[Schema Consistency] 🔍 Schema Consistency Check - 2026-10-27

[github-actions[bot]]

Overview

Found 3 actionable documentation inconsistencies by comparing schema constraints, compiler consumers, reference examples, and repository workflow usage. Used the cached Schema-def spot checks + targeted parser/doc/workflow verification strategy (day 300 modulo 10 = 0; proven-strategy selection). Previously cached findings were excluded.

Key Issues

1. Repository restriction shorthand is documented but rejected (medium). cross-repository.md:73–88 advertises tools.github.allowed-repos: current, including a claim that it is normalized. The schema enum accepts only all, public, and ${{ github.repository }} as scalar values. A minimal configuration with current fails; replacing it with ${{ github.repository }} passes. Correct the example and normalization claim, or implement and validate the shorthand consistently.
2. FAQ dispatch example omits the required target allowlist (medium). faq.md:185–193 shows only dispatch-workflow.max: 1. The object schema requires workflows, and the compiler explicitly reads that list. Add workflows: [worker], identifying an existing workflow, so readers can compile the example.
3. Manual approval example places environment under the wrong key (medium). rate-limiting-controls.md:101–111 places environment: production under safe-outputs.dispatch-workflow. That object rejects the property, and its compiler config does not define a per-dispatch environment. Move it to safe-outputs.environment and supply the required dispatch workflows list. Explain that the environment gates the safe-outputs job.

No critical runtime defect was established. These examples currently fail schema validation; the advertised approval configuration does not compile.

Evidence, validation, and scope

Schema ↔ Parser

The precomputed top-level gaps are false positives: docker-image-pull-policy is consumed through RawFrontmatter in pkg/workflow/docker.go:294, and work-queue-policy in pkg/workflow/work_queue_policy.go:184. Do not add redundant fields solely to satisfy the enumeration heuristic.

For finding 1, see schema enum and documentation example. A targeted compiler search found no corresponding GitHub guard normalization for the current literal; the schema rejection alone establishes the documentation inconsistency.

For finding 2, see FAQ example, dispatch schema, and compiler list extraction.

For finding 3, see approval example, dispatch configuration type, safe-outputs environment schema, and pkg/workflow/safe_outputs_config_types.go:141.

Validation

Reference YAML snippets were inspected with a YAML loader preserving on as a key and normal Boolean values. Minimal inert configurations were checked using the local Draft7 schema with on: workflow_dispatch; this avoids treating missing context in documentation fragments as a defect. All three failing forms were reproduced and corrected controls passed schema validation. The environment counterexample included a valid workflows list to isolate its unsupported nesting. No workflow code was executed or dispatched.

Workflows

The supplied diff reports no top-level workflow keys missing from the schema. A targeted scan found dispatch usage in project workflows; daily-report-dispatcher.md:22–24 correctly supplies the workflows list. No new workflow violation was confirmed. This was not exhaustive nested validation of every workflow or imported template.

Non-authoritative AWF Warning

The supplied AWF comparison has degraded: true: canonical-source retrieval failed. Canonical AWF config-source consistency is therefore unassessed, not a confirmed drift finding. No corrective PR, drift issue, or required-check failure is proposed from this data. This warning is excluded from the inconsistency count.

Recommendations and Next Steps

• Correct the repository restriction example to the supported expression, or add shorthand support across schema and compiler together.
• Add an explicit target workflow allowlist to the FAQ example.
• Move the approval environment to safe-outputs.environment and document the job-level gate.
• Add focused documentation-example validation covering these corrected configurations.

No mandatory schema or parser changes are needed for the documentation-only corrections. No workflow-file fix was established. Source files were left unchanged.

Strategy Performance

Findings: 3 · Effectiveness: high for documentation contract checks · New strategy: no · Reuse: yes. Strategy results were saved to the strategy database.

References: §40455940762

Generated by ✅ Schema Consistency Checker · codex · gpt61 · ~17 AIC · ⌖ ~7 AIC · ⊞ 19.6K · ◷

• expires on Oct 27, 2026, 9:38 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 #72587.