Repository navigation
Document fork PR, issue-template, and runner-step guidance - #76299
Conversation
Co-authored-by: gh-aw-bot <259018956+gh-aw-bot@users.noreply.github.com>
|
🧠 Matt Pocock Skills Reviewer has completed the skills-based review. ✅
|
|
✅ PR Code Quality Reviewer completed the code quality review.
|
|
✅ PR Specification Reviewer completed successfully! PR Specification ReviewerOutcome: The agent completed and reported no action. A no-op output alone does not verify that all required work was completed or that publication was possible. Agent messages are omitted from this comment. The category uses structured run status, not interpretation of agent prose.
|
|
✅ Ponytail Reviewer completed successfully! Ponytail ReviewerOutcome: The agent completed and reported no action. A no-op output alone does not verify that all required work was completed or that publication was possible. Agent messages are omitted from this comment. The category uses structured run status, not interpretation of agent prose.
|
|
✅ Test Quality Sentinel completed test quality analysis. Test Quality SentinelOutcome: The agent completed and reported no action. A no-op output alone does not verify that all required work was completed or that publication was possible. Agent messages are omitted from this comment. The category uses structured run status, not interpretation of agent prose.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🟡 Changes recommended
The documentation incorrectly treats the label gate as proof of template origin, although the trigger also runs when the label is added to free-form issues.
1 open issue
What changed in this PR
This documentation-only pull request adds guidance for fork pull-request checks, issue-template routing, and deterministic runner-side CLI preparation before agent execution.
Changes:
- Documents fork behavior for
pull_requestworkflows and whenworkflow_runis appropriate. - Explains label-based and prompt-level issue-template routing, including fallback handling.
- Clarifies runner-side
steps:,pre-agent-steps:, network boundaries, and exact CLI version pinning.
| File | Summary | Review findings |
|---|---|---|
.github/aw/workflow-patterns.md |
Documents deterministic CLI execution outside the AWF agent sandbox and distinguishes runner steps, agent tools, and pre-agent-steps:. |
None |
.github/aw/triggers.md |
Adds issue-template routing and fork pull-request policy-check guidance. | Nit, 1 vote: Add a branches: restriction to the workflow_run recommendation. Nit, 1 vote: Warn that artifacts from untrusted fork PRs must be treated as untrusted data and never executed. Nit, 2 votes: Clarify that label routing does not prove template origin. Nit, 1 vote: Document the default role allowlist or configure roles: all for external issue reporters. |
Review effort: Lite (auto)
|
|
||
| The `issues` event cannot filter by issue template. A workflow triggered by `issues` receives matching issue events regardless of which template created the issue. | ||
|
|
||
| To activate only for a particular template, configure that issue form to apply a dedicated label and use a `label_command` trigger restricted to `issues`. Otherwise, use an `issues` trigger and instruct the agent to check a template-specific marker or required fields before acting: `noop` for a known different template, and explicitly choose whether missing or ambiguous template evidence should `noop` or use a generic fallback. |
|
🎉 This pull request is included in a new release. Release: |

Add guidance for three workflow-design gaps: fork PR policy checks, issue-template routing, and deterministic CLI work before agent execution.
pull_request, when to allow forks, and whenworkflow_runis appropriate.issuescannot filter by template; describe label-based activation and prompt-level checks with an explicitnoopor fallback.steps:run outside the AWF network sandbox, recommend exact CLI version pins, and distinguish them from agent tools andpre-agent-steps:.Example label gate: