Skip to content

policy: lint, format, and builds run in GitHub Actions — push and review CI, no local build requirement #1413

New issue
New issue
Closed
Closed
policy: lint, format, and builds run in GitHub Actions — push and review CI, no local build requirement#1413
Assignees
dezren39
Labels
effort/sSmall: expected under 2 hours of workkind/docsDocumentation improvement or additionmeta/enrichedIntake review done: acceptance criteria, links, and normalized labels addedpriority/normalOrdinary priority (the default)source/humanFiled directly by a humantask/triageQueue packet kind: verify, reproduce, and route this item

Description

@dezren39
dezren39
opened on Oct 27, 2026

Policy (Drew, 2026-10-27)

Lint, format checks, and builds for this repo run in GitHub Actions. Contributors and fleet workers do not need to run them locally before pushing.

Rules

  • Push the branch and let CI run lint, format, and build/test workflows. Review the CI results on the PR.
  • A local worktree or copy used for review and edits only is fine anywhere (including the Muse sandbox VM).
  • Running builds, test suites, linters, or formatters locally on the sandbox VM is not allowed — the VM is a 2-core coordination box and local builds saturate it. When a check genuinely cannot run in CI, it runs on Drew's laptop (amd-6) instead, never on the sandbox.
  • A red CI run is the signal to fix and re-push — not a reason to move the build back onto a local machine.

Why

On 2026-10-27 the sandbox VM sat at load ~25 on 2 cores from fleet workers compiling in local worktrees (rustc in two fleet worktrees plus a probe crate), repeatedly dropping the owner's app connection. The work itself was fine; the location was the problem. CI runners exist for exactly this.

Acceptance

  • This policy is reflected in the repo's contributor/agent guidance (AGENTS.md or equivalent) in one short section.
  • CI workflows cover lint + format + build for the main packages, so no change needs a local run to be verified.
  • Fleet shift instructions reference CI as the verification path (they already route heavy work to the laptop; CI is preferred where it covers the check).

Activity

  1. developing-today commented on Oct 27, 2026

    @developing-today
    developing-todayBot
    on Oct 27, 2026 – with developing.today
    Contributor

    CODE-503

  2. github-actions
    assigned
    dezren39
    on Oct 27, 2026
  3. dezren39
    added
    kind/docsDocumentation improvement or addition
    status/needs-triageNot yet triaged; needs a first look
    priority/normalOrdinary priority (the default)
    effort/sSmall: expected under 2 hours of work
    source/humanFiled directly by a human
    meta/enrichedIntake review done: acceptance criteria, links, and normalized labels added
    on Oct 27, 2026

  4. dezren39 commented on Oct 27, 2026

    @dezren39
    dezren39
    on Oct 27, 2026
    MemberAuthor

    Intake review

    Fleet monitor intake pass, 2026-10-27 (repo-fleet-monitor).

    Related: the policy is already reflected in the fleet's standing instructions (CI-first verification; laptop for checks CI cannot run). This issue's own ## Acceptance section is complete, so no criteria were appended — this pass only normalized labels.

    Notes: The remaining work is mechanical: one short guidance section in the repo's AGENTS.md-equivalent, a CI coverage check for lint+format+build on the main packages, and confirming fleet shift instructions point at CI as the verification path.

    Risks: Low. The gap to watch is a package whose lint/build is not actually covered by any workflow — the acceptance check should name the workflows it verified, not assert coverage.

    Suggested approach: audit .github/workflows/ against the main package list first; file the coverage gap (if any) as its own issue rather than growing this policy issue.

  5. dezren39
    added
    work/assignedQueue worker lifecycle state
    queue/claimedQueue worker lifecycle state
    status/in-progressQueue worker lifecycle state
    and removed
    status/needs-triageNot yet triaged; needs a first look
    on Nov 1, 2026

  6. dezren39 commented on Nov 1, 2026

    @dezren39
    dezren39
    on Nov 1, 2026
    MemberAuthor

    🤖 Agent note · picked up

    • Agent: repo-worker-code (OpenChamber scheduled lane)
    • Task: Queue task 2582; checking whether this policy issue is actionable under its triage packet.

  7. dezren39 commented on Nov 1, 2026

    @dezren39
    dezren39
    on Nov 1, 2026
    MemberAuthor

    🤖 Agent note · triage verdict — guidance gap routed, wider coverage still open

    • Agent: repo-worker-code (OpenChamber scheduled lane); task 2582.
    • Evidence: At main d64e83c10159445aa0def8625f725595b80ac888, AGENTS.md:29–33 does not state CI-first or the sandbox no-build rule. .github/ci-policy.md:11–35 specifies fast PR/full main and formatting auto-fix on main; the actual id-check.yml, go-modules-build.yml, and nix-ci.yml triggers omit pull_request despite contrary comments or policy descriptions. mcpx.yml runs some PR checks but its full test job is push-only. Therefore full CI coverage is not established. Fleet shift instruction compliance was not verified.
    • Routing: queued task 5009 for the narrow guidance change only; the wider coverage audit and fleet-shift acceptance remain on this issue. Avoid overlap with existing CI work PRs ci(mcpx): first measured iteration — static e2e shards + unit + lint + ci-ok (#1998) #2888 and fix(ci): prevent workflow format diffs from blocking auto-format push (#3118) #3198. The issue remains open.

  8. 9 remaining items

  9. dezren39 commented on Nov 1, 2026

    @dezren39
    dezren39
    on Nov 1, 2026
    MemberAuthor

    🤖 Agent note · picked up

    • Agent: repo-worker-code (OpenChamber scheduled lane)
    • Task: Queue task 5009; revalidating issue scope and PR ownership before the narrow guidance change.
  10. dezren39
    removed
    status/in-progressQueue worker lifecycle state
    queue/claimedQueue worker lifecycle state
    work/assignedQueue worker lifecycle state
    on Nov 1, 2026

  11. dezren39 commented on Nov 1, 2026

    @dezren39
    dezren39
    on Nov 1, 2026
    MemberAuthor

    🤖 Agent note · done

  12. dezren39
    added 2 commits that reference this issue on Nov 2, 2026

    Merge pull request #4626 from developing-today/fix/1413-design-code-r…

    2f62ce6

    Merge origin/main (0e4df6c, #4625 agent-fold + #1413 personas) into q…

    de48b9d
  13. dezren39
    added
    queue/queuedHas a queued task in the Supabase agent queue
    status/needs-triageNot yet triaged; needs a first look
    task/triageQueue packet kind: verify, reproduce, and route this item
    on Nov 3, 2026

  14. dezren39 commented on Nov 3, 2026

    @dezren39
    dezren39
    on Nov 3, 2026
    MemberAuthor

    agent-note:v1
    state: triaged (coverage pass)
    Coverage pass 2026-11-03: reviewed in the fleet-wide per-issue pass (drift / overlap / already-handled / stale / blockers / ordering). Verdict: still live; queued in repo-health-code-pilot as triage at priority 40 (priority/normal). If this is already handled at current main, the triage closes it with evidence; if it needs splitting, the triage files the split.
    Found via: coverage pass 2026-11-03

  15. dezren39 commented on Nov 3, 2026

    @dezren39
    dezren39
    on Nov 3, 2026
    MemberAuthor

    🤖 Agent note · done

  16. dezren39
    closed this as completedon Nov 3, 2026
  17. dezren39
    removed
    status/needs-triageNot yet triaged; needs a first look
    queue/queuedHas a queued task in the Supabase agent queue
    on Nov 3, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

effort/sSmall: expected under 2 hours of workkind/docsDocumentation improvement or additionmeta/enrichedIntake review done: acceptance criteria, links, and normalized labels addedpriority/normalOrdinary priority (the default)source/humanFiled directly by a humantask/triageQueue packet kind: verify, reproduce, and route this item

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions