fix(ci): remove inherited duplicate model workflow - #1
seonghobae wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
Keep the inherited direct-provider duplicate check on its canonical repository while preserving contributor labeling. Signed-off-by: Seongho Bae <[email protected]> Commit-Message-Assisted-by: Codex (Orca API)
|
Navigate logical layers of code changes, visualize relationships, and explore their blast radius. No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Advanced Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
Included review availability: This review used your included allowance. Your plan provides up to 1 included review per hour; 0 remain after this review. 📝 WalkthroughWalkthrough
Changes워크플로 작업 범위
Priority: ⬇️ Low Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~3 minutes Change: Bug fix Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to The duplicate check is limited to the canonical repository; no concrete merge-blocking risk remains. Architecture SummaryArchitecture risk: 🔵 Low · up to The changed surface does not map to a changed system, dependency edge, entrypoint, or external dependency. Changed systems: None identified. Architecture concerns Review detailsBefore / after behavior
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
|
@coderabbitai approve |
✅ Action performedComments resolved. Approval is disabled; enable |
|
This PR doesn't fully meet our contributing guidelines and PR template. What needs to be fixed:
Please edit this PR description to address the above within 2 hours, or it will be automatically closed. If you believe this was flagged incorrectly, please let a maintainer know. |
|
Thanks for your contribution! This PR doesn't have a linked issue. All PRs must reference an existing issue. Please:
See CONTRIBUTING.md for details. |
|
Exact-head admission correction — Ready is review admission only. Fresh audit against base
This PR is moved to Draft/Proposed until the causal owner repair is present on a successor exact head and re-audited. Queued/pending work is neither an additional blocker nor passing evidence. No Close, force push, destructive rebase, manual rerun, synthetic status/approval, merge, auto-merge, or bypass was performed. |
seonghobae
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Exact-head review for 2aa4a9cf057096b27427dd406e136bcb37099780.
The one-line delta adds a repository-identity guard to the inherited check-duplicates job and leaves the contributor-label job unchanged. That is the smallest change for the stated fork behavior, and I found no additional issue in this one-line diff itself.
This is a COMMENT, not an approval. Exact-head evidence is terminal non-GREEN: Semgrep run 36358142807 reports 302 inherited Medium+ findings; Security Scan 36358142730 reports 34 inherited Trivy findings; CodeQL PR 36358142762 records authenticated failure verdicts for both actions and javascript-typescript; typecheck, test, and nix-eval were cancelled. The underlying CodeQL SARIF and the protected-base scanner defects still require owner-level RCA and repair. Keep the PR Draft / Proposed and do not merge until current-head checks are GREEN and a qualifying independent approval exists.
Remove the unneeded direct-provider duplicate-PR job instead of retaining it behind a repository condition. Preserve contributor labeling, add an executable parsed-workflow contract to CI, and record the Proposed product/technical gap boundary.
Exact-head hosted-check RCA —
|
Issue for this PR
The repository has GitHub Issues disabled; creating the required issue returned HTTP 410, so no valid same-repository issue number can be linked. This PR records that repository-policy contradiction instead of inventing or closing an issue.
Type of change
What does this PR do?
The predecessor limited the inherited
check-duplicatesjob toanomalyco/opencode, but retained direct-provider workflow source that installed OpenCode through a mutable URL and consumedOPENCODE_API_KEY.This repair removes that unneeded job completely and preserves the non-model
add-contributor-labelbehavior. It does not copy model selection, credential eligibility, fallback, or duplicate-scoring logic into the leaf repository. If duplicate assessment becomes a product requirement, ContextualWisdomLab/.github and released contextual-orchestratororchestrator/freecontracts remain the canonical owners.It also adds:
script/github;docs/product-technical-gap-baseline.mdwith Proposed PRD/TRD/Context Map/UML/ERD applicability, gap, action, and status.How did you verify your code works?
Exact published head:
ebf719bd13366ea4dcd09a12b3cad732965ecb64Exact tree:
c0283f7aa174653318e21bd1fbdbf2df696dca35Parent:
2aa4a9cf057096b27427dd406e136bcb37099780check-duplicatesplusadd-contributor-label, while the allowed contract contained only contributor labeling.bun test pr-management-contract.test.mjspassed fromscript/github.runstep and a trigger change fromopenedtoeditedeach caused the contract to fail for the expected structural difference; both probes were removed and GREEN was reconfirmed.install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts: no lock changes.git diff --check: passed.c0283f7aa174653318e21bd1fbdbf2df696dca35.0/0/0.Hosted exact-head Checks and GitHub reviews are evaluated separately below; local validation is not represented as hosted GREEN evidence.
Screenshots / recordings
Not applicable; this change has no UI surface.
Checklist
Current exact-head gate status
State remains Draft / Proposed. The predecessor exact-head Semgrep, Security Scan, and CodeQL failures are stale evidence after this head change. Current-head hosted Checks and qualifying independent GitHub approval must be observed before any Ready or merge decision. No Force Push, destructive rebase, bypass, auto-merge, release, or PR Close was used.