Skip to content

ci: adopt ai-review-prompts #91 — reusable-owned cancellation, gate catch-up, permissions ceilings - #219

Open
heskew wants to merge 3 commits into
mainfrom
fleet-cancellation-migration
Open

ci: adopt ai-review-prompts #91 — reusable-owned cancellation, gate catch-up, permissions ceilings#219
heskew wants to merge 3 commits into
mainfrom
fleet-cancellation-migration

Conversation

@heskew

@heskew heskew commented Aug 28, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Atomic migration per ai-review-prompts#91: every ai-review-prompts pin bumps to 765a51b and the review callers' workflow-level concurrency blocks are removed in the same change — cancellation now lives in the reusables' review jobs (a job-level group that engages only after the authorize, skip, and key gates pass), so an unauthorized or skipped event can never cancel a legitimate in-flight review. Retaining the legacy caller group would have preserved the old pre-gate cancellation residual, hence the atomicity.

Also: the mention and issue-to-pr calling jobs gain explicit permissions ceilings (union of the reusables' job grants — contents/pull-requests/issues/id-token: write), so their grants stop depending on the repo's default-workflow-permissions setting, matching the review callers' long-standing pattern.

Expected on this PR: the claude-review check errors with the workflow-must-match-default-branch validation — normal for workflow-editing PRs.

After merge: release-branch sync PRs follow (same content, per branch).

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01S94XethbGXpAb4DRKMD4kt

Pre-push lane (post-open, per process)

Cross-model review ran on 429ac27 (Codex + Cursor Grok + Harper-domain adjudication, independent=true; Gemini leg failed): adjudicated minor. Surviving findings: a post-authorization cancellation ordering race (stale-run inversion window — upstream fix filed as ai-review-prompts#92; no caller-side fix exists that doesn't resurrect the pre-#91 bug) and comment hygiene (fixed on this branch). Decision ledger: reusable-owned-post-auth-cancellation, label-name-in-caller-gate, ready-for-review-label-admission.

Review-Coverage: authored=claude; ran=codex; declined=gemini,cursor-grok,cursor-composer,domain; rounds=2 @ 4d37218

Human-Review-Need: 4 @ 4d37218

…atch-up; caller permissions ceilings

Atomic migration per the #91 contract: bump every ai-review-prompts
pin to 765a51b AND remove the review callers' workflow-level
concurrency blocks in the same change. Both review-caller gates catch
up to the fleet shape (label-named labeled arm; label-opted
ready_for_review arm). The mention and issue-to-pr calling jobs gain
explicit permissions ceilings.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01S94XethbGXpAb4DRKMD4kt
@heskew
heskew requested a review from a team as a code owner August 28, 2026 22:50
@gemini-code-assist

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Note

Gemini is unable to generate a review for this pull request due to the file types involved not being currently supported.

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Aug 28, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Reviewed; no blockers found. Prior 1 finding resolved/dismissed.

Suggestions (non-blocking)

  • .github/workflows/claude-issue-to-pr.yml:25 — Add if: startsWith(github.event.label.name, 'claude-fix:') to the job for better efficiency and a cleaner Actions history (avoids runs on unrelated labels).
  • .github/workflows/validate-caller-workflows.yml:4 — Update the comment to mention that it also validates gemini-*.yml files, reflecting the expanded logic in the reusable workflow.
  • .github/workflows/claude-mention.yml:28 — Add if: contains(github.event.comment.body, '@claude') for parity with the AI-review-prompts v91 recommendations (reduces unnecessary workflow instantiations).

Comment thread .github/workflows/claude-review.yml Outdated
Comment thread .github/workflows/gemini-review.yml Outdated
Comment thread .github/workflows/validate-caller-workflows.yml
heskew and others added 2 commits August 28, 2026 16:21
Review feedback on oauth#219 — consistency with the PR's permissions-
ceiling goal, applied fleet-wide.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01S94XethbGXpAb4DRKMD4kt
The retained note claiming the label is matched only in the reusable
contradicted the caller gate two lines below (it now names the label);
reworded to state the deliberate duplication. Narrating comments that
restated the adjacent declaration are dropped.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01S94XethbGXpAb4DRKMD4kt
jobs:
work:
uses: HarperFast/ai-review-prompts/.github/workflows/_claude-issue-to-pr.yml@be549ad08aa6d34b909ea8b542a7ffebdaae1e81 # main 2026-08-25 (#90 cost gates: draft skip, mechanical-diff skip, effort-by-size, debounce; #89 defaults; #88 lenses)
# Calling-job permissions ceiling — union of the reusable's

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.

💡 Suggestion (non-blocking)Add caller-side label gate

Add if: startsWith(github.event.label.name, 'claude-fix:') to avoid instantiating workflow runs for unrelated labels like bug or enhancement.

mention:
uses: HarperFast/ai-review-prompts/.github/workflows/_claude-mention.yml@be549ad08aa6d34b909ea8b542a7ffebdaae1e81 # main 2026-08-25 (#90 cost gates: draft skip, mechanical-diff skip, effort-by-size, debounce; #89 defaults; #88 lenses)
# Calling-job permissions ceiling — union of the reusable's
# authorize (contents: read) and work (contents/pull-requests/

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.

💡 Suggestion (non-blocking)Add caller-side mention gate

Add if: contains(github.event.comment.body, '@claude') to prevent the workflow from firing on comments that don't mention the bot.

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.

1 participant