[Backlog Discovery] feat(backlog): local-workflow-simulation-harness

[bestony]

[Backlog Discovery]

• Requirement title: 为自驱工作流提供本地模拟与回放测试能力
• Priority: P2
• Requirement file: backlog/20260221080402-local-workflow-simulation-harness.md
• Dedupe key: local-workflow-simulation-harness
• Source run: https://github.com/bestony/self/actions/runs/22253208685

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @bestony, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request introduces a new backlog requirement document that addresses the critical need for local simulation and replay testing capabilities for self-driven workflows. The document details the challenges of current online-only testing methods and proposes a solution to enhance debugging efficiency and reduce the risk of errors by enabling developers to validate workflows locally before deployment.

Highlights

• New Backlog Requirement: A new backlog item has been added, titled "为自驱工作流提供本地模拟与回放测试能力" (Provide local simulation and replay testing capabilities for self-driven workflows), outlining the need for local testing of GitHub Actions workflows.
• Problem Statement: The document highlights that current workflow testing relies heavily on online GitHub Actions, leading to slow feedback, high costs, and difficulties in reproducing real-world scenarios, which impedes debugging efficiency and increases error risks.
• Proposed Solution & Impact: The proposed solution involves introducing local simulation scripts and event examples to reduce debugging and verification costs, aiming to identify issues earlier in the development cycle and shorten the workflow debugging period.

Changelog

• backlog/20260221080402-local-workflow-simulation-harness.md
  • Added a new requirement document for local workflow simulation and replay testing.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[github-actions]

[Backlog Discovery]
Reviewer: Product Manager

• Acceptance criteria are partly vague (e.g., "与线上一致的关键产物" and "支持范围与已知差异" lack measurable definitions), which makes verification ambiguous. Suggest listing concrete outputs/files to compare and a checklist of known differences.
• Scope boundaries are not explicit (which workflows/scripts are in-scope, which event payloads are required, what is out-of-scope for initial MVP), increasing delivery risk. Suggest adding an explicit in-scope/out-of-scope section or tightening AC to the minimal supported workflows and event types.

[github-actions]

[Reviewer Workflow]
Reviewer: Product Manager

需求价值评估

• 是否有价值: 有价值
• 优先级: P2
• Reviewer 视角结论: 该需求能显著提升自驱工作流在本地验证与回放的效率，降低线上试错成本，适合作为中优先级能力建设。

价值点

• 面向仓库维护者/自动化工程师的高频痛点：减少依赖线上 Actions 的调试等待与费用消耗
• 支持复现失败 run 输入并离线调试，有助于降低误改风险与回滚成本
• 为 schedule/dispatch 等关键路径提供本地验证，提升自驱迭代系统的可靠性与交付速度

风险与建议

• 证据主要来自通用社区工具，缺少对 self 仓库实际失败案例或成本数据支撑，建议补充近期线上失败/调试耗时数据
• act/gh-act 与真实 GitHub 环境存在差异，建议在需求中明确不覆盖的边界与回放一致性验证标准

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

该 PR 引入了一个新的 Backlog 需求文件，旨在为自驱工作流提供本地模拟与回放能力。需求描述清晰，包含了核心场景、外部调研证据以及明确的验收标准。建议关注文档中“需求摘要”与“用户问题”部分的重复内容，这反映了生成脚本可能需要进一步优化以区分这两个维度的信息。

[gemini-code-assist]

“用户问题”部分的内容与第 14 行的“需求摘要”完全重复。建议在文档中对这两个部分进行区分：摘要应侧重于“要做什么”，而用户问题应侧重于“为什么要做（痛点）”。虽然这可能是生成脚本自动填充的结果，但优化此处内容能提高需求文档的可读性。