The guard counted every verdict comment on the issue, so a spec-review verdict
consumed a cycle from the code-review budget. On #89 the first code review came
out as r2/4. With two spec cycles the second code review would have hit review-4
after a single fix — the limit would have fired on a task nobody had reviewed
twice.
The stage is now resolved first and only its own verdicts are counted, recognised
by the review document named in the comment. If the document is missing the
verdict is not counted: undercounting grants an extra cycle, overcounting would
stop the work early, and of the two mistakes the recoverable one wins.
Issue: #114
User-Visible: no
The label asserts the code is in dev. The workflow used to set it on a green
code review while the commits were still only on the task branch, so between
the verdict and the author's merge the state machine stated something untrue —
which is exactly what happened on #104.
The merge now runs inside the pipeline, before the label. A conflict leaves
the issue in S7-code-review and comments instead.
Issue: #114
User-Visible: no
PROCESS.md wants a review document in docs/reviews/; the CI reviewer could
only leave a comment, and flagged the gap itself. It may now write there.
What lands in the commit is decided by the workflow, not by the model: every
path outside docs/reviews/ is reverted before staging, and the commit carries
the usual trailers so the provenance gate accepts it.
Issue: #114
User-Visible: no
The multi-line --body started at column zero, which ends the YAML block
scalar. The parser silently truncated the run script and left an unclosed
double quote, so the whole workflow became unusable and blocked the code
review on #104.
The body now goes through a heredoc. Validating YAML alone did not catch
this; every run block is checked with bash -n from now on.
Issue: #114
User-Visible: no
The r2 spec review on #104 produced a complete green verdict and then failed
on --max-turns 40 at turn 43, so the label step never ran and the transition
had to be reconciled by hand. Forty was a guess; a review that reads SCOPE,
AGENTS, PROCESS, the issue thread and the spec exceeds it routinely, and a
code review that also runs gates needs far more.
The real guard against a runaway run is the job timeout, not the turn count.
Issue: #114
User-Visible: no
The first live run failed with "Could not fetch an OIDC token": the action
needs id-token: write to authenticate the GitHub App.
The reviewer also checked out dev, where the material under review does not
exist yet — specs and code are committed to issue/<NN>-slug. The job now
switches to that branch when it is pushed, and warns loudly when it is not.
Issue: #114
User-Visible: no
Adds .github/workflows/process.yml. A status label change is the trigger:
S4-spec-review runs the spec review, S7-code-review runs the code review,
and the verdict decides the next label. Only a green verdict advances;
yellow and red return the task to its author. Cycle limits (4, or 2 on the
light track) are counted from the verdicts already posted on the issue.
Labels are moved with HP_PROCESS_TOKEN, not GITHUB_TOKEN, so the change
emits an event and the chain continues.
Issue: #114
User-Visible: no
Matysh