chore: add CODEOWNERS designating the devs team as code owners

[robnester-rh]

What

Add a CODEOWNERS file assigning all paths to the Conforma devs team.

Why

The repo had no CODEOWNERS, so code-owner review resolved to no one. A single * owner (the devs team) provides ownership for every path, including .github/, and lets code-owner review be required via branch protection.

Co-Authored-By: Claude noreply@anthropic.com
Ref: EC-2150

[qodo-for-conforma]

PR Summary by Qodo

Assign Conforma devs as repository-wide code owners

⚙️ Configuration changes 🕐 Less than 5 minutes

AI Description

• Assigns every repository path to the Conforma devs team.
• Enables branch protection to require code-owner reviews across the repository.

High-Level Assessment

The repository-wide wildcard is the simplest and most maintainable approach for uniform ownership. More granular path-based ownership was considered but is unnecessary while one team owns all areas.

Files changed (1) +3 / -0

Other (1) +3 / -0

CODEOWNERSDefine repository-wide ownership for Conforma devs +3/-0

Define repository-wide ownership for Conforma devs

• Adds a wildcard CODEOWNERS rule assigning all repository paths, including '.github/', to '@conforma/devs'. This allows branch protection to require review from the owning team.

.github/CODEOWNERS

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Enterprise

Run ID: 7131f9df-a24d-4d90-824d-60089adb4fa5

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 9de04ef and 0d117ad.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• .github/CODEOWNERS

Included review availability: Your plan provides up to 12 included reviews per hour; 0 remain after this review.

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The repository adds a default CODEOWNERS rule. The rule assigns the conforma/devs team as owner for every repository path, including .github/.

Changes

Repository ownership coverage

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Default CODEOWNERS rule .github/CODEOWNERS	The file documents the default rule and assigns conforma/devs ownership for all repository paths.

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~2 minutes

Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to 0d117

The PR adds a repository-wide CODEOWNERS rule assigning ownership to the devs team; no actionable merge-blocking risk remains, so it is merge-ready after normal checks and review.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly identifies the addition of a CODEOWNERS file and its assigned team.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description explains what the CODEOWNERS file does and why the change enables code-owner review.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 0 functions across 0…
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

Full details: Docstring Coverage

Explanation

No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 0 functions across 0 files. (1 skipped: 1 unsupported.)

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[qodo-for-conforma]

Code Review by Qodo

🐞 Bugs (0) 📘 Rule violations (0) 📎 Requirement gaps (0)

Great, no issues found!

Qodo reviewed your code and found no material issues that require review

Tip of the day

💡 Did you know, you can turn on the rule miner and Qodo learns your standards from review history

More tips ↗ | Customize Qodo ↗ | Qodo docs ↗

[fullsend-ai-review]

🤖 Finished Review · ✅ Success · Started 1:58 PM UTC · Completed 2:09 PM UTC

Commit: ca5794c · View workflow run →

Runtime: claude · Model: opus → claude-opus-4-6 · Effort: high · Cost: $2.26

[fullsend-ai-review]

Risk Assessment: moderate (2/5)

Details

Tiny config-only PR adding a new CODEOWNERS file (1 file, 3 lines, small blast radius) with one protected path hit; no linked issue and no prior history on the file yields a moderate risk score.

[fullsend-ai-review]

Review

Findings

Medium

• [protected-path] .github/CODEOWNERS — This PR adds a file under protected paths (.github/, CODEOWNERS). The PR body provides clear rationale (establishing code-owner review via branch protection, ref: EC-2150). Human approval is always required for protected-path changes, regardless of context.

[fullsend-ai-retro]

🤖 Finished Retro · ✅ Success · Started 4:49 PM UTC · Completed 4:58 PM UTC

Commit: ca5794c · View workflow run →

Runtime: claude · Model: opus → claude-opus-4-6 · Effort: high · Cost: $2.48

[fullsend-ai-retro]

Retro: PR #247 — Add CODEOWNERS file

This was a clean, minimal workflow: a 3-line .github/CODEOWNERS file added by a human author (co-authored with Claude), reviewed by the fullsend review agent, approved by a human reviewer, and merged. No code or fix agent involvement; single review pass with no rework.

What went well:

• The review correctly identified the protected-path change (.github/CODEOWNERS matches both .github/ and CODEOWNERS patterns) and required human approval.
• CODEOWNERS syntax was validated as correct across all review dimensions.
• Human reviewer approved promptly; PR merged ~27 hours after opening.

Existing-issue evidence (no new proposals needed):

• Model fallback cost inflation — 3 of 5 review sub-agents failed because claude-sonnet-4-5@20250929 is unavailable on Vertex AI, then retried on opus. This inflated the review cost to $2.26 for a trivial 3-line change. This corroborates fullsend-ai/fullsend#6666 (stale sonnet model version mapping inflates costs ~5x), fullsend-ai/agents#379 (sub-agents should handle model unavailability), and fullsend-ai/fullsend#6964 (validate model availability before dispatch).
• Lightweight review path for trivial changes — All 5 sub-agents classified scope as "trivial" but ran full opus-tier analysis. This supports fullsend-ai/agents#301 (lightweight path for trivial/mechanical changes) and fullsend-ai/agents#497 (downgrade sub-agent models based on scope classification).
• Retro on trivially-handled PRs — This single-pass, config-only PR with no agent-originated code changes is a candidate for retro early-exit, as tracked in fullsend-ai/agents#649.

No new proposals — all improvement opportunities are already tracked in existing open issues.