ci: repoint reusable workflows to devantler-tech/actions v8.0.0#80
Conversation
Part of devantler-tech/actions#425 (consumer migration off the legacy reusable-workflows repo). Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughTwo GitHub Actions workflows now call reusable workflows from ChangesReusable workflow reference migration
Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~3 minutes Possibly related issues
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
.github/workflows/cd.yaml (1)
3-17: 🗄️ Data Integrity & Integration | 🔵 Trivial | 💤 Low valueUpdate the OIDC path note. The signing workflow now comes from
devantler-tech/actions/.github/workflows/publish-manifests.yaml@<ref>, so this comment should stop referencingdevantler-tech/reusable-workflows.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In @.github/workflows/cd.yaml around lines 3 - 17, Update the OIDC subject/path note in this comment to match the actual reusable signing workflow source, changing the reference from devantler-tech/reusable-workflows to devantler-tech/actions/.github/workflows/publish-manifests.yaml@<ref>. Keep the rest of the explanation intact, and make sure the guidance still points readers to the cosign certificate identity used by the publish-manifests flow in cd.yaml.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Nitpick comments:
In @.github/workflows/cd.yaml:
- Around line 3-17: Update the OIDC subject/path note in this comment to match
the actual reusable signing workflow source, changing the reference from
devantler-tech/reusable-workflows to
devantler-tech/actions/.github/workflows/publish-manifests.yaml@<ref>. Keep the
rest of the explanation intact, and make sure the guidance still points readers
to the cosign certificate identity used by the publish-manifests flow in
cd.yaml.
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 6ff0a96b-8c1c-4576-8d29-3074481b1243
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
.github/workflows/cd.yaml.github/workflows/release.yaml
…flow CodeRabbit nitpick on this PR; also fixes the stale platform file pointer and records the platform-verifier-first merge ordering. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
CodeRabbit review-body nitpick resolved (no thread exists to resolve, so this comment is the resolution record): the header comment's OIDC note now points at The nitpick also surfaced a real sequencing issue: the platform verifier's subject is pinned to the |
…. nitpicks (#2041) * docs(agents): sweep ALL CodeRabbit review-body finding sections, incl. nitpicks Maintainer direction 2026-07-03 (live case devantler-tech/.github#80): '🧹 Nitpick comments' sections in review bodies never become threads and were invisible to the Outside-diff-range-only grep. Generalize the review-body rule to every collapsed finding section, extend the survey jq filter, and make the surveyor definition carry the full hygiene-triad check itself (it previously relied on the caller's prompt). Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> * docs(agents): match CodeRabbit body-finding sections by shape, not title list Every CodeRabbit finding section is titled '<emoji> <Category> comments (N)'; matching that shape (excluding only the informational 🔇 Additional comments) keeps future category titles from silently escaping the body_findings count. Verified live: ksail#5738 counts 2, monorepo#2041 counts 0. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> * docs(agents): count body-finding sections per review with scan-and-sum, not select-per-review A single CodeRabbit review can carry both an Outside-diff-range and a Nitpick section; select(test(...)) counted it once and under-reported body_findings. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
1 participant
Why
Our reusable CI workflows moved to
devantler-tech/actions; this repo still builds and signs its releases from the old repo, which can't be archived until everyone moves — and which now fails nightly (reusable-workflows#350).What
Points this repo's CI and release workflows at the new home. Same workflows, no behavior change.
Part of devantler-tech/actions#425.
👉 After promotion: needs a direct merge (auto-merge can't touch workflow files).