Enable automatic workflow approval for Liatrio Labs organization members #21
Conversation
Remove redundant title field from the generate-spec prompt frontmatter as the name field is sufficient for identification. 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Remove the title field from all prompt frontmatter files and the MarkdownPrompt parser to fix Claude Code slash command parsing issues. The title field with spaces was causing slash commands to break at the first space character. Changes: - Remove title field from MarkdownPrompt dataclass - Remove title handling in decorator_kwargs() method - Remove title extraction in load_markdown_prompt() - Remove title field from all three prompt files - Add quotes to description fields for consistency - Fix indentation in manage-tasks.md meta section 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Update test fixtures to remove the title field from prompt frontmatter, matching the changes made to the actual prompt files and parser. Also fix indentation for allowed-tools in manage-tasks test fixture. 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
- Adds comprehensive prompt for analyzing codebase architecture before feature development - Includes conversational flow with clarifying questions - Covers tech stack, database, API, frontend, testing, and deployment patterns - Generates detailed analysis document to inform spec-driven development - Integrates with existing generate-spec workflow
- Renames prompt to better reflect its purpose of generating context - Updates name in YAML frontmatter - Updates description to match new name - All functionality remains the same
- Add Claude Code feature-dev plugin comparison analysis - Document code-analyst and information-analyst patterns from research - Add context_bootstrap orchestration pattern - Create research synthesis with actionable recommendations - Identify gaps: mandatory clarifying phase, architecture options, quality review - Recommend evidence citation standards and confidence assessments - Document phased interactive questioning approach
…onfidence levels - Add evidence citation standards (file:line for code, path#heading for docs) - Add confidence assessment (High/Medium/Low) for all findings - Separate WHAT/HOW (from code) vs WHY (from docs/user) - Add documentation audit phase with rationale extraction - Add gap identification and user collaboration phase - Include execution path tracing with step-by-step flows - Add essential files list (5-10 files with line ranges) - Change to interactive short questions (not batch questionnaires) - Flag dormant code, feature toggles, conflicts explicitly - Add comprehensive example output structure - Add final checklist for quality assurance
- Document Phase 1 completion (enhanced generate-codebase-context) - Detail all improvements made in current PR - Plan Phase 2: spec enhancements, architecture options, review prompt - Plan Phase 3: examples, tutorials, polish - Include success metrics and key decisions - Provide clear roadmap for next 2 PRs
- Summarize all 5 research documents - Explain how research was applied to Phase 1 - Document key insights and success metrics - Provide clear references and next steps
- Emphasize that generate-codebase-context is NEW (not just enhanced) - Detail all new files and research documents added - Explain why this prompt was needed - Clarify impact on workflow (optional but recommended) - Provide clear usage instructions and review focus areas
- Updated summary to highlight this creates a NEW prompt - Added 'What's New' section explaining the gap being filled - Clarified that before this PR there was no systematic codebase analysis - Ensures PR description accurately reflects scope (creation not just enhancement) Addresses user feedback about PR description focusing on enhancement while skipping the fact that the prompt was also created.
- Move research from reverse-engineer-prompts/ to codebase-context/ - Move PROGRESS.md to docs/roadmap/ directory - Remove PR_DESCRIPTION.md (content moved elsewhere) - Add WARP.md (session notes) This reorganization better reflects the scope and purpose: - 'codebase-context' aligns with the prompt name - 'roadmap' is clearer for tracking implementation progress
- Add .markdownlintrc to disable MD036 and MD040 rules - MD036: Emphasis used instead of heading (intentional for STOP markers) - MD040: Fenced code blocks without language (intentional for examples) - Fix end-of-file issues (auto-fixed by pre-commit) All pre-commit checks now passing.
- Add trailing newlines to code-analyst.md, context_bootstrap.md, and information-analyst.md - Convert emphasis-as-heading to blockquote in research-synthesis.md - Fix bare URL by converting to markdown link in research-synthesis.md - Add 'text' language specifiers to all fenced code blocks in generate-codebase-context.md and PROGRESS.md Resolves CodeRabbit review feedback on PR #15 Co-authored-by: Gregg Coppen <iaminawe@users.noreply.github.com>
- Fix end-of-file issues in research documentation - Fix markdownlint issues auto-corrected by pre-commit hooks - All pre-commit checks now passing
Converted 5 instances of bold emphasis used as section markers to proper Markdown headings (### format) in generate-codebase-context.md: - Line 80: Always flag Medium and Low confidence items - Line 142: STOP - Wait for answers before proceeding - Line 193: STOP - Wait for any needed clarifications - Line 331: STOP - Ask user to validate findings - Line 425: STOP - Wait for user answers Resolves markdownlint MD036 violations. Co-authored-by: Gregg Coppen <iaminawe@users.noreply.github.com>
Incorporates patterns from generate-codebase-context and addresses feedback for improved spec generation workflow. Key improvements: - Add AI Behavior Guidelines for consistent execution - Add clear 5-phase structure with STOP points - Add mandatory clarifying questions phase - Add integration with codebase-context when available - Add Technical Feasibility Assessment with confidence levels - Add Architectural Alignment section - Add Quality Checklist for completeness - Add tool usage guidance for each phase - Clarify WHAT/WHY/HOW separation This aligns generate-spec with the research-driven improvements from Phase 1 and prepares for better integration with the generate-codebase-context workflow. Ref: docs/roadmap/PROGRESS.md Phase 2 enhancements
Implements comprehensive improvements based on expert feedback to elevate the prompt from production-ready to methodology-grade. Key enhancements: 1. AI Behavior Guidelines (New Section) - Explicit execution rules for consistency - Evidence-first synthesis approach - Clear confidence assessment standards 2. Tool-Phase Mapping (New Section) - Explicit tool usage guidance for each phase - Prevents tool misuse and enforces consistency - Supports automated and multi-agent execution 3. Repository Scoping Controls (New in Phase 1) - Automatic size detection (>5000 files, >100MB) - Guided scoping options for large codebases - Prevents runaway analysis in monorepos 4. Enhanced Confidence Criteria (Updated) - Automation examples (Grep/Glob reference counts) - Automatic confidence rules (≥3 refs = Medium+) - Clear distinction between auto and manual verification 5. Phase 3.5: Pattern Recognition (NEW PHASE) - Bridges raw analysis with architectural philosophy - Detects design patterns (Repository, CQRS, Factory, etc.) - Identifies anti-patterns (cyclic deps, God objects) - Synthesizes architectural philosophy from evidence 6. Crosscutting Concerns Section (New in Phase 4) - Logging & observability analysis - Error handling & resilience patterns - Configuration & secrets management - Security practices (auth, validation, CORS) - Performance & caching strategies - Testing approach assessment 7. Gap Prioritization (Enhanced Phase 5) - Priority levels: 🟥 Critical, 🟧 Important, 🟨 Minor - Automatic prioritization rules - Actionable gap assessment for spec development 8. Version Control Context (New in Output) - Commit activity and contributor patterns - Code maturity signals (high-churn vs stable files) - Ownership patterns (domain experts) - Architectural evolution timeline - Technical debt indicators 9. Executive Summary Mode (Optional Output) - 2-page quick read option - High-level strengths and attention areas - Recommended next steps Impact: - Transforms prompt from workflow guide to systematic methodology - Enables reproducible, evidence-based analysis - Supports academic-level research and audits - Provides actionable insights for architectural decisions Grade improvement: A+ → Methodology Standard Ref: Expert feedback review, Phase 1 research integration
Restores and enhances the guidance from original 'Final instructions' section that was integrated during restructuring. New section explicitly lists 8 forbidden actions: 1. Do NOT implement the spec (workflow creates specs only) 2. Do NOT skip clarifying questions (Phase 2 is mandatory) 3. Do NOT make technical decisions without evidence 4. Do NOT write specs in isolation (check context first) 5. Do NOT proceed without user validation (respect STOP points) 6. Do NOT include implementation details (focus on WHAT/WHY) 7. Do NOT assume requirements (ask when unclear) 8. Do NOT continue after spec approved (workflow ends) This makes boundaries crystal clear and prevents common errors where AI agents might: - Jump straight to implementation - Skip clarifying questions when prompt seems clear - Make technology choices without checking existing patterns - Batch all questions instead of iterative dialog - Continue past approval into task breakdown Addresses user feedback about missing 'do not do' clarity.
…lines Reduced verbosity in Phase 6 example template while preserving all functionality and guidance: - Executive Summary: 32→15 lines (condensed to format guide + minimal example) - Repository sections: Merged verbose examples into concise format guides - System Capabilities: 3 detailed examples→1 example + format - Architecture: 3 component examples→1 + merged subsections - Technical sections: Merged Conventions, Testing, Build into single section - Essential Files: Reduced from 8 to 3 example entries with format guide - Execution Paths: 2 detailed flows→1 concise flow with format - Final sections: Merged 4 sections (Confidence, Gaps, Recommendations, Next Steps) into 1 - Removed: Redundant Key Principles section (covered in main content) - Streamlined: Final Checklist from 13→7 items Total reduction: 334 lines (26% smaller) without losing instructional value. 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Added blank lines after opening ``` and before closing ``` in two code block examples to satisfy markdownlint MD031 rule. 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Generate initial system documentation (001-SYSTEM.md) with complete analysis: - Repository structure and technology stack - System capabilities with execution traces - Architecture patterns and design philosophy - Integration points and dependencies - Evidence-based findings with 150+ file:line citations - Confidence levels for all findings (High/Medium/Low) - Gap analysis with prioritized recommendations - Essential files list and execution path examples Analysis completed using generate-context prompt with: - 6-phase analysis process (structure, docs, code, patterns, integration, gaps) - Interactive user collaboration for gap validation - Separation of WHAT/HOW (code) from WHY (documentation) - User-confirmed decisions captured with timestamps Updates to research documentation: - Enhanced README with analysis methodology - Updated research comparison and synthesis documents - PROGRESS.md tracking implementation status 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Update all repository references from spec-driven-workflow-mcp to spec-driven-workflow to match the repository rename. Changes: - README.md: Update badges, clone URL, and directory name - tasks/0001-spec-sdd-mcp-poc.md: Update issue links - tasks/tasks-0001-spec-sdd-mcp-poc.md: Update issue links - Git remote origin: Updated to new repository URL Note: CHANGELOG.md historical commit links left unchanged as they still work via GitHub redirect. 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
- Update all references from reverse-engineer-prompts to codebase-context in PROGRESS.md - Restore Phase 4 checkpoint in generate-context.md execution rules - Fix critical workflow gaps identified in CodeRabbit review Co-authored-by: Gregg Coppen <iaminawe@users.noreply.github.com>
…rison.md - Add language specifiers (text) to all code blocks (MD040) - Convert emphasis-as-heading to proper headings for agents (MD036) - Remove empty code block Co-authored-by: Gregg Coppen <iaminawe@users.noreply.github.com>
…de-feature-dev-comparison.md - Add blank line before code fence (MD031) - Add 'text' language specifier to code block (MD040) - Fixes linting errors identified in CodeRabbit review Co-authored-by: Gregg Coppen <iaminawe@users.noreply.github.com>
Auto-applied markdownlint-fix formatting rules: - Add blank lines after headers and before list items - Escape underscores in Python module paths (__init__ → **init**) These changes resolve the pre-commit hook failure in CI. 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
- Added Phase 5.5 (Autonomous Answers) to the numbered checkpoint list - Updated auto-continue rules to include Phase 5.5 trigger conditions - Clarified workflow: Phase 5 → Phase 5.5 (optional) → Phase 6 - Resolves CodeRabbit feedback about missing Phase 5.5 in execution sequence Co-authored-by: Gregg Coppen <iaminawe@users.noreply.github.com>
- Add cross-reference from comparison doc to PROGRESS.md roadmap - Clarify good vs bad examples in code-analyst.md - Add forward reference to context_bootstrap.md from code-analyst.md - Make decision sources explicit with line numbers in PROGRESS.md - Add note about question scope in generate-context.md - Add migration impact note to research-synthesis.md - Reduce word repetition in decision rationale questions - Fix compound modifier hyphenation (Medium-and-Low-Confidence) Co-authored-by: Gregg Coppen <iaminawe@users.noreply.github.com>
Apply markdownlint formatting rule to add blank line before list items. 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Convert bold emphasis markers to proper heading levels for STOP checkpoints: - Line 64: Convert to #### (level 4 heading) - Line 80: Convert to #### (level 4 heading) This resolves the remaining MD036 markdownlint violations flagged by CodeRabbit. 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit updates the Claude Code and OpenCode GPT-5 Codex workflows to automatically allow workflow execution for members of the liatrio-labs GitHub organization without requiring manual approval. Changes: - Added check-org-membership job to both workflows - Checks author_association first (OWNER, MEMBER, COLLABORATOR) - Falls back to checking liatrio-labs organization membership via GitHub API - Main workflow jobs now depend on authorization check passing This ensures that: 1. Existing collaborators continue to work without changes 2. Any member of liatrio-labs organization can trigger workflows 3. Non-members and non-collaborators are still blocked 🤖 Generated with Claude Code Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
WalkthroughThis PR introduces authorization gating to GitHub workflows via a new Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
actor User
participant GH as GitHub Actions
participant Check as check-org-membership
participant Main as claude/opencode Job
User->>GH: Trigger workflow (e.g., PR review)
GH->>Check: Run check-org-membership job
activate Check
Check->>Check: Extract author_association from event
alt Is OWNER/MEMBER/COLLABORATOR?
Check->>Check: Set is-authorized = true
else
Check->>Check: Query liatrio-labs org membership via gh api
alt Member found?
Check->>Check: Set is-authorized = true
else
Check->>Check: Set is-authorized = false
end
end
Check-->>GH: Output is-authorized
deactivate Check
GH->>Main: Check condition: is-authorized == 'true'
alt Authorization passed?
GH->>Main: Execute main job
Main->>Main: Run workflow logic
Main-->>User: Complete
else
GH-->>User: Skip job (unauthorized)
end
Estimated code review effort🎯 4 (Complex) | ⏱️ ~70 minutes The breadth and heterogeneity of changes demand careful review: workflow authorization logic across two files requires validation of authorization semantics and GitHub Actions edge cases; extensive system and research documentation requires verification of accuracy against the codebase; updated prompt specifications involve phased workflow logic and execution guardrails; documentation-heavy but logically dense in workflow and prompt specifications. Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
Pre-merge checks and finishing touches❌ Failed checks (2 warnings)
✅ Passed checks (1 passed)
✨ Finishing touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| runs-on: ubuntu-latest | ||
| if: | | ||
| ( | ||
| github.event_name == 'issue_comment' && | ||
| contains(github.event.comment.body, '@claude') && | ||
| contains(fromJson('["OWNER","MEMBER","COLLABORATOR"]'), github.event.comment.author_association) | ||
| contains(github.event.comment.body, '@claude') | ||
| ) || ( | ||
| github.event_name == 'pull_request_review_comment' && | ||
| contains(github.event.comment.body, '@claude') && | ||
| contains(fromJson('["OWNER","MEMBER","COLLABORATOR"]'), github.event.comment.author_association) | ||
| contains(github.event.comment.body, '@claude') | ||
| ) || ( | ||
| github.event_name == 'pull_request_review' && | ||
| github.event.review.body != null && | ||
| contains(github.event.review.body, '@claude') && | ||
| contains(fromJson('["OWNER","MEMBER","COLLABORATOR"]'), github.event.review.author_association) | ||
| contains(github.event.review.body, '@claude') | ||
| ) || ( | ||
| github.event_name == 'issues' && | ||
| ( | ||
| (github.event.issue.body != null && contains(github.event.issue.body, '@claude')) || | ||
| contains(github.event.issue.title, '@claude') | ||
| ) && | ||
| contains(fromJson('["OWNER","MEMBER","COLLABORATOR"]'), github.event.issue.author_association) | ||
| ) | ||
| ) | ||
| outputs: | ||
| is-authorized: ${{ steps.check.outputs.authorized }} | ||
| steps: | ||
| - name: Check authorization | ||
| id: check | ||
| env: | ||
| GH_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }} | ||
| run: | | ||
| ACTOR="${{ github.actor }}" | ||
| # Check if user is a repo collaborator/owner/member first | ||
| if [[ "${{ github.event_name }}" == "issue_comment" ]]; then | ||
| AUTHOR_ASSOC="${{ github.event.comment.author_association }}" | ||
| elif [[ "${{ github.event_name }}" == "pull_request_review_comment" ]]; then | ||
| AUTHOR_ASSOC="${{ github.event.comment.author_association }}" | ||
| elif [[ "${{ github.event_name }}" == "pull_request_review" ]]; then | ||
| AUTHOR_ASSOC="${{ github.event.review.author_association }}" | ||
| elif [[ "${{ github.event_name }}" == "issues" ]]; then | ||
| AUTHOR_ASSOC="${{ github.event.issue.author_association }}" | ||
| fi | ||
| if [[ "$AUTHOR_ASSOC" == "OWNER" ]] || [[ "$AUTHOR_ASSOC" == "MEMBER" ]] || [[ "$AUTHOR_ASSOC" == "COLLABORATOR" ]]; then | ||
| echo "User is authorized via author_association: $AUTHOR_ASSOC" | ||
| echo "authorized=true" >> "$GITHUB_OUTPUT" | ||
| exit 0 | ||
| fi | ||
| # Check if user is a member of liatrio-labs organization | ||
| if gh api "orgs/liatrio-labs/members/$ACTOR" --silent 2>/dev/null; then | ||
| echo "User is authorized as liatrio-labs organization member" | ||
| echo "authorized=true" >> "$GITHUB_OUTPUT" | ||
| else | ||
| echo "User is not authorized" | ||
| echo "authorized=false" >> "$GITHUB_OUTPUT" | ||
| fi | ||
| claude: |
Check warning
Code scanning / CodeQL
Workflow does not contain permissions Medium
Show autofix suggestion
Hide autofix suggestion
Copilot Autofix
AI about 1 month ago
The safest and most correct fix is to add a permissions: block explicitly to the root of the workflow or directly to the check-org-membership: job. Since the claude job already has its own permissions block, and since least privilege is recommended everywhere, we should add a permissions: block to the root of the workflow for read-only access or, more strictly, to the check-org-membership job with only the permissions needed. In this job, gh api "orgs/liatrio-labs/members/$ACTOR" is used, which only requires the token for reading public organization membership, meaning contents: read is sufficient. If we wish to be most precise, we add:
permissions:
contents: readat the job level (for check-org-membership:), or at the root if appropriate. For clarity and future extensibility, setting it at the job level minimizes possible impact on other jobs.
Steps:
- Find the
check-org-membership:job definition. - Add a block under it:
permissions: contents: read
No new imports, methods or definitions are necessary.
| @@ -14,6 +14,8 @@ | ||
| # Check if the user is a member of liatrio-labs organization | ||
| check-org-membership: | ||
| runs-on: ubuntu-latest | ||
| permissions: | ||
| contents: read | ||
| if: | | ||
| ( | ||
| github.event_name == 'issue_comment' && |
| runs-on: ubuntu-latest | ||
| if: | | ||
| ( | ||
| github.event_name == 'issue_comment' && | ||
| contains(github.event.comment.body, '/oc-codex') && | ||
| contains(fromJson('["OWNER","MEMBER","COLLABORATOR"]'), github.event.comment.author_association) | ||
| contains(github.event.comment.body, '/oc-codex') | ||
| ) || ( | ||
| github.event_name == 'pull_request_review_comment' && | ||
| contains(github.event.comment.body, '/oc-codex') && | ||
| contains(fromJson('["OWNER","MEMBER","COLLABORATOR"]'), github.event.comment.author_association) | ||
| contains(github.event.comment.body, '/oc-codex') | ||
| ) || ( | ||
| github.event_name == 'pull_request_review' && | ||
| github.event.review.body != null && | ||
| contains(github.event.review.body, '/oc-codex') && | ||
| contains(fromJson('["OWNER","MEMBER","COLLABORATOR"]'), github.event.review.author_association) | ||
| contains(github.event.review.body, '/oc-codex') | ||
| ) || ( | ||
| github.event_name == 'issues' && | ||
| ( | ||
| (github.event.issue.body != null && contains(github.event.issue.body, '/oc-codex')) || | ||
| contains(github.event.issue.title, '/oc-codex') | ||
| ) && | ||
| contains(fromJson('["OWNER","MEMBER","COLLABORATOR"]'), github.event.issue.author_association) | ||
| ) | ||
| ) | ||
| outputs: | ||
| is-authorized: ${{ steps.check.outputs.authorized }} | ||
| steps: | ||
| - name: Check authorization | ||
| id: check | ||
| env: | ||
| GH_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }} | ||
| run: | | ||
| ACTOR="${{ github.actor }}" | ||
| # Check if user is a repo collaborator/owner/member first | ||
| if [[ "${{ github.event_name }}" == "issue_comment" ]]; then | ||
| AUTHOR_ASSOC="${{ github.event.comment.author_association }}" | ||
| elif [[ "${{ github.event_name }}" == "pull_request_review_comment" ]]; then | ||
| AUTHOR_ASSOC="${{ github.event.comment.author_association }}" | ||
| elif [[ "${{ github.event_name }}" == "pull_request_review" ]]; then | ||
| AUTHOR_ASSOC="${{ github.event.review.author_association }}" | ||
| elif [[ "${{ github.event_name }}" == "issues" ]]; then | ||
| AUTHOR_ASSOC="${{ github.event.issue.author_association }}" | ||
| fi | ||
| if [[ "$AUTHOR_ASSOC" == "OWNER" ]] || [[ "$AUTHOR_ASSOC" == "MEMBER" ]] || [[ "$AUTHOR_ASSOC" == "COLLABORATOR" ]]; then | ||
| echo "User is authorized via author_association: $AUTHOR_ASSOC" | ||
| echo "authorized=true" >> "$GITHUB_OUTPUT" | ||
| exit 0 | ||
| fi | ||
| # Check if user is a member of liatrio-labs organization | ||
| if gh api "orgs/liatrio-labs/members/$ACTOR" --silent 2>/dev/null; then | ||
| echo "User is authorized as liatrio-labs organization member" | ||
| echo "authorized=true" >> "$GITHUB_OUTPUT" | ||
| else | ||
| echo "User is not authorized" | ||
| echo "authorized=false" >> "$GITHUB_OUTPUT" | ||
| fi | ||
| opencode: |
Check warning
Code scanning / CodeQL
Workflow does not contain permissions Medium
Show autofix suggestion
Hide autofix suggestion
Copilot Autofix
AI about 1 month ago
To resolve this issue, the best practice is to add an explicit permissions: block to the check-org-membership job, specifying the least privilege required for the job's function. Since the workflow job only uses the GITHUB_TOKEN to read metadata, the minimal permission should be contents: read. This should be added right below the runs-on key in the check-org-membership job (on line 16 or 17), ensuring that the job does not inherit potentially overly broad repository-level permissions.
Necessary change:
- In file
.github/workflows/opencode-gpt-5-codex.yml, in thecheck-org-membershipjob, add:directly afterpermissions: contents: read
runs-on: ubuntu-latest, indented to align with the rest of the job configuration.
| @@ -14,6 +14,8 @@ | ||
| # Check if the user is a member of liatrio-labs organization | ||
| check-org-membership: | ||
| runs-on: ubuntu-latest | ||
| permissions: | ||
| contents: read | ||
| if: | | ||
| ( | ||
| github.event_name == 'issue_comment' && |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (6)
.github/workflows/opencode-gpt-5-codex.yml (1)
42-69: Optional: extract authorization logic to reusable composite action.Both claude.yml and opencode-gpt-5-codex.yml duplicate the authorization check script (lines 42–69, with only the trigger string differing). This could be extracted into a composite action to reduce duplication and simplify maintenance, though inline scripts are acceptable for stable internal workflows.
docs/research/codebase-context/README.md (1)
1-50: Excellent research index; consider reformatting status indicators to avoid MD036 linting.The research directory overview is well-structured and provides clear navigation to five research documents plus synthesis. The Phase 1/Phase 2 approach and success metrics are clearly articulated. However, lines using bold emphasis for status (e.g., "🔴 HIGH", "🟡 MEDIUM") trigger Markdown linting warnings (MD036 - emphasis should be headings).
Optional refactor: Replace emphasis-based status lines with proper heading levels or inline badges:
- **🔴 HIGH:** Evidence citation standards (file:line, path#heading) + #### 🔴 Evidence citation standards (HIGH PRIORITY)Or use Markdown table for status indicators instead.
prompts/generate-context.md (4)
27-68: Critical execution rules clearly emphasized but could benefit from simpler formatting.Lines 27-68 establish the execution model with interactive vs. autonomous modes. The content is comprehensive and critical, but the wall of text is dense. Consider:
- Adding a simple flowchart/decision tree at line 27
- Using more visual separation between modes
- Adding TL;DR summary before detailed rules
This will improve scannability and reduce risk of important rules being missed.
As an improvement, consider restructuring like this:
## ⚠️ CRITICAL EXECUTION RULE - READ FIRST ### Quick Reference **Interactive Mode (Default):** Follow 6 phases with mandatory STOP points between each phase. Wait for user input at each ⛔ STOP. **Autonomous Mode (--no_questions flag):** Skip stops, make assumptions, document them clearly with 🔵 confidence level. ### Detailed Rules [detailed content follows...]
115-119: Filename pattern00[n]-SYSTEM.mdneeds clarification on why leading zeros are required.The pattern specified at line 118 uses
00[n](e.g.,001-SYSTEM.md,002-SYSTEM.md...). This works but unusual. Briefly document why:
- Is this for lexicographic sorting (010 comes after 002)?
- Is this a versioning scheme?
- Is there a maximum number of documents supported?
A one-line explanation would prevent confusion.
27-54: STOP checkpoint enforcement could cause AI to fail if user is unavailable.Lines 27-54 mandate STOP points and waiting for user input. However, the system should handle gracefully if user doesn't respond:
- Add timeout guidance? (e.g., "After 30 minutes with no response...")
- Add escalation path? (e.g., "Proceed autonomously if critical path...")
- Add resume capability? (e.g., "User can provide answers later via...")
Without this, analysis could stall indefinitely.
Consider adding:
### Handling User Unavailability If user doesn't respond to STOP checkpoints within 1 hour: 1. Offer to proceed autonomously (with clear assumptions) 2. Or save checkpoint for later resumption 3. Or ask if user prefers autonomous mode Format: "User inactive for 60 min. Proceed autonomously? (y/n)"
809-926: Autonomous Answers Framework is sophisticated but depends heavily on AI judgment.Lines 809-926 create a framework for making reasoned decisions when user isn't available. The template (lines 870-895) and example (lines 897-925) are excellent. However:
- Gap-007 example assumes pinning to minor version is "standard"—this is actually debatable (some prefer
>=0.1.0for flexibility)- Framework lacks guidance on when to defer to "Unknown" instead of making autonomous answer
Consider adding: "When in doubt, mark as 🔴 Unknown rather than 🔵 Assumed" to bias toward caution.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (15)
.github/workflows/claude.yml(1 hunks).github/workflows/opencode-gpt-5-codex.yml(1 hunks).markdownlintrc(1 hunks)docs/001-SYSTEM.md(1 hunks)docs/research/codebase-context/README.md(1 hunks)docs/research/codebase-context/claude-code-feature-dev-comparison.md(1 hunks)docs/research/codebase-context/code-analyst.md(1 hunks)docs/research/codebase-context/context_bootstrap.md(1 hunks)docs/research/codebase-context/information-analyst.md(1 hunks)docs/research/codebase-context/research-synthesis.md(1 hunks)docs/roadmap/PROGRESS.md(1 hunks)prompts/generate-context.md(1 hunks)prompts/generate-spec.md(1 hunks)tasks/0001-spec-sdd-mcp-poc.md(1 hunks)tasks/tasks-0001-spec-sdd-mcp-poc.md(2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 LanguageTool
prompts/generate-context.md
[uncategorized] ~674-~674: If this is a compound adjective that modifies the following noun, use a hyphen.
Context: ...alidation) - CORS configuration - Rate limiting - Evidence: Auth middleware, val...
(EN_COMPOUND_ADJECTIVE_INTERNAL)
[uncategorized] ~1440-~1440: The official name of this software platform is spelled with a capital “H”.
Context: ...CI/CD - Platform: GitHub Actions (.github/workflows/ci.yml) - Pipeline: 1. ...
(GITHUB)
docs/research/codebase-context/research-synthesis.md
[uncategorized] ~286-~286: Do not mix variants of the same word (‘analyse’ and ‘analyze’) within a single text.
Context: ...t - Recommended: Regenerate context analyses using the new prompt format for consist...
(EN_WORD_COHERENCY)
docs/research/codebase-context/information-analyst.md
[style] ~30-~30: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Consider rewording the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
Context: ... - What use cases drove requirements? - What goals or metrics define success? **How...
(ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE)
[style] ~48-~48: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Consider rewording the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
Context: ...s? - What trade-offs were considered? - What problems were these choices solving? *...
(ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE)
[style] ~84-~84: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Consider rewording the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
Context: ...hy? - What problems were encountered? - What was tried and didn't work? - How did de...
(ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE)
🪛 markdownlint-cli2 (0.18.1)
docs/research/codebase-context/code-analyst.md
247-247: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
docs/001-SYSTEM.md
145-145: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
152-152: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
159-159: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
166-166: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
173-173: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
181-181: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
188-188: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
195-195: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
202-202: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
211-211: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
218-218: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
225-225: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
294-294: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
310-310: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
327-327: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
344-344: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
525-525: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
549-549: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
559-559: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
1154-1154: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
1239-1239: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
1278-1278: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
1385-1385: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
1392-1392: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
1401-1401: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
1417-1417: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
1424-1424: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
1439-1439: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
1446-1446: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
1453-1453: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
1597-1597: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
1705-1705: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
🔇 Additional comments (45)
tasks/tasks-0001-spec-sdd-mcp-poc.md (1)
65-65: URL corrections align with repository migration.The three issue reference links have been correctly updated from the old repository path (
spec-driven-workflow-mcp) to the new consolidated repository (spec-driven-workflow), maintaining correct issue numbering (#3, #4, #5) that corresponds to their respective task sections.Also applies to: 73-73, 83-83
tasks/0001-spec-sdd-mcp-poc.md (1)
41-41: URL migrations are consistent and properly formatted.The three Status line updates correctly migrate issue references from the old repository path to the new centralized path. The mappings are logical (Slice N → issue #N), and the Markdown link syntax is preserved.
Also applies to: 48-48, 55-55
.markdownlintrc (1)
1-4: Configuration looks good.The Markdownlint configuration correctly disables rules MD036 and MD040, which aligns with the documentation-heavy changes in this PR.
.github/workflows/claude.yml (5)
17-34: Comprehensive trigger detection.The condition correctly checks for
@claudeacross all relevant event types (issue comments, PR review comments, PR reviews, and issue body/title). The null-safety checks for pull_request_review.body and proper field access for each event type are correct.
46-54: Correct author association extraction.Each event type is properly mapped to its corresponding author_association field. Unhandled event types will leave the variable unset, which safely falls through to the GitHub API check as a conservative authorization failure.
56-60: Fast-path authorization logic is sound.The early authorization check for OWNER, MEMBER, or COLLABORATOR author_association correctly bypasses the org membership API call. The
exit 0appropriately terminates the script after the output is set.
62-69: Conservative authorization fallback is appropriate.The GitHub API check treats any failure (not found, errors, etc.) as "not authorized," which is the right conservative approach for a security gate. The step properly exits with 0 in all cases, allowing the output to be consumed by the dependent job.
35-36: Output handling and downstream gating are correct.The authorization output is properly defined, referenced, and consumed by the dependent claude job. The string comparison correctly matches the shell script's output format.
Also applies to: 72-73
.github/workflows/opencode-gpt-5-codex.yml (2)
14-70: Authorization check correctly mirrors claude.yml pattern.The check-org-membership job implements the same sound authorization architecture: trigger detection for
/oc-codex, AUTHOR_ASSOC fast-path (OWNER/MEMBER/COLLABORATOR), and conservative fallback to GitHub API org membership check. All logic is correct.
71-92: Proper gating and permissions.The opencode job correctly depends on the authorization check and has appropriate permissions (contents, id-token). The 30-minute timeout accommodates extended Codex execution time.
docs/research/codebase-context/README.md (1)
190-246: Phase 1 application is comprehensive; Phase 2 roadmap is clear.Line 192-225 clearly traces how research was applied to
generate-contextprompt. Phase 2 planned enhancements (lines 227-246) reference corresponding new/updated prompts that should be verified to exist in the PR. Cross-check thatgenerate-spec.mdenhancements and the proposed new prompts (generate-architecture-options,review-implementation) align with this roadmap.prompts/generate-spec.md (3)
19-29: Excellent additions: Core Principle and AI Behavior Guidelines frame requirements-gathering correctly.Lines 19-29 introduce a clear WHAT/WHY vs. HOW separation and establish practical guidelines (ask rather than assume, reference context, short focused questions). These principles directly address gaps identified in the Claude Code comparison research and substantially improve prompt clarity.
30-87: Strong phased workflow with explicit STOP markers; mandatory clarifying phase addresses critical gap.The restructuring into five phases with ⛔ STOP signals (lines 43, 64, 80, 86) aligns perfectly with Claude Code research findings. Phase 2 (Mandatory Clarifying Questions, lines 43-65) is now a hard checkpoint—users cannot proceed without answering. This directly prevents the "build wrong features" failure mode documented in the research.
Key improvement: Line 64 explicitly states "STOP - Wait for user answers before proceeding to Phase 3" (previously implicit in generate-spec examples).
120-143: Architectural Alignment and Technical Feasibility Assessment are new sections that strengthen spec completeness.Lines 120-143 add two important sections:
- Architectural Alignment (120-125): Ties spec to existing codebase patterns via
codebase-contextreference—prevents architectural misalignment.- Technical Feasibility Assessment (126-131): Uses confidence levels (🟢 High/🟡 Medium/🔴 Low) with evidence requirements—prevents underestimating risk.
Format example provided at line 124 shows proper citation: "src/auth/AuthService.ts:23-45 per codebase-context"—excellent alignment with research evidence standards.
docs/001-SYSTEM.md (3)
1-50: Comprehensive system documentation with excellent structure; note MD040 linting for code blocks.This is a substantial system documentation artifact (1700+ lines) covering repository overview, capabilities, architecture, conventions, testing, deployment, dependencies, and integration points. The structure mirrors the research documentation standards: WHAT (capabilities), HOW (architecture), and WHY (decision rationale with evidence).
Strengths:
- Confidence levels explicitly marked (🟢 High/🟡 Medium/🔴 Low) throughout
- Evidence citations with file:line references
- Decision rationale in Appendix D captures "why" decisions were made
- Execution path examples are detailed and actionable
Minor: Static analysis flags MD040 (code blocks should specify language) on lines 525, 549, 559, 1154, 1239, 1278, 1597, 1705. This is cosmetic; all code blocks are readable without language specification but adding them improves syntax highlighting.
[approve_code_changes, suggest_optional_refactor]
1133-1150: Essential Files List is actionable and well-prioritized.Lines 1133-1150 provide a top-10 priority reading list with rationale for each file. This directly addresses a research recommendation to provide "5-10 essential files to read" as an output. The list balances breadth (entry points, configuration, core logic, tests, prompts, README) with depth (specific line ranges where relevant).
1152-1302: Execution Path Examples are comprehensive; Level 3 of detail aids understanding.Lines 1152-1302 provide three detailed execution path examples:
- Server startup (STDIO) - 79 lines of step-by-step flow
- MCP client prompt request - 31 lines
- Health check (HTTP) - 19 lines
Format is clear (numbered steps with arrow flows), includes file/line references, and traces from entry through initialization to output. This directly implements the research recommendation for "execution path traces with step-by-step flows."
docs/research/codebase-context/context_bootstrap.md (1)
1-57: Well-articulated manager orchestration pattern; establishes clear separation of concerns.This file defines the Bootstrap Context Command as a manager pattern coordinating Code Analyst and Information Analyst subagents. The design is sound:
- Mission (lines 10-16) is clear: produce PRDs, ADRs, SYSTEM-OVERVIEW, README
- Core Principle (line 19) separates what code can reveal (HOW) from what users must provide (WHAT, WHY)
- Repository Layout Awareness (lines 25-32) handles three common patterns (workspace, monorepo, single app)
- Six-Phase Workflow (lines 41-50) is logical: structure → audit → analysis → collaboration → draft → review
The subagent pattern (Code Analyst + Information Analyst) reflects research findings and enables parallel, focused analysis.
docs/research/codebase-context/code-analyst.md (2)
23-99: Clear role boundaries prevent scope creep; "What NOT to Look For" section is particularly valuable.The three discovery areas (Functional Capabilities, Technology Stack, Architecture & Patterns) are well-scoped. Line 91-99 explicitly excludes WHY inference—"You can't know why from code alone." This clear boundary prevents the Code Analyst from making assumptions about rationale, which is delegated to Information Analyst.
Key principle (line 279): "Stay in your lane - don't infer WHY from code." This prevents analysis drift.
180-236: "Good vs Bad" examples are instructive; demonstrate proper evidence and confidence marking.The good example (lines 182-206) shows:
- Specific file:line citations (e.g.,
services/api/catalog/routes.ts#L12)- Working features only (no missing/planned features)
- Technology names without versions
- No quality judgments
- Confidence marking implicit
The bad example (lines 208-236) shows common mistakes:
- Specific versions (shouldn't include)
- Code quality judgments ("GOOD CODE QUALITY", "NEEDS IMPROVEMENT")
- Missing features (belongs in roadmap, not PRD)
- Internal data models (implementation details, not contracts)
This contrast makes the guidelines concrete and actionable.
docs/research/codebase-context/claude-code-feature-dev-comparison.md (2)
367-391: Gap analysis is well-structured; critical gaps are clearly articulated and justified.The three-level gap analysis (Critical, Important, Minor) is systematic:
Critical Gaps (lines 369-375):
- Mandatory clarifying questions phase—prevents building wrong features
- Multi-approach architecture—enables better design decisions
- Quality review before merge—catches bugs early
Important Gaps (lines 377-383):
- Agent-based file discovery (5-10 key files to read)
- Explicit approval gates
- Execution path tracing
Each gap includes rationale ("Impact") and priority. This structure helps prioritize where to focus enhancement efforts.
456-569: Recommended improvements are specific and map directly to identified gaps.Phase 1 enhancements (lines 458-569) are concrete:
- Enhance generate-spec with mandatory clarifying phase (lines 460-505): Adds explicit Phase 3 with STOP checkpoint—directly addresses Critical Gap #1
- Create generate-architecture-options (lines 508-533): 2-3 approaches with trade-offs—addresses Critical Gap #2
- Create review-implementation (lines 537-567): Quality review with categorized findings—addresses Critical Gap #3
Each recommendation includes:
- Current state vs. recommended change
- Specific code/markdown diffs
- Rationale for the change
- Integration point in workflow
This level of specificity makes implementation straightforward.
docs/research/codebase-context/information-analyst.md (2)
20-99: Excellent complementary role definition; clear separation from Code Analyst (WHY vs WHAT/HOW).Information Analyst discovers WHY (rationale, decisions, context) from documentation—directly complementing Code Analyst's WHAT/HOW from code. Four discovery areas (lines 22-93):
- System Context & Purpose (lines 22-38)—finds problems solved, users, business value
- Decision Rationale (lines 40-59)—finds why X was chosen, alternatives, trade-offs
- Intended Architecture (lines 61-76)—finds design intent, patterns, deployment topology
- Historical Context (lines 78-93)—finds evolution, migrations, problems encountered
"How to find it" subsections are actionable (scan README, design docs, ADRs, diagrams, meeting notes, commit messages).
130-238: Output format template is comprehensive and well-structured for information synthesis.The output format (lines 130-238) provides a clear template with sections for:
- Documentation found (in-repo + external with metadata)
- System context (purpose, users, use cases)
- Decision Rationale (technology, architecture decisions with direct quotes and sources)
- Intended architecture (components, communication, design patterns)
- Historical context (evolution, migrations)
- Conflicts & Discrepancies (between docs, gaps, outdated info)
- Confidence levels (High/Medium/Low with evidence)
- Questions for manager (clarifications needed)
Format emphasizes evidence: Line 162 says "Why chosen: '[Direct quote or paraphrase from docs]'" and line 163 shows source format: "
[path/to/doc.md#section-heading]"—excellent alignment with research standards.docs/research/codebase-context/research-synthesis.md (4)
213-287: Phased restructuring recommendation is well-detailed; provides clear path for generate-context enhancement.Lines 213-287 propose restructuring
generate-contextinto seven focused phases:
- Repository Structure (222-226)
- Documentation Audit (228-233)
- Code Analysis (235-243)—with file:line evidence, confidence levels, "stay in lane" principle
- Information Analysis (245-252)—with source references, rationale extraction
- Gap Identification (254-259)
- User Collaboration (261-267)—mandatory STOP, capture quotes
- Generate Analysis Document (269-277)—with 5-10 essential files list + execution paths
This structure directly implements Code Analyst/Information Analyst patterns and aligns with context_bootstrap six-phase workflow. Each phase has clear deliverables and outputs.
518-530: Integration priority matrix effectively guides implementation sequencing.The matrix (lines 518-530) rates 8 changes by Impact (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW) and Effort (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW):
- P0 (Do First): Restructure codebase-context + evidence citations + confidence assessment (HIGH impact, MEDIUM/LOW effort)
- P1 (Important): Enhance generate-spec + ADR template + interactive questioning (MEDIUM impact, LOW/MEDIUM effort)
- P2 (Future): Agent specialization + multi-document artifacts (LOW impact, HIGH/MEDIUM effort)
This prioritization focuses effort on high-impact, achievable improvements first, deferring lower-priority enhancements.
643-705: Three-sprint roadmap is realistic; success metrics are quantifiable.Sprint-based roadmap (lines 645-684):
- Sprint 1: Core evidence & confidence (Week 1)
- Sprint 2: Interactive collaboration & WHY capture (Week 2)
- Sprint 3: Architecture & review phases (Week 3)
Success metrics (lines 687-704) include both qualitative (100% evidence cited) and quantitative (<5 batch questions per phase) targets. This provides clear validation checkpoints for implementation.
279-287: Migration impact section is helpful; note that regeneration may be needed for existing context documents.Lines 279-287 note that existing context documents remain valid (file:line citations don't change) but may need regeneration for consistency with new format. This transparency helps users understand the impact of format changes.
[approve_code_changes, request_verification]
Verify that migration guidance is clear enough for users who have existing context documents. Consider adding a migration example or checklist in a separate document if regeneration complexity warrants it.
docs/roadmap/PROGRESS.md (5)
1-10: Branch reference appears inconsistent with PR metadata.Line 4 references branch
add-reverse-engineer-codebase-prompt, but the PR is from branchworkflow-org-member-approval. This suggests either the document is from a different PR or needs updating to reflect the current PR context.
149-177: Clear and comprehensive Phase 1 completion summary.The structured breakdown of Phase 1 deliverables with evidence citations, file counts, and status indicators is well-organized. The research synthesis work and prompt enhancements are clearly documented with specific outputs.
180-320: Phased implementation plan is well-documented with clear priorities.Phase 2 and Phase 3 planning provides detailed descriptions of upcoming work, estimated effort, implementation roadmaps, and acceptance criteria. The prioritization and structure (Priority 1 vs Priority 2) makes it clear what's critical vs. optional. This is high-quality project planning documentation.
615-650: Comprehensive key decisions documentation with proper sourcing.The "Key Decisions Made" section (lines 617-650) properly documents rationale with citations to source documents and line numbers. This is excellent practice for maintaining decision history. All five decisions are well-articulated with clear reasoning.
663-667: All external links verified as accessible and current.Verification confirms all three URLs return HTTP 200 status:
- https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code ✓
- https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/tree/main/plugins/feature-dev ✓
- https://adr.github.io/madr/ ✓
The external links section is accurate and the references are valid.
prompts/generate-context.md (12)
1-15: YAML frontmatter structure is clear and appropriate for prompt specification.The metadata block properly defines prompt name, description, tags, arguments, and tool whitelist. The
no_questionsargument with description for autonomous mode is well-articulated.
70-81: AI Behavior Guidelines are clear and actionable.Six critical rules establish guardrails against common AI pitfalls (summarizing without evidence, inferring rationale from code, etc.). These directly address the prompt's core principle of staying in lane and being evidence-based.
120-201: Evidence Citation Standards and Confidence Framework are well-designed.The system for classifying findings (High/Medium/Low/Assumed confidence with clear automation rules) and requiring citations (code:
path:lines, docs:path#heading, user:[User confirmed: date]) is comprehensive and practical. The automation rules for confidence (e.g., "3+ references → start with Medium") are particularly useful.Note: Static analysis flagged a potential compound adjective issue at line 674 (should be "auth-middleware" if modifying a noun), but this appears to be in documentation example context where exact formatting is less critical.
203-295: Phase 1 (Repository Structure) instructions are comprehensive with good scope controls.The scoping thresholds (lines 246-252) are practical and show awareness of scale challenges (>5,000 files, >100 MB). The three user questions (lines 262-283) are appropriately focused (scope, purpose, priority areas) and not a lengthy questionnaire.
297-359: Phase 2 (Documentation Audit) emphasizes gap detection and conflict identification.Well-structured with clear instructions on finding documentation, extracting rationale, and flagging issues. The distinction between explicit vs. implied rationale and the requirement for metadata capture (timestamp, path, confidence) is appropriate for an evidence-based system.
361-512: Phase 3 (Code Analysis) and Phase 3.5 (Pattern Recognition) provide detailed discovery instructions.Strong emphasis on WHAT/HOW separation (lines 365), execution path tracing (lines 385-398), and pattern detection (lines 521-581). The exclusions list (line 400-406: "What NOT to include") prevents scope creep and keeps focus on user-relevant capabilities.
The anti-pattern detection (lines 546-565) is thorough and practical.
602-700: Crosscutting Concerns coverage (lines 639-700) is exceptional.Often-overlooked system-wide qualities (logging, error handling, configuration, security, performance, testing) are given dedicated treatment with specific detection strategies and confidence assessment rules. This is sophisticated analysis guidance.
704-805: Phase 5 (Gap Identification) and Phase 5.5 (Autonomous Answers) show sophisticated judgment.The gap prioritization framework (🟥 Critical / 🟧 Important / 🟨 Minor with clear decision rules at lines 748-752) is well-reasoned. The autonomous answer framework (lines 809-995) acknowledges that some gaps can be reasoned through while critical decisions require user input—this is intelligent design that balances autonomy with caution.
997-1044: Phase 6 output structure provides two modes (Executive Summary vs. Full) with detailed templates.The document structure template (lines 1047-1672) is comprehensive with real examples. Sections cover overview, capabilities, architecture, conventions, testing, build, essential files, execution paths, confidence summary, gaps, and recommendations. This is production-quality documentation specification.
1126-1177: Repository Health Indicators section (Version Control & Evolution) adds valuable context.Lines 1126-1177 suggest analyzing commit activity, code maturity signals, ownership patterns, and architectural evolution through Git history. This is sophisticated analysis guidance that extracts implicit system knowledge from version control patterns.
1451-1668: Essential Files list, Execution Paths, and Recommendations sections provide strong guidance for downstream usage.The three complete example execution path traces (User Login, Payment Processing, Background Job) with full line-number citations show exactly how to present findings. The "Recommendations for New Features" section (lines 1582-1615) ties analysis to practical development workflow.
The Final Checklist (lines 1655-1669) is excellent quality assurance—helps AI verify completeness before completing.
1655-1669: Final Checklist is comprehensive quality gate.The 10-point checklist (lines 1655-1669) ensures evidence citations, confidence levels, gap documentation, and actionable recommendations are all present. This is excellent for ensuring output quality.
Summary
This PR updates the Claude Code and OpenCode GPT-5 Codex workflows to automatically allow workflow execution for members of the liatrio-labs GitHub organization without requiring manual approval.
Changes
check-org-membershipjob to both workflowsauthor_associationfirst (OWNER, MEMBER, COLLABORATOR)Benefits
✅ Existing collaborators continue to work without changes
✅ Any member of liatrio-labs organization can trigger workflows automatically
✅ Non-members and non-collaborators are still blocked
✅ No manual approval required for organization members
Implementation Details
The new
check-org-membershipjob:@claudeor/oc-codex)author_associationfrom the eventliatrio-labsorg usinggh api "orgs/liatrio-labs/members/$ACTOR"is-authorizedthat the main job depends onTesting
To test this PR:
@claudeor/oc-codexon an issue or PRFiles Changed
.github/workflows/claude.yml.github/workflows/opencode-gpt-5-codex.yml🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Documentation
Chores