[Schema Consistency] 🔍 Schema Consistency Check - 2026-10-31

[github-actions[bot]]

Overview

Found 3 actionable documentation inconsistencies after comparing the schema, compiler, reference documentation, and repository workflows. No critical runtime bug was established. Analysis was static; no workflows or untrusted scripts were executed.

• Strategy: cached schema-def spot checks plus targeted parser/doc/workflow verification. Day 304 modulo 10 = 4, selecting the proven strategy.
• Validation: 3 rejected minimal examples, each with an accepted corrected control, using the local Draft7 schema.
• Workflow coverage: 471 parsed workflow/shared frontmatter blocks checked for these specific patterns; none found. The precomputed diff also reports no workflow root keys missing from the schema. This is not a full compilation audit.

Key Issues

1. FAQ dispatch example omits the required workflow allowlist. faq.md:185 shows only safe-outputs.dispatch-workflow.max: 1. The schema requires workflows (schema:11882), and dispatch_workflow_validation.go:29 explicitly rejects an empty workflow list. Impact: copying the advertised configuration fails validation. Fix: add workflows: [worker-name] and explain that the named worker must exist and support workflow_dispatch. Adding that list passes the isolated schema check.

2. Manual approval example nests environment at an unsupported location. rate-limiting-controls.md:104 places environment: production inside dispatch-workflow. Even after adding the required workflow list, that nested property is rejected because the dispatch object disallows additional properties. dispatch_workflow.go:12 has no environment field; the supported environment override is extracted from the global safe-outputs map in safe_outputs_config_global.go:290. Impact: the documented manual-review configuration cannot compile. Fix: move environment: production to safe-outputs.environment, alongside a dispatch configuration containing workflows. That corrected shape passes the schema. Repository environment reviewers still need configuration as described in the docs.

3. Reusable-worker input example advertises schema-invalid choice inputs. safe-outputs.md:1507 declares on.workflow_call.inputs.environment.type: choice and options, then lists choice as supported. The workflow_call schema permits only string, number, and boolean and rejects options (schema:2268). Impact: the documented worker fails frontmatter validation. Fix: use type: string for reusable-workflow inputs and remove options; describe any application-level allowed-value validation separately. Align the typed-worker fixture in call_workflow_compilation_test.go:194, which also uses choice, and verify the complete worker through normal frontmatter validation. The string-only control passes. Generic choice-to-enum support in build_input_schema.go:48 does not establish that workflow_call accepts that declaration.

Scope, false positives, and strategy performance

Schema and Parser Assessment

The precomputed top-level gaps docker-image-pull-policy and work-queue-policy are false positives from struct-tag enumeration: both have RawFrontmatter consumers, respectively in pkg/workflow/docker.go:294 and pkg/workflow/work_queue_policy.go:184. No missing implementation is claimed. The confirmed issues require documentation corrections; no schema broadening or parser feature addition is recommended merely to accept the faulty examples.

Workflow Violations

No selected literal patterns were found in the 471 parsed workflow/shared blocks. Imports and shared components were not treated as standalone complete workflows. Findings from earlier cached runs were excluded.

AWF Comparison Warning — Non-authoritative

/tmp/gh-aw/agent/awf-config-drift.json reports degraded: true: canonical source retrieval failed for the AWF specification and schemas. No authoritative AWF config-source drift conclusion is possible. This warning is separate from the three local documentation findings; no required-check failure, corrective PR, or drift issue is requested from that incomplete comparison.

Strategy Performance

• Findings: 3 new confirmed inconsistencies.
• Effectiveness: high for documentation examples; limited to selected contracts.
• Reuse: yes.
• Updated the strategy cache with findings, controls, coverage, and the degraded AWF limitation. No repository source files were modified.

Next Actions

• Correct the FAQ dispatch example with an explicit workflow list.
• Move the manual-review environment setting to the supported global safe-outputs location.
• Correct reusable-worker inputs and align the typed-worker fixture; validate the complete example through the normal compiler path.
• Add focused documentation-example validation covering these three contracts.

References: §41172406285

Generated by ✅ Schema Consistency Checker · codex · gpt61 · ~17 AIC · ⌖ ~8 AIC · ⊞ 20K · ◷

• expires on Oct 31, 2026, 9:29 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 #73715.