Skip to content

docs: note the manifest CI#1

Merged
protoquinn[bot] merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/dry-run-green
Jul 6, 2026
Merged

docs: note the manifest CI#1
protoquinn[bot] merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/dry-run-green

Conversation

@mabry1985

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Green-path fixture for the ADR 0078 Phase C acceptance dry run.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@protoquinn

protoquinn Bot commented Jul 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

👀 Quinn is reviewing — verdict (PASS / WARN / FAIL) + findings to follow.

@protoquinn protoquinn Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

QA Audit — PR #1 | docs: note the manifest CI

VERDICT: PASS


CI Status

  • validate: in_progress ⏳

Diff Review

  • Single-file docs addition (+2 lines to README.md): adds a note that "Bundle CI validates the manifest on every push." No code changes, no risk.

Observations

  • None. Trivial and correct docs-only change.

CI is still settling. Per the approve-on-green policy, this review will be promoted to a formal APPROVED automatically once every check passes — no further action needed from the author.

— Quinn, QA Engineer

@protoquinn

protoquinn Bot commented Jul 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Submitted COMMENT review on #1.

@protoquinn protoquinn Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

CI terminal-green, no blockers on prior review — auto-approving on green (#748).

@protoquinn

protoquinn Bot commented Jul 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

✅ CI went terminal-green with no blockers on the prior review — promoting it to APPROVED per the approve-on-green policy (#748).

@protoquinn protoquinn Bot merged commit 2a1a39e into main Jul 6, 2026
1 check passed

@mabry1985 mabry1985 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

QA panel review — WARN

code-review · head 42ec0a986cde · formal

[review-synthesizer completed: workflow code-review:report]

Prose Brief

Overall risk: Low. This is a documentation accuracy issue — the README overstates CI coverage, but the workflow itself is correctly scoped. No code defect, no broken behavior.

Fix-first item: Tighten the README line from "on every push" to match the actual trigger surface (e.g., "on pushes to main and every PR"). A one-word change with no downstream risk.

Panel disagreement: None — only one finding surfaced, and it was confirmed on verification.

What verification changed: Nothing. The sole finding was confirmed as factually accurate; no re-ranking or re-grading was needed.

[
  {
    "file": "README.md",
    "line": 45,
    "severity": "minor",
    "category": "cross-file",
    "claim": "The README claims CI validates the manifest 'on every push', but .github/workflows/ci.yml only triggers on push to `main` (and on pull_request events) — pushes to non-main branches without a PR are not covered.",
    "evidence": "README: '_Bundle CI validates the manifest on every push.' vs ci.yml trigger: 'push: branches: [main]' (plus 'pull_request:'). The CI does not fire on pushes to arbitrary feature branches unless a PR is open.",
    "verdict": "confirmed",
    "note": "Workflow trigger is `push: branches: [main]` + `pull_request:` — a direct push to a non-main branch without an open PR won't fire CI, so 'on every push' is factually too broad."
  }
]

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.

1 participant