previously approved these changes Jul 4, 2026

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues.

Findings

No blocking findings.

Summary

Approval sufficiency: bounded evidence supplied affirmative approval evidence for changed files, coverage/docstring posture, risk surfaces, and current-head verification; approval is not based merely on the absence of known blockers.
Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence was initialized and bounded current-head evidence reviewed for changed-file evidence including .github/workflows/codeql.yml, backend/tests/test_release_governance.py, scripts/ci/pr_governance_gate.sh, scripts/ci/test_pr_governance_gate.sh.
Linter/static: workflow/static review evidence is bounded by the current-head GitHub Checks gate and changed-file evidence.
TDD/regression: coverage execution evidence and focused changed hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Coverage: coverage execution evidence reports supported repository test suites passed.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports configured repository docstring gates passed or docstring coverage was advisory.
DAG: CodeGraph/source-backed behavior map connects .github/workflows/codeql.yml to the affected review, runtime, or workflow path and required checks.
PoC/execution: coverage-evidence job executed on the current head and reported PASS.
DDD/domain: workflow and repository-governance invariants were reviewed against changed files in bounded evidence.
CDD/context: CodeGraph evidence, changed-file history, and focused hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Similar issues: changed-file history evidence was reviewed for comparable local precedents.
Claim/concept check: bounded evidence, repository source, current-head workflow evidence, and, where numeric, scientific, statistical, or literature-backed claims are affected, original-paper/formula evidence and parameter-recovery expectations were used for claims.
Standards search: standards and external-source checks are delegated to configured OpenCode web_search/Context7/DeepWiki sources when applicable; no evidence-backed standards blocker is present in bounded evidence.
Compatibility/convention: changed workflow/script conventions, object naming, and reserved-word safety for schema/API/config/code surfaces were checked in bounded evidence.
Breaking-change/backcompat: deployment evidence and changed-file history were checked for backward-compatibility risk.
Performance: changed surfaces were checked for performance risk in bounded evidence.
Developer experience: changed automation, review, test, setup, and maintenance surfaces were checked for helpful or obstructive DX impact in bounded evidence.
User experience: connected user, operator, API, CLI, documentation, review-comment, status-check, rendering, and workflow-reader behavior was checked for contradictions against code, docs, and tests in bounded evidence.
Visual/DOM: Playwright visual, DOM locator, ARIA snapshot, console, and responsive evidence were checked when a web UI surface was present; for non-web surfaces, API/CLI/log/docs/workflow interaction evidence was reviewed instead.
Accessibility/i18n: accessibility, localization, and human-readable text surfaces were checked where UI, CLI, API message, docs, logs, or review text changed.
Supply-chain/license: dependency, package, model, container, and external-tool changes were checked in bounded evidence.
Packaging: package, build, test, lint, and security contracts were checked in bounded evidence.
Security/privacy: workflow-token, review-gate, and repository-automation security/privacy boundaries were checked in bounded evidence.

  • Result: APPROVE
  • Reason: Restores required CodeQL scanning for PR merge gate
  • Head SHA: 86611f5871c82e77728cb951bcd97458bbc1fad7
  • Workflow run: 28706570118
  • Workflow attempt: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Workflow: codeql.yml"]
  S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: codeql.yml"]
  R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Backend: test_release_governance.py"]
  S2 --> I2["API and service runtime"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Backend: test_release_governance.py"]
  R2 --> V2["backend tests"]
  Evidence --> S3["CI script (2 files)"]
  S3 --> I3["review and security gate shell path"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: CI script (2 files)"]
  R3 --> V3["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
Loading

Ruleset code_scanning evaluates pull_request.merge_commit_sha, which can
differ from the ephemeral SHA refs/pull/<n>/merge resolves to during SARIF
upload. Pin merge-preview upload ref/sha to the PR merge commit.

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues.

Findings

No blocking findings.

Summary

Approval sufficiency: bounded evidence supplied affirmative approval evidence for changed files, coverage/docstring posture, risk surfaces, and current-head verification; approval is not based merely on the absence of known blockers.
Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence was initialized and bounded current-head evidence reviewed for changed-file evidence including .github/workflows/codeql.yml, backend/tests/test_release_governance.py, scripts/ci/pr_governance_gate.sh, scripts/ci/test_pr_governance_gate.sh.
Linter/static: workflow/static review evidence is bounded by the current-head GitHub Checks gate and changed-file evidence.
TDD/regression: coverage execution evidence and focused changed hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Coverage: coverage execution evidence reports supported repository test suites passed.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports configured repository docstring gates passed or docstring coverage was advisory.
DAG: CodeGraph/source-backed behavior map connects .github/workflows/codeql.yml to the affected review, runtime, or workflow path and required checks.
PoC/execution: coverage-evidence job executed on the current head and reported PASS.
DDD/domain: workflow and repository-governance invariants were reviewed against changed files in bounded evidence.
CDD/context: CodeGraph evidence, changed-file history, and focused hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Similar issues: changed-file history evidence was reviewed for comparable local precedents.
Claim/concept check: bounded evidence, repository source, current-head workflow evidence, and, where numeric, scientific, statistical, or literature-backed claims are affected, original-paper/formula evidence and parameter-recovery expectations were used for claims.
Standards search: standards and external-source checks are delegated to configured OpenCode web_search/Context7/DeepWiki sources when applicable; no evidence-backed standards blocker is present in bounded evidence.
Compatibility/convention: changed workflow/script conventions, object naming, and reserved-word safety for schema/API/config/code surfaces were checked in bounded evidence.
Breaking-change/backcompat: deployment evidence and changed-file history were checked for backward-compatibility risk.
Performance: changed surfaces were checked for performance risk in bounded evidence.
Developer experience: changed automation, review, test, setup, and maintenance surfaces were checked for helpful or obstructive DX impact in bounded evidence.
User experience: connected user, operator, API, CLI, documentation, review-comment, status-check, rendering, and workflow-reader behavior was checked for contradictions against code, docs, and tests in bounded evidence.
Visual/DOM: Playwright visual, DOM locator, ARIA snapshot, console, and responsive evidence were checked when a web UI surface was present; for non-web surfaces, API/CLI/log/docs/workflow interaction evidence was reviewed instead.
Accessibility/i18n: accessibility, localization, and human-readable text surfaces were checked where UI, CLI, API message, docs, logs, or review text changed.
Supply-chain/license: dependency, package, model, container, and external-tool changes were checked in bounded evidence.
Packaging: package, build, test, lint, and security contracts were checked in bounded evidence.
Security/privacy: workflow-token, review-gate, and repository-automation security/privacy boundaries were checked in bounded evidence.

  • Result: APPROVE
  • Reason: PR fixes a CI issue with CodeQL SARIF uploads, ensuring compliance with the ruleset merge gate.
  • Head SHA: 7e13e03824c52d26137635f4152f67cd1631a6ad
  • Workflow run: 28708601459
  • Workflow attempt: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Workflow: codeql.yml"]
  S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: codeql.yml"]
  R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Backend: test_release_governance.py"]
  S2 --> I2["API and service runtime"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Backend: test_release_governance.py"]
  R2 --> V2["backend tests"]
  Evidence --> S3["CI script (2 files)"]
  S3 --> I3["review and security gate shell path"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: CI script (2 files)"]
  R3 --> V3["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
Loading

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants