Skip to content

Document fork PR, issue-template, and runner-step guidance - #76299

Merged
pelikhan merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
copilot/agent-persona-exploration
Nov 9, 2026
Merged

pelikhan merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
copilot/agent-persona-exploration

Conversation

Copilot AI commented Nov 9, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Add guidance for three workflow-design gaps: fork PR policy checks, issue-template routing, and deterministic CLI work before agent execution.

  • Fork PR checks: Explain the default fork exclusion for pull_request, when to allow forks, and when workflow_run is appropriate.
  • Issue templates: Document that issues cannot filter by template; describe label-based activation and prompt-level checks with an explicit noop or fallback.
  • Runner-side CLI work: Clarify that steps: run outside the AWF network sandbox, recommend exact CLI version pins, and distinguish them from agent tools and pre-agent-steps:.

Example label gate:

on:
  label_command:
    name: bug-report
    events: [issues]

Copilot AI linked an issue Nov 9, 2026 that may be closed by this pull request
Co-authored-by: gh-aw-bot <259018956+gh-aw-bot@users.noreply.github.com>
Copilot AI changed the title [WIP] Update agent persona exploration findings Document fork PR, issue-template, and runner-step guidance Nov 9, 2026
Copilot AI requested a review from gh-aw-bot November 9, 2026 19:11
@pelikhan
pelikhan marked this pull request as ready for review November 9, 2026 19:20
Copilot AI dynamic review requested due to automatic review settings November 9, 2026 19:20
@pelikhan
pelikhan merged commit 1e0f35f into main Nov 9, 2026
17 checks passed
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Nov 9, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🧠 Matt Pocock Skills Reviewer has completed the skills-based review. ✅

🧠 Reviewed using Matt Pocock's skills by Matt Pocock Skills Reviewer

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Nov 9, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

✅ PR Code Quality Reviewer completed the code quality review.

🔎 Code quality review by PR Code Quality Reviewer

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Nov 9, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

✅ PR Specification Reviewer completed successfully!

PR Specification Reviewer

Outcome: reported_no_action

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.

Generated from PR Specification Reviewer · gpt56 · ~1 AIC · ⌖ ~2 AIC · ◇ ~1 AIC · ⊞ 1.7K · ◷

Generated by PR Specification Reviewer for #76299

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Nov 9, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

✅ Ponytail Reviewer completed successfully!

Ponytail Reviewer

Outcome: reported_no_action

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.

Generated from Ponytail Reviewer · routed: gpt61 medium · ~3 AIC · ⌖ ~1 AIC · ◇ ~1 AIC · ⊞ 181 · ◷

Generated by Ponytail Reviewer for #76299

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Nov 9, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

✅ Test Quality Sentinel completed test quality analysis.

Test Quality Sentinel

Outcome: reported_no_action

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.

Generated from Test Quality Sentinel · routed: haiku55 xhigh · ~1 AIC · ⌖ ~2 AIC · ◇ ~1 AIC · ⊞ 7.2K · ◷

🧪 Test quality analysis by Test Quality Sentinel

Copilot AI 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.

🟡 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_request workflows and when workflow_run is 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)

Comment thread .github/aw/triggers.md

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.
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🎉 This pull request is included in a new release.

Release: v1.2.2

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.

Agent Persona Exploration - 2026-11-09

4 participants