Hacktoberfest 2026: the issues maintainers tagged for October, open and beginner-friendly. Browse Hacktoberfest issues

[workshop-coverage] Workshop Coverage Status — 2026-10-05

Open
  • Is something wrong?
#391 0 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Maintainers usually reply within 2 days

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Assessment

Difficulty
5/5
Estimated time
Over a week
Newbie friendliness
1/100
Issue type
Documentation
Clarity
Needs clarification
Activity status
Active
Tech stack
azure, javascript
Domain
documentation

Research direction

The issue reports workshop content changes and says a draft PR already exists on branch workshop-coverage-update-20261005; the PR is not linked in the payload. Start by reviewing the workshop files changed on that branch and the referenced destroy skill/workflow guidance. The issue recommends merging the draft PR and optionally deciding whether to add a lab callout for azure-rest-api-reference.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Description

report workshop-coverage

Run: https://github.com/Azure/git-ape/actions/runs/37372674211
Features assessed: 8 agents, 16 skills, 0 core workflows (no direct refs tracked this run)
Coverage: 20 / 24 fully covered · Gaps found: 4
Proposed this run: draft PR (branch workshop-coverage-update-20261005)

Gaps & proposed work
Feature Type Persona / Track Action Status
Track 3 Lab 6 destroy flow (content drift) lab content DevOps/SRE / T3 Rewrote Steps 1–8 to consistently describe the Deployment Stack destroy flow (previously contradicted itself: old RG-delete narrative vs. appended stack-based steps) In PR
az group delete teardown guidance (T2 Lab 5, T3 Lab 6) lab content Engineer / T2, DevOps / T3 Replaced raw az group delete advice for Git-Ape deployments with /azure-stack-destroy (the raw command skips soft-delete purge + subscription-scope cleanup, which the skill itself warns against) In PR
azure-stack-deploy / azure-stack-destroy skills skill Engineer / T2, DevOps / T3 Added glossary entries (0 refs previously) In PR
azure-requirements-gatherer agent agent Beginner / T1, Engineer / T2 Added glossary entry under its display name "Requirements Gatherer" (already covered narratively in labs, just missing from the glossary table) In PR
azure-resource-availability skill skill Beginner / T1 Named explicitly in Track 1 Lab 2 Step 3 (behaviour was already described, just unnamed) In PR
azure-rest-api-reference skill skill Engineer / T2 Added a "Going further" citation in Track 2 Lab 2 In PR
Coverage detail
  • Biggest finding: Track 3 Lab 6 ("Destroy Lifecycle") had drifted out of sync with the product. Its Steps 1–5 described the old per-resource-group destroy flow (read RG name from state.json → inventory resources → delete subscription-scoped resources → delete RG), while Steps 6–8 — appended in a later pass — correctly describe the current Azure Deployment Stack flow (az stack sub delete --action-on-unmanage deleteAll). The lab contradicted itself. Fixed Steps 1–5 to match the stack-based flow the actual git-ape-destroy.yml workflow and azure-stack-destroy skill implement today.
  • Both Track 2 Lab 5 and Track 3 Lab 6 told attendees to clean up with a raw az group delete. The azure-stack-destroy SKILL.md explicitly calls this an anti-pattern for Git-Ape-managed deployments (misses soft-delete purge for Key Vault/Cognitive Services, and misses subscription-scope resources like role/policy assignments that a stack can own). Replaced both with the /azure-stack-destroy skill invocation, which is the same primitive the CI destroy workflow uses — keeping local and CI teardown consistent, per the custom instructions' emphasis on using the stack-based destroy skill everywhere.
  • azure-stack-deploy and azure-stack-destroy skills had 0 inventory refs in workshops/. Rather than a new lab (Track 2/3 already teach deploy/destroy end-to-end through @git-ape and the PR-driven CI flow), I added glossary entries so attendees can map the CLI primitive to the skill name, and cited /azure-stack-destroy directly at the two cleanup sites above — judged sufficient since the behaviour was already lab-covered, only the skill name was missing.
  • azure-requirements-gatherer showed 0 refs by exact agent-slug grep, but is extensively covered under its display name "Requirements Gatherer" across Track 1/2 labs, demo scripts, and the Track 2 deck. This was a false-positive gap from the grep proxy — confirmed by reading the actual lab content. Added it to the glossary's agent table only, since it was the lone agent missing there.
  • azure-resource-availability is described behaviourally in Track 1 Lab 2 Step 3 (region/runtime/provider/CAF-name checks) but the skill was never named. Low-risk naming fix, not a new gap.
  • azure-rest-api-reference (0 refs) is an internal correctness tool the Template Generator agent uses before writing ARM resources — not something attendees invoke directly in any lab today. Persona/track ambiguity: it could justify a short Track 2 "debugging a deployment error" callout, but I judged a "Going further" citation sufficient for this run rather than inventing a new lab section not grounded in attendee-facing behaviour. Recommendation if a human wants to go further: a short addition to Track 2 Lab 3 (Security Deep Dive) or Lab 2 showing the agent citing /azure-rest-api-reference output when fixing a property-related deployment error — flagging this as optional future work rather than doing it unprompted.
  • azure-policy-advisor skill vs agent are both already covered (distinct from each other, both referenced).
  • No AWS or non-Azure skills exist in this repository — no scope-filter exclusions were needed this run.
  • No core-workflow-level gaps found; git-ape-plan.yml/deploy.yml/destroy.yml are all covered across Track 2 and Track 3 content (including the lab fixes above).
  • Open workshop-sync-labeled issues (#378, #379, #365, #351) were present but their bodies were redacted by an integrity policy in this run ("lower integrity than agent requires"). I proceeded using .workshop-snapshots/WORKSHOP-INVENTORY.md's "recently changed feature files" signal as the authoritative substitute, per the task's designed fallback. If any of those issues reference gaps beyond what the inventory captured, a follow-up run with issue access should re-assess.
Recommended next steps
  • Merge the linked draft PR to fix the destroy-lifecycle content drift and the az group delete anti-pattern — this is the highest-value fix since it was actively teaching attendees to contradict the product's own guardrails.
  • Decide whether azure-rest-api-reference deserves a dedicated lab callout (optional, not actioned this run — see detail above).
  • No new track is warranted; all current gaps fit within Tracks 1–3's existing personas.

Generated by Workshop Content Auto-Updater · copilot · auto · 118.5 AIC · ⌖ 9.05 AIC · ⊞ 12K · ◷

Dominant language
JavaScript
Stars
269
Forks
48
Avg merge
2d 19h
Merged PRs (30d)
15

Getting set up

Open in Codespaces

Starts the project's dev container in your browser, under your own GitHub account.

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

More from Azure/git-ape

All issues in Azure/git-ape

Similar issues

More JavaScript issues

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.