Skip to content

ci(governance): adopt the canonical risk gate - #775

Draft
Pigbibi wants to merge 2 commits into
mainfrom
ci/canonical-risk-gate
Draft

Pigbibi wants to merge 2 commits into
mainfrom
ci/canonical-risk-gate

Conversation

@Pigbibi

@Pigbibi Pigbibi commented Nov 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

AI assistance

Qoder (AI agent) wrote this change from the owner's instruction; a Codex review is requested on this head.

What changed

Replaces .github/workflows/risk-gate.yml with the canonical hardened gate and updates the approval paragraph in AGENTS.md.

The gate now:

  • reads the approver login from the organization variable RISK_GATE_OWNER instead of a literal;
  • publishes ai-review from the codex-review-state:v1 receipt on the current head;
  • judges base drift by Git ancestry;
  • fails closed when two open pull requests share a head;
  • treats workflow edits, dependency policy and runtime configuration paths as protected.

How verified

  • The file is the canonical gate already tested in the personal repositories (55 unit tests).
  • actionlint and the repository's normal checks run on this head.
  • No branch protection, ruleset, secret, deployment or runtime setting is touched.

Why

The organization copy publishes no ai-review, so a Codex review is decorative: no required context reads the receipt. Its approver login is hard-coded, and it has no ancestry or shared-head protection.

Risk

Risk tier R1. The blast radius is this repository's pull-request status publication only. Revert this pull request to roll back. No merge, deploy, secret or settings change is included.

Breaking changes

None. risk-gate and pr-template remain the required contexts, and owner-approved still clears protected paths; risk-gate additionally requires a completed Codex review on the current head.

The organization copy publishes no ai-review context, so the Codex
receipt is decorative. Replace it with the tested canonical gate:
approver from RISK_GATE_OWNER, ai-review on the current head,
ancestry drift, shared-head fail-closed and protected paths.
@Pigbibi

Pigbibi commented Nov 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@codex review

@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Nov 4, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review Status Commit Review trigger
📝 Code Review ✅ Completed 2026-11-05T08:45:32.584619Z c5713be Manual request
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

@chatgpt-codex-connector

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Already looking forward to the next diff.

Reviewed commit: 653e682742

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

A synchronize can move one pull request off a shared head even when
its own evaluation fails, which leaves the released sibling on a
stale collision error until another event or the six-hour sweep.
Run the sibling refresh in a finally block and keep a refresh
failure from masking the evaluation error.
@Pigbibi

Pigbibi commented Nov 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@codex review

@chatgpt-codex-connector

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. You're on a roll.

Reviewed commit: c5713be8f0

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant