feat: responsive dashboard with workflow filtering

[ananos]

• Add responsive CSS (900/560/380px breakpoints)
• Hide stale (>90d) and mostly-skipped workflows, accessible via "Stale" chip
• Show YAML descriptions as workflow names instead of raw IDs
• Restyle action_required as "needs review" with warning treatment
• Add event/branch badges (PR/main/scheduled) to differentiate run triggers
• Widen Workflow column, narrow History column

[ananos]

[7h3-3mp7y-m4n]

Hey @ananos, these are some great changes, I believe @cmainas will agree as well. We definitely needed this cleanup for the dashboard, especially the filtering of stale workflows. The overall UI feels much cleaner now.

One small UX thought, though:

If the chip is labeled All, users will naturally expect it to include/see every workflow, including stale ones. Right now, hiding stale workflows while still calling the filter All creates a slight mismatch between the label and the actual behavior.

I think we could improve this in one of two ways:

• Revert this specific behavior and keep all workflows visible by default under the All filter, or
• Keep the current behavior, but rename the All filter to something like Active (or a similar term) so the label better reflects what’s being shown.

Either approach would make the behavior feel more intuitive to users.

Also, I believe we can increase the length/width of the success rate bar a bit more to make the layout look cleaner.

And regarding the History tab, I feel we should add/keep some kind of visual indication/marking for the oldest → newest runs. Of course, users can still analyze it by looking at it, but having a subtle marker or indicator could improve readability and make the timeline feel more intuitive overall.

Just a suggestion 🙂

[ananos]

Sounds great! Agree on your suggestions, I think renaming the All -> Active seems a bit better, but I'm good with either.

Do you think you can have a go? we can safely merge afterwards!

thanks!

[7h3-3mp7y-m4n]

Hey @ananos, sounds good! I'll have a go at those changes and see how they look.

I think Active is probably the better label as well, but let's see what @cmainas thinks about the suggestion too. I'll push an update once I've got something ready.