Describe the second hygiene run a pull request here meets - #403
Merged
iderex merged 1 commit intoSep 17, 2026
Merged
Conversation
Every pull request on this board gets two hygiene check-runs whose names differ by a hyphen and a word. `## What the gate runs, and what each thing refuses` described one of them, and the word that would find the other did not appear anywhere in the document. A contributor meeting a red `hygiene / Deterministic PR hygiene` found the paragraph about `Deterministic PR-hygiene checks`, was pointed at `.github/pr-hygiene/hygiene.sh`, and read a script that did not produce the refusal in front of them. The rules that did are in a workflow pinned by hash in another repository, which is the case where a reader has the least chance of working it out alone. The new entry sits beside the local one, because the two names are what a reader confuses, and it carries `.github/workflows/shared-hygiene.yml`'s own statement of what the two checks have in common rather than a reading of the called workflow, which is not in this tree. Closes #402 Signed-off-by: Nils Lehnen <30603423+iderex@users.noreply.github.com>
iderex
deleted the
the-second-hygiene-run-this-section-does-not-name-402
branch
September 17, 2026 15:19
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The issue this belongs to
Closes #402
What changed
## What the gate runs, and what each thing refusesgains one entry, for thesecond hygiene check-run a pull request here meets. It sits directly under the
local hygiene entry, because the two names are what a reader confuses, and it
says that the rules behind it are not in this tree.
Nothing else is touched. No workflow, no script, no register and no input.
What failure it prevents
Two check-runs land on every head here with names a hyphen and a word apart:
Before this change the document described one of them and the word that would
find the other was not in the file at all:
So a contributor meeting a red
hygiene / Deterministic PR hygieneread theparagraph about
Deterministic PR-hygiene checks, was pointed at.github/pr-hygiene/hygiene.sh, and read a script that did not produce therefusal in front of them. What did is a workflow pinned by hash in another
repository:
This is the shape #326 closed for
coverageandmutationone day ago. Thosetwo have their scripts in this tree; this one does not, which is the case where a
reader has the least chance of working it out alone.
Evidence
The commit being pushed:
The entry is there, under the name the run reports with:
The path gate at this commit, which now reads two more named paths than it did
before the entry:
What this does not cover
in another repository and I did not read it. The entry carries
.github/workflows/shared-hygiene.yml's own statement of what the two checkshave in common, quoted rather than re-derived, and claims nothing beyond it.
branch-health-lever, the other workflow the section does not name. Itdeclares no
pull_requestand nopushtrigger, so it produces no check-runon a head and is outside what this section walks. Nothing here adds it.
subject_names_issueinput the shared call sets. The count that switches the shared subject rule off is refuted by this board's subjects, and its second half by the commit that wrote it #400 repaired the reasonwritten beside it and closed without deciding the value; this touches neither.
this section walks, so the next leg to arrive is absent from it in silence
again, and no check is added here.
Who has read it
Nobody other than me has read this change. The evidence above stands in place of
a second reading rather than beside one.