[Schema Consistency] 🔍 Schema Consistency Check - 2026-10-24

[github-actions[bot]]

Overview

Found 3 actionable inconsistencies across schema, compiler, and documentation. Reviewed all four areas, including targeted workflow usage. No source files were modified.

• Strategy: Schema example self-validation plus adjacent contract audit.
• New strategy: Yes. Day 297 modulo 10 = 7 selected exploration.
• Validation: Local Draft7 checks of embedded examples and inert configuration objects, plus static compiler and handler tracing. No workflows were executed.

Key Issues

1. Medium — status-update default permits 10 operations while the schema and docs promise 1. parseCreateProjectStatusUpdateConfig initializes Max to 10 and passes 10 into the base parser. Omitting max therefore produces a different operation budget than advertised. Align the compiler default with the documented 1, and add regression coverage for both null configuration and an object with a project but no max.
2. Low — both embedded status-update configuration examples fail their own schema. The examples contain only max, or a token and max, while the object branch requires project. Add a valid project URL to both examples and validate embedded examples in CI.
3. Low — the update-project capability table incorrectly says “same-repo only.” The schema, compiler, detailed documentation, and existing integration test support cross-repository content resolution through target-repo and allowed-repos. Update the summary row to describe that configurable support.

Evidence, reproduction, and scope

1. Default mismatch: schema ↔ compiler ↔ documentation

• Compiler default and base-parser argument, lines 20–23.
• Base parser applies the supplied default.
• Handler serialization forwards Max.
• Schema describes default 1; its null branch also describes max=1.
• Reference example describes default 1.

An object such as create-project-status-update: {project: https://github.com/orgs/myorg/projects/73} passes the local schema check. Static tracing shows the omitted max becomes 10. This is a configuration-budget mismatch; no live mutation or runtime exploit was attempted.

2. Schema examples rejected by schema

• Status-update object requires project.
• Embedded examples omit project.

Validating each embedded object against its enclosing Draft7 object branch returns project is a required property. The containing safe-outputs schema also rejects {"create-project-status-update": {"max": 1}}. Adding the documented project URL produces a valid configuration. The documentation status-update example already includes project, so the correction belongs in schema metadata.

3. Cross-repository support contradicted by summary

• Incorrect capability-table row.
• Schema permits target-repo and allowed-repos.
• Compiler extracts both settings.
• Detailed reference documents cross-repository resolution.
• Existing compilation integration test asserts those settings appear in compiled handler configuration; this test was inspected, not executed.

Workflow checks and excluded leads

The precomputed diff reports no unknown top-level keys among scanned project workflows. This does not establish complete nested-schema validity. Targeted inspection of smoke-project.md found both project settings include project URLs and explicit max values; status updates explicitly use max=1, avoiding finding 1. No new workflow violation was confirmed.

The top-level gaps docker-image-pull-policy and work-queue-policy are consumed via RawFrontmatter in docker.go and work_queue_policy.go, so they are not missing compiler support. Previously cached update-project missing-project documentation findings were excluded from the new finding count.

Non-authoritative AWF warning

The supplied AWF drift artifact has degraded=true because canonical-source retrieval failed for docs/awf-config-spec.md, docs/awf-config.schema.json, and src/awf-config-schema.json. No authoritative AWF drift conclusion is possible. This warning is excluded from the inconsistency count; no required-check failure, corrective PR, or drift issue is requested from this incomplete comparison.

Recommendations and Next Steps

• Align the status-update parser default with the advertised max=1 and add meaningful default regression coverage.
• Add project URLs to both embedded status-update examples and introduce schema-example validation.
• Correct the update-project capability summary to describe configurable cross-repository support.
• Restore canonical AWF source availability before drawing config-source drift conclusions.

Strategy Performance

• Findings: 3; effectiveness: high; should reuse: yes.
• Example validation identified a concrete invalid example, and adjacent parser/default tracing revealed a more consequential budget mismatch. Capability-table verification supplied a separate documentation correction.
• Saved strategy-7 and results to the strategy database. Only the requested strategy cache was updated; repository sources remain unchanged.

References: §40066466282

Generated by ✅ Schema Consistency Checker · codex · gpt61 · ~16 AIC · ⌖ ~7 AIC · ⊞ 19.6K · ◷

• expires on Oct 24, 2026, 9:35 PM UTC-08:00

[github-actions[bot]]

This discussion has been marked as outdated by Schema Consistency Checker.

A newer discussion is available at Discussion #71831.