pr-pipeline: ticket-to-merge lane decisions (pr-unblock, assess-risk) and SDLC gaps
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
Nadie ha tomado este issue todavía.
Evaluación
- Dificultad
- 5/5
- Tiempo estimado
- Más de una semana
- Aptitud para principiantes
- 8/100
Línea de trabajo
This is a planning issue, not a code change: the decisions and gaps are listed for a later /planning:design pass. Start by reading the pr-pipeline README and its Concurrency table, pr-pipeline.yaml, and ADR 0051, which the issue amends. Done means a design for the pr-unblock lane that the owner approves, not a patch.
Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.
Descripción
Refs: #6202
Summary
The owner interview after the first live lane (#6704, pilot #6731) settled the PR-side build order and lane shape. This issue holds those decisions and the gaps an SDLC mapping pass found, so they outlive the local planning notes. Related: #6140 (autonomy alignment), #6720 (kill-switch precedence), #6085 (pstack lanes).
Decisions
- One
pr-unblocklane in stageunblock(replacespr-update,pr-fix-ci,pr-address-feedbackand stagerespond). Activities per round, in order:update-branch,fix-ci,address-feedback; a scripted PR-state check picks which apply; one push per round.pr-mergestays separate. "Babysit" is the prose nickname. update-branchacts only on a conflict. A PR that is only behind main is left to the merge queue (main:strict_required_status_checks_policy: false, merge queueALLGREEN).- Regrouping is config. A lane is a thin caller workflow; never-rules move from lanes to activities; splitting an activity out needs only a caller file and a lane-rules row.
- Concurrency. pr-unblock's run group lets a newer trigger replace a waiting run; pushes go through the shared per-PR write queue that never cancels. The pr-pipeline README gains a Concurrency table, and every new block declares its row.
- ADR 0051 amendment:
workflow_runstarts pr-unblock with onlyfix-ciapplying (human merge). - Kill switch (#6720): org-only
CLAUDE_LANES_DISABLEDplus per-repoCLAUDE_LANES_REPO_DISABLED; every lane and the broker stop if either is true. A short design checks GitHub variable precedence and visibility first. assess-riskactivity in verify at ready: read-only, outputs a work class and a risk check thatpr-mergereads; the stricter of the issue's work-class label and the assessment wins.- No cross-PR model-run cap yet; add one only on usage telemetry.
- Testing before merge: lane-power PRs run a sandbox case first; skill-text changes rely on evals plus one pilot run.
- Naming: every stage, lane, activity and group name is checked for meaning, size and grouping before it is built.
Build order
- Map every lane setting and its home; move what can move into
pr-pipeline.yaml - Naming review of the stage, lane and activity names
-
pr-unblockwithupdate-branchonly (own/planning:design, approved plan) - Phase 3 findings store, Phase 4 verify lanes (incl.
assess-risk), Phase 5 label protocol -
fix-ciandaddress-feedbackslots; thenpr-merge - In parallel: #6720 design and fix; review-lane allowlist for the lanes App bot; triage fixes (ci-workflows#662, a reason in the escalation note, no thanks line on owner issues); then backlog re-triage in batches of 25 and an attend-queue pass
Gaps found
Ticket-to-merge path today (repo map):
- Nothing unattended flips a draft to ready
- The unattended path skips define, design, plan and local review (
workopens the PR withcreate --pushed); the attended path runs review and verify three times - No owner for post-merge bookkeeping (
track done, container close-out) - Triage runs in two places (CI intake lane and local
/work-items:triage) with no rule for which decides - Merge authority moves from the local babysit loop to
pr-mergein one switch - Adding a lane touches a workflow file, a lane-rules row, test fixtures and the standards vocabulary, all human-merged
Stages and gates outside sources include that the plan lacks (research with sources, verified 2026-10-11):
- Build/package; monitor after deploy with rollback; incident response; postmortem; migrations before and after deploy
- "Release" means either a version cut or exposing deployed code; define it (version cut) and add
rolloutif feature flags come into scope - Gates: plan approval before work, CI-run approval on agent PRs, PR publish as an explicit step, agent approval separate from review
Prior art already tracked elsewhere that the plan should absorb or decline (pstack, Pocock, 2,000-PRs effort):
- Swarm verifiers: one owner agent per PR, several independent verifiers give one verdict on the exact SHA with live proof (#6085)
- Per-app verification skill generated and kept current (
verify-<app>), beyondtesting:run-e2e(#6085) - Learn stage mines session corrections into skills or lint rules (#6085)
- Post-merge smoke check against the deployed environment and a silent-revert canary (#6202)
- A single
merge.authorityfield and rung lowering after a bad merge (#6202) - Whether a CI lane may fix review threads, which
address-feedbackdepends on (#6810) - Route new work by size and fog, and slice it into agent-ready versus human-in-the-loop (#6729, #6917)
Open, deferred to the pr-unblock design
Activity choice from PR state; how fix-ci runs head code and pushes (owner's call); stage-level effect limits (owner's call); interim attempt cap; merge-queue dequeue and UNKNOWN mergeability; push batching; write-queue scope; ship prerequisites. Post-merge failure response (revert or fix forward) stays open from an earlier round.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
- Lenguaje dominante
- Shell
- Estrellas
- 22
- Forks
- 2
- Merge medio
- 8 h 24 min
- PR fusionados (30 d)
- 947
Preparar el entorno
- Sin Dockerfile ni archivo de Docker Compose
- Sin plantilla de pull request
- Leer la guía de contribución
Primeros pasos
- Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
- Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
- Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
- Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.
Más de melodic-software/claude-code-plugins
-
needs-human needs-triage priority: medium
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 65/100
melodic-software/claude-code-plugins#7455 · 1 comentario ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
priority: medium
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 68/100
melodic-software/claude-code-plugins#7351 · 2 comentarios ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
agent-ready priority: high work-class: scoped
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 74/100
melodic-software/claude-code-plugins#7312 · 3 comentarios ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
priority: medium
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 76/100
melodic-software/claude-code-plugins#7288 · 2 comentarios ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
knowledge: docpage-digest dual verification defines no verdict vocabulary or pass/fail thresholdAbiertoneeds-human
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 78/100
melodic-software/claude-code-plugins#7286 · 2 comentarios ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
Todos los issues de melodic-software/claude-code-plugins
Issues similares
-
bug
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 62/100
Netcracker/qubership-test-pipelines#307 ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 2 días
-
Webcam overlay freezes during voxtype dictation while screen recording (pause_media pauses the overlay mpv)Posiblemente ocupada Un pull request vinculado a esta issue está abierto o ya se fusionó. Abierto
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 65/100
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 62/100
TYPO3BestPractices/tea#2409 ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 62/100
msys2/MSYS2-packages#6825 ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
Dificultad 1/5 Menos de una hora Aptitud para principiantes 85/100
fw876/helloworld#2067 ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día