Conversation
Summary: Setting up this repository! Very excited. Test plan: 🚫
Summary: They'd been copied over from graphql-flow, but I figured the Khan/perseus ones might have more recent changes. The next PR will contain our build & publish scripts. I also created a 'check-for-changeset' action that I noticed in the perseus pr-actions workflow :) Test plan: 🤞 not usable/testable quite yet!
…the Khan/actions repo Summary: Here's the magic! This will allow us to reference e.g. `Khan/actions@filter-files-v0.0.1` in our workflows (as described in the readme). I've also added basic workflows, one to check for a changeset, and one to automate releases when a release PR lands. Test plan: See the workflow work! I published check-for-changeset-v0.0.0 manually from the CLI to demonstrate.
Summary: It's very simple for the moment because we're not doing any transpilation. We might decide to adopt typescript or something if we start to have more complicated actions. Test plan: `yarn lint` should work! Also see the github action doing its thing.
…versions Summary: it'd be a hassle to have to change all our workflows for patch versions of these. Now you can do `uses: Khan/actions@filter-files-v1` and it will get all 1.x.x versions. Test plan: ```bash actions on major-version ➜ g tag -d full-or-limited-v0.0.0 Deleted tag 'full-or-limited-v0.0.0' (was 4e86abe) actions on major-version ➜ g push origin :full-or-limited-v0.0.0 To github.com:Khan/actions.git - [deleted] full-or-limited-v0.0.0 actions on major-version ➜ node utils/run-publish.mjs From . * branch lints -> FETCH_HEAD To github.com:Khan/actions.git * [new tag] full-or-limited-v0.0.0 -> full-or-limited-v0.0.0 remote: warning: Deleting a non-existent ref. To github.com:Khan/actions.git - [deleted] full-or-limited-v0 To github.com:Khan/actions.git * [new tag] full-or-limited-v0 -> full-or-limited-v0 ```
Contributor
GeraldRequired Reviewers
Don't want to be involved in this pull request? Comment |
jeresig
approved these changes
May 19, 2022
| with: | ||
| token: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }} | ||
| admin-token: ${{ secrets.KHAN_ACTIONS_BOT_TOKEN }} | ||
| # - name: Get All Changed Files |
jeresig
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 2, 2026
…agging severity-based Previously every skill violation was blocking. Now the skill-auditor assigns each violation a severity of `blocking` or `advisory`: - Source: the skill file's declaration (skill-level default or per-rule annotation) when present; otherwise the auditor judges by impact (hard- requirement phrasing or correctness/security/data/compat risk -> blocking; stylistic/preference -> advisory; ties -> advisory). - `blocking` -> `issue (blocking, best-practice)` (drives REQUEST_CHANGES). - `advisory` -> new `suggestion (non-blocking, best-practice)` label (rides along with an APPROVE). The Step 4 verdict is already a mechanical function of posted-comment labels (#7), so advisory violations no longer force REQUEST_CHANGES; only blocking ones do. claim-validator can correct an over-/under-stated severity. Skill violations remain scoped to newly-changed code (#6) regardless of severity. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
jeresig
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 2, 2026
…st sub-agent outputs (#194) * [jeresig/unruffled-keller-15164a] review: skip redundant approvals, drop skipped-dimensions note, persist sub-agent outputs Three related refinements to the PR review workflow: - Skip submitting a review when it would be a no-op repeat: an APPROVE with no inline comments where the PR's most recent github-actions[bot] review was already APPROVED. Steps 7 and 8 still run; only the redundant review submission is skipped. - Remove the "skipped dimensions" note that was appended to the review body when a sub-agent's output was unavailable, and all references to it. - Persist each sub-agent's structured JSON to /tmp/gh-aw/review/out/ and upload that directory as a run-scoped artifact (30-day retention) so a human can inspect exactly what each reviewer produced when diagnosing or tuning it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> * [jeresig/unruffled-keller-15164a] review: let correctness reviewer import optional repo-specific checks Add an optional `{{#runtime-import? .github/aw/review/correctness-checks.md}}` to the correctness-reviewer sub-agent so a host repo can supply extra correctness things to validate. The `?` variant is silently skipped when the file is absent, so repos that don't provide it are unaffected. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> * [jeresig/unruffled-keller-15164a] review: skip PRs labeled skip-ai-review Add a `skip-ai-review` label check to the workflow's job-level `if:` condition so a human can opt a specific PR out of automated review. A labeled PR never starts the agent (zero AI credits) and posts nothing. The label gates each trigger event going forward; it does not retroactively dismiss a review already left before the label was added. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> * [jeresig/unruffled-keller-15164a] review: scope inline comments to newly-changed code Users reported the reviewer re-commenting on code that a previous review already covered. The workflow reviews the full PR diff on every push, so it would regenerate comments on unchanged hunks. Fix it with content-based incremental scoping rather than commit ranges (the github MCP has no compare-commits tool, and commit-range compares break on force-push/rebase anyway): - Step 1 computes a per-file "hunk signature" — one SHA-256 per hunk over its added lines only (context/removed lines and line numbers excluded), so the hash is stable across force-pushes, rebases, squashes, and base merges. - It recalls the previous run's signature from cache and derives the set of hunks that are new since the last review, written to new-scope.json. - Step 3 drops candidate correctness findings / skill violations that aren't on newly-changed lines, so already-reviewed code is not re-flagged. Narrow exception: genuine `issue (blocking)` correctness findings survive even on unchanged code. Risk, patterns, and reviewer routing still use the whole PR. - Step 9 persists reviewedHunks each run. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> * [jeresig/unruffled-keller-15164a] review: only request changes when a posted comment is blocking A blocking review was observed even though every comment it left was non-blocking. Step 4's verdict was a category judgment ("any blocking issues") rather than a check on the labels of the comments actually posted. Make the verdict a mechanical function of the final comment set's labels: REQUEST_CHANGES if and only if at least one posted comment carries a blocking label (`issue (blocking)`, `issue (blocking, best-practice)`, or `todo (blocking)`); APPROVE otherwise, including when only non-blocking comments are posted. Never request changes on a purely non-blocking comment set. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> * [jeresig/unruffled-keller-15164a] review: pin model versions instead of floating tier aliases The workflow used gh-aw tier aliases (opus/large/small) that route through a model gateway matching "anthropic/*opus*", "*sonnet*", "*haiku*" — i.e. any version, so the reviewer could silently change behavior when a new model ships. Pin explicit versions: - Orchestrator engine → claude-opus-4-8 (engine object form) - opus sub-agents (correctness-reviewer, skill-auditor, thread-reconciler, claim-validator) → claude-opus-4-8 - pattern-triage (was `large`, Sonnet-tier) → claude-sonnet-4-6 - reviewer-mapper (was `small`, Haiku-tier) → claude-haiku-4-5 Verified with `gh aw compile`: the engine pin resolves to ANTHROPIC_MODEL: claude-opus-4-8 in the lock, and full versioned IDs are accepted for sub-agents (0 errors). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> * [jeresig/unruffled-keller-15164a] review: make skill/best-practice flagging severity-based Previously every skill violation was blocking. Now the skill-auditor assigns each violation a severity of `blocking` or `advisory`: - Source: the skill file's declaration (skill-level default or per-rule annotation) when present; otherwise the auditor judges by impact (hard- requirement phrasing or correctness/security/data/compat risk -> blocking; stylistic/preference -> advisory; ties -> advisory). - `blocking` -> `issue (blocking, best-practice)` (drives REQUEST_CHANGES). - `advisory` -> new `suggestion (non-blocking, best-practice)` label (rides along with an APPROVE). The Step 4 verdict is already a mechanical function of posted-comment labels (#7), so advisory violations no longer force REQUEST_CHANGES; only blocking ones do. claim-validator can correct an over-/under-stated severity. Skill violations remain scoped to newly-changed code (#6) regardless of severity. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> * [jeresig/unruffled-keller-15164a] review: drop understated-severity aside from claim-validator note Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> * [jeresig/unruffled-keller-15164a] review: restore the skipped-dimension note Bring back the note that tells the author which review dimensions were not assessed when a sub-agent's output was unavailable (or claim validation was skipped). Step 3 tracks the skipped dimension and Step 6 appends `Note: <dimension> not assessed this run (<sub-agent> output unavailable).` to the review body for either verdict. Reconcile with the redundant no-comment approval skip: a review carrying a skipped-dimension note is not a bare approval, so it is submitted rather than skipped. Drops the now-inaccurate "removes the note" line from the skip-redundant-approval changeset (net-vs-main the note behavior is unchanged). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary:
Testing this out
Issue: XXX-XXXX
Test plan: