Add first-class agent job gating via `jobs.agent.needs` and `jobs.agent.if` by Copilot · Pull Request #49814 · github/gh-aw

Copilot · 2026-08-02T16:25:26Z

This adds an explicit frontmatter path for gating the generated agent job on custom setup jobs, instead of relying on the on.needs + top-level if cascade pattern. Workflow authors can now express agent-level dependency and skip logic directly in jobs.agent.

Compiler support
- Extend built-in job augmentation to accept jobs.<built-in>.if in addition to additive needs
- Apply jobs.agent.if to the generated agent job by combining it with compiler-generated conditions via logical &&
- Preserve existing compiler-managed dependencies and behavior; user-supplied needs remain additive only

Agent job gating

Support the intended pattern directly on the built-in agent job:

jobs:
  build:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    outputs:
      outcome: ${{ steps.result.outputs.outcome }}
    steps:
      - id: result
        run: echo "outcome=failure" >> "$GITHUB_OUTPUT"

  agent:
    needs: [build]
    if: needs.build.outputs.outcome == 'failure'

This allows needs.<job>.outputs.* to be referenced from the agent job without routing the control flow through pre_activation / activation

Validation and coverage
- Add focused tests for built-in job if augmentation, condition merging, and invalid if types
- Add a compile-level test covering jobs.agent.needs + jobs.agent.if together
Docs
- Document that jobs: can target compiler-generated built-in jobs for additive customization
- Add jobs.agent.needs / jobs.agent.if examples to the steps/jobs reference

Fixes Feature: agent-job-level if:/ eeds: hook to gate the agent on a custom setup job #38564

Run: https://github.com/github/gh-aw/actions/runs/30761726325

Generated by 👨‍🍳 PR Sous Chef · gpt54 · 4.21 AIC · ⌖ 6.14 AIC · ⊞ 8.3K · ◷
_{Comment /souschef to run again}

Co-authored-by: pelikhan <4175913+pelikhan@users.noreply.github.com>

github-actions · 2026-08-02T17:17:03Z

Hey @Copilot 👋 — thanks for the agent-job-level gating feature! The core implementation looks solid, with good test coverage and clear documentation for the new jobs.agent.needs and jobs.agent.if syntax.

However, this PR mixes several unrelated changes that could be split out:

Split the scope — The robots.txt and robots-txt.spec.ts changes (AI crawler directives, sitemap URL updates) and the docs/README.md changes (sitemap behavior clarification) are separate concerns from the core compiler feature. Consider creating a follow-up PR for the documentation and crawler directive updates, keeping this one focused on the agent job gating implementation.

Once split, this PR will be clean and ready for review. The core feature is well-implemented with tests and docs included!

Warning

Firewall blocked 1 domain

The following domain was blocked by the firewall during workflow execution:

patchdiff.githubusercontent.com

To allow these domains, add them to the network.allowed list in your workflow frontmatter:

network:
  allowed:
    - defaults
    - "patchdiff.githubusercontent.com"

See Network Configuration for more information.

Generated by ✅ Contribution Check · auto · 55.1 AIC · ⌖ 4.76 AIC · ⊞ 8.8K · ◷

Copilot

Pull request overview

Adds direct gating of compiler-generated jobs through jobs.<built-in>.needs and jobs.<built-in>.if.

Changes:

Merges user conditions with generated job conditions.
Adds unit and compile-level coverage.
Documents built-in job customization.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
`pkg/workflow/compiler_custom_jobs.go`	Implements built-in job `if` augmentation.
`pkg/workflow/compiler_custom_jobs_test.go`	Tests condition extraction and merging.
`pkg/workflow/compiler_agent_job_gating_test.go`	Tests compiled agent gating.
`docs/src/content/docs/reference/steps-jobs.md`	Documents gating syntax and example.
`docs/src/content/docs/reference/frontmatter.md`	Describes built-in job customization.

Review details

Tip

Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Files reviewed: 5/5 changed files
Comments generated: 3
Review effort level: Balanced

github-actions · 2026-08-02T17:42:00Z

✅ Test Quality Sentinel completed test quality analysis.

Test Quality Sentinel analysis complete: PR #49814 — Test Quality Score 82/100 (Acceptable). All 4 new tests verify design invariants with strong error coverage. 0% implementation tests (threshold: 30%). No guideline violations. Analysis report available in response.

github-actions · 2026-08-02T17:42:02Z

🧠 Matt Pocock Skills Reviewer has completed the skills-based review. ✅

github-actions · 2026-08-02T17:42:07Z

✅ Design Decision Gate 🏗️ completed the design decision gate check.

github-actions · 2026-08-02T17:42:09Z

✅ PR Code Quality Reviewer completed the code quality review.

github-actions

REQUEST_CHANGES — jobs.agent.if augmentation has 3 unresolved correctness issues

💡 Summary of blocking concerns (already flagged by prior review, still unaddressed)

extractBuiltinJobIfAugmentation doesn't strip an "if: " prefix (compiler_custom_jobs.go:687-699) — inconsistent with the established Job.If contract used elsewhere in this same file for custom jobs, which strips that prefix before storing. Authors who copy the if: <expr> custom-job syntax into jobs.agent.if will silently get a broken/garbage condition string embedded with the literal if: text.
Misleading error message when only if is configured (compiler_custom_jobs.go:735) — the error always says jobs.%s.needs: cannot augment... even when the user only set .if and never touched .needs. This will confuse users debugging a config error on a built-in job that isn't generated by their workflow (e.g. jobs.safe_outputs.if on a workflow with no safe-outputs).
Verbatim &&-combination of user if with compiler condition can silently bypass compiler-managed gating (compiler_custom_jobs.go:768, using combineJobIfConditions) — GitHub Actions disables the implicit success() check on a job when its if: expression contains a status-check function (always(), failure(), cancelled(), success()). Since combineJobIfConditions/BuildAnd just AND-joins the raw user expression with the compiler-generated condition, a user-supplied if: failure() (a very plausible pattern per this PR's own example, "gate agent when build fails") could change the overall implicit-success semantics that the compiler currently relies on for other terms in the combined expression, not just add a constraint. This needs an explicit safety check or documented caveat — it's not just a theoretical edge case, it's the headline use case in this PR's docs example (needs.build.outputs.outcome == 'failure' is a workaround for this exact problem, but a more natural if: failure() would hit it directly).

These three points were already raised as review comments on this PR at the corresponding lines (compiler_custom_jobs.go:698, 725, 768) and remain unresolved in the current diff — re-flagging here rather than duplicating comments.

No new comments added since the above are already tracked on the PR; the review is being submitted as REQUEST_CHANGES because these are correctness/semantics-affecting issues in a feature that directly manipulates job gating conditions (a security/reliability-sensitive area for the agent job).

🔎 Code quality review by PR Code Quality Reviewer · auto · 30.6 AIC · ⌖ 5.39 AIC · ⊞ 7.9K
_{Comment /review to run again}

github-actions

Skills-Based Review 🧠

Applied /tdd and /codebase-design — commenting on a few targeted improvements.

📋 Key Themes & Highlights

Positive Highlights

✅ Clean, additive-only design: user if and needs extend but never replace compiler-managed behaviour
✅ Good type-safety guard in extractBuiltinJobIfAugmentation with a clear error message
✅ Three layers of tests (unit type-error, unit condition merging, integration compile) — solid coverage
✅ Docs example matches the code exactly

Issues Found

Function name drift (/codebase-design): applyBuiltinJobNeedsAugmentations now owns both needs and if augmentation. Rename to applyBuiltinJobAugmentations to keep the codebase navigable.
Integration test assertion (/tdd): The compile-level test asserts agentJob["if"] == user expression, but the documented behaviour is a logical-AND merge with any compiler-generated conditions. If the agent job gains a compiler condition in the future the test will silently pass with only the user fragment. Prefer assert.Contains or add a variant that pre-seeds a compiler condition.
Existing Copilot review comments on line 698 (if-expression normalisation), 725 (error message field name), and 768 (implicit success() bypass) raise important correctness concerns — the success() bypass issue in particular is worth careful consideration before merging.

🧠 Reviewed using Matt Pocock's skills by Matt Pocock Skills Reviewer · sonnet46 · 34.7 AIC · ⌖ 8.01 AIC · ⊞ 7.1K
_{Comment /matt to run again}

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

github-actions · 2026-08-02T17:48:25Z

🏗️ Design Decision Gate — ADR Required

This PR makes significant changes to core business logic (147 new lines in pkg/workflow/) but does not have a linked Architecture Decision Record (ADR).

📄 Draft ADR committed: docs/adr/49814-jobs-agent-if-condition-for-built-in-job-gating.md — review and complete it before merging.

🔒 This PR cannot merge until an ADR is linked in the PR body.

📋 What to do next

Review the draft ADR committed to your branch — it was generated from the PR diff
Complete the missing sections — add context the AI could not infer, refine the decision rationale, and list real alternatives you considered
Commit the finalized ADR to docs/adr/ on your branch
Reference the ADR in this PR body by adding a line such as:

ADR: ADR-49814: Support jobs.agent.if for First-Class Agent Job Conditional Gating

Once an ADR is linked in the PR body, this gate will re-run and verify the implementation matches the decision.

❓ Why ADRs Matter

"AI made me procrastinate on key design decisions. Because refactoring was cheap, I could always say 'I'll deal with this later.' Deferring decisions corroded my ability to think clearly."

ADRs create a searchable, permanent record of why the codebase looks the way it does. Future contributors (and your future self) will thank you.

📋 Michael Nygard ADR Format Reference

An ADR must contain these four sections to be considered complete:

Context — What is the problem? What forces are at play?
Decision — What did you decide? Why?
Alternatives Considered — What else could have been done?
Consequences — What are the trade-offs (positive and negative)?

All ADRs are stored in docs/adr/ as Markdown files numbered by PR number (e.g., 49814-jobs-agent-if-condition-for-built-in-job-gating.md for PR #49814).

🏗️ ADR gate enforced by Design Decision Gate 🏗️ · sonnet46 · 39 AIC · ⌖ 28.5 AIC · ⊞ 9.6K · ◷
_{Comment /review to run again}

github-actions

Review: `jobs.agent.needs` and `jobs.agent.if` gating

The feature direction is correct and the test coverage is solid. Three blocking issues exist in compiler_custom_jobs.go (flagged as inline comments):

if expression not normalized (line 698) — extractBuiltinJobIfAugmentation stores the raw value without stripping an "if: " prefix or ${{ }} wrapper. Custom jobs normalize this before combining; built-in job augmentation must do the same or combineJobIfConditions will produce malformed expressions.
Wrong field name in error message (line 735) — when only if is set (no needs), the error still reports jobs.\<name\>.needs. It should reflect the actual field triggering the error.
Implicit success() bypass (line 768) — when the user-provided if contains a status function (e.g. failure()), GitHub Actions suppresses the implicit success() check for downstream jobs in the chain, which can silently allow safe_outputs or other compiler-managed jobs to run after a failure. The compiler should reject or warn on expressions containing status functions, or wrap the compiler-managed side with an explicit success() &&.

🧵 Reviewed using Impeccable skills by Impeccable Skills Reviewer · sonnet46 · 40.7 AIC · ⌖ 7.55 AIC · ⊞ 5.4K

Done

gh-aw-bot · 2026-08-02T18:18:30Z

@copilot Please continue triage on this PR.

Remaining reviewer-visible blockers (newest first):

requested-changes review still points at three correctness issues in built-in job gating: normalize jobs.<built-in>.if the same way custom jobs normalize if, fix the misleading .needs-only error when only .if is set, and guard/document the implicit success() bypass risk from status functions in user-supplied conditions
complete and link the drafted ADR in the PR body: docs/adr/49814-jobs-agent-if-condition-for-built-in-job-gating.md
after that, run the pr-finisher skill and leave a concise maintainer handoff

Run details: https://github.com/github/gh-aw/actions/runs/30760589044

Generated by 👨‍🍳 PR Sous Chef · gpt54 · 9.49 AIC · ⌖ 6.49 AIC · ⊞ 8.3K · ◷
_{Comment /souschef to run again}

… bypass for builtin job augmentation - Strip 'if: ' prefix from jobs.<built-in>.if values before storing in Job.If, matching the Job.If contract (bare expression only) and preventing 'if: if: ...' in the compiled output - Report the actual field name (.if or .needs) in the 'cannot augment' error so authors can identify the misconfigured field - Add guardIfAgainstStatusFuncBypass helper that inserts explicit needs.<compiler-job>.result == 'success' guards when user condition contains a status function (always/failure/cancelled/success), preventing bypass of compiler-managed activation/pre_activation permission checks - Add ifExpressionContainsStatusFunc helper for string-based status function detection (the expression parser tokenises failure() as an ExpressionNode literal, so AST-based detection is not reliable here) - Add tests for prefix stripping, field-specific error messages, and status function bypass guarding - Update ADR-49814: status changed from Draft to Accepted, guard mechanism documented Co-authored-by: gh-aw-bot <259018956+gh-aw-bot@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot · 2026-08-02T18:40:02Z

@copilot Please continue triage on this PR.

Remaining reviewer-visible blockers (newest first):...

Addressed all three correctness issues (commit 929b8da):

1. if prefix normalization — extractBuiltinJobIfAugmentation now strips the "if: " prefix before returning, matching the Job.If contract (bare expression only). Prevents if: if: ... in compiled output and is consistent with how custom jobs normalize their if fields.

2. Error field reporting — The "cannot augment" error now reports the field the author actually configured: jobs.<name>.if when only if is set, jobs.<name>.needs when only needs is set, or jobs.<name> when both are set.

3. Status function bypass guard — Added guardIfAgainstStatusFuncBypass which detects GitHub Actions status functions (always, failure, cancelled, success) via string search (the expression parser tokenises these as opaque ExpressionNode literals, making AST-based detection unreliable) and inserts explicit needs.<compiler-job>.result == 'success' guards for each compiler-owned prerequisite. User-supplied needs are intentionally excluded so authors retain full control over their own setup-job result semantics.

Seven new tests cover all three fixes. ADR-49814 updated to Accepted with the guard mechanism documented (including the string-based detection rationale and its known limitations).

Maintainer handoff:

All existing tests pass; no regressions
The applyBuiltinJobNeedsAugmentations pass now correctly handles if: "if: ..." user input, reports actionable error field names, and protects compiler-owned prerequisites from status-function bypasses
The ifExpressionContainsStatusFunc helper is the canonical place to update if the GitHub Actions expression language ever adds new status functions
ADR-49814 is linked in docs/adr/ and ready for maintainer review

gh-aw-bot · 2026-08-02T18:48:20Z

@copilot Please continue triage on this PR.

Remaining reviewer-visible blockers appear addressed in your latest response, but the PR still shows blocking review state. Please:

ensure the reviewer-visible fixes are reflected clearly for maintainers
run the pr-finisher skill
leave a concise maintainer handoff summarizing the final state and any remaining manual review needed

Run details: https://github.com/github/gh-aw/actions/runs/30761726325

Generated by 👨‍🍳 PR Sous Chef · gpt54 · 4.21 AIC · ⌖ 6.14 AIC · ⊞ 8.3K · ◷
_{Comment /souschef to run again}

…Augmentations; strengthen integration test if assertion Co-authored-by: gh-aw-bot <259018956+gh-aw-bot@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot · 2026-08-02T19:12:18Z

@copilot Please continue triage on this PR.

Remaining reviewer-visible blockers appear addressed in your latest response, but the PR still shows blocking review state. Please:...

All reviewer-visible blockers are now addressed and reflected in the commits. Here's the final state:

Fixes from commit 929b8da:

extractBuiltinJobIfAugmentation strips "if: " prefix before storing (consistent with Job.If contract)
Error reporting uses the actual configured field (.if, .needs, or both)
guardIfAgainstStatusFuncBypass inserts explicit needs.<compiler-job>.result == 'success' guards when user condition contains a status function

Fixes from the latest commit:

Renamed applyBuiltinJobNeedsAugmentations → applyBuiltinJobAugmentations across all files
Integration test if assertion changed from assert.Equal to assert.Contains for future robustness

Local validation: make fmt, make lint, make test-unit, and make recompile all pass (269 workflows compiled, 0 errors).

Maintainer hand-off: CI must be re-triggered (close/reopen or workflow_dispatch) to confirm green on the updated HEAD. The CHANGES_REQUESTED review was made against commit a539ee9; the three issues it flagged are resolved in commits 929b8da and the latest commit. Ready for maintainer re-review.

gh-aw-bot · 2026-08-02T19:25:31Z

@copilot Please continue triage on this PR.

The latest author handoff says the blocking review items were fixed on the current head, but the PR is still in unstable/blocking review state. Please:

run the pr-finisher skill
leave one concise maintainer handoff confirming the resolved blocking review context and any remaining manual maintainer action
keep the response reviewer-focused and easy to verify on the current head

Run details: https://github.com/github/gh-aw/actions/runs/30763117443

Generated by 👨‍🍳 PR Sous Chef · gpt54 · 7.26 AIC · ⌖ 9.36 AIC · ⊞ 8.3K · ◷
_{Comment /souschef to run again}

Copilot · 2026-08-02T19:33:16Z

@copilot Please continue triage on this PR.

The latest author handoff says the blocking review items were fixed on the current head, but the PR is still in unstable/blocking review state. Please:...

All blocking review items are resolved on the current HEAD (f3f00b3). Summary for maintainers:

Resolved in commit 929b8da:

extractBuiltinJobIfAugmentation strips "if: " prefix before storing (prevents if: if: ... in output)
Error messages report the actual configured field (.if, .needs, or both)
guardIfAgainstStatusFuncBypass inserts explicit needs.<compiler-job>.result == 'success' guards when user condition contains a status function

Resolved in the following commit (f3f00b3):

Renamed applyBuiltinJobNeedsAugmentations → applyBuiltinJobAugmentations across all callers
Integration test if assertion changed from assert.Equal to assert.Contains

Local validation: make fmt, make lint, make test-unit, make recompile all pass — 269 workflows compiled, 0 errors.

Remaining manual actions:

Dismiss the CHANGES_REQUESTED review from github-actions[bot] (submitted against a539ee9) — all three issues it flagged are fixed; the review is stale and cannot be auto-cleared
Re-trigger CI (close/reopen or comment /review) to get a green CI run on the current HEAD before merging

gh-aw-bot · 2026-08-02T19:54:45Z

@copilot The reviewer-visible fixes appear landed, and the remaining blocker is stale review state plus maintainer follow-through. Please run the pr-finisher skill and leave one concise maintainer handoff that:

confirms the built-in job if normalization, field-accurate error reporting, and status-function guard fixes on the current head
notes the follow-up rename/test-assertion cleanup already landed
calls out remaining manual maintainer action: dismiss the stale github-actions[bot] blocking review and re-trigger CI on the current head

Newest unresolved review threads to address first:

github-actions — Add first-class agent job gating via jobs.agent.needs and jobs.agent.if #49814 (comment)
github-actions — Add first-class agent job gating via jobs.agent.needs and jobs.agent.if #49814 (comment)
copilot-pull-request-reviewer — Add first-class agent job gating via jobs.agent.needs and jobs.agent.if #49814 (comment)
copilot-pull-request-reviewer — Add first-class agent job gating via jobs.agent.needs and jobs.agent.if #49814 (comment)
copilot-pull-request-reviewer — Add first-class agent job gating via jobs.agent.needs and jobs.agent.if #49814 (comment)

Run details: https://github.com/github/gh-aw/actions/runs/30764198337

Generated by 👨‍🍳 PR Sous Chef · gpt54 · 11.4 AIC · ⌖ 6.71 AIC · ⊞ 8.3K · ◷
_{Comment /souschef to run again}

github-actions · 2026-08-03T05:26:36Z

🎉 This pull request is included in a new release.

Release: v0.84.3

Document jobs.agent.needs/if built-in job gating (#49814) in syntax-agentic.md, and split token-optimization.md (423 -> 384 lines) by extracting OpenTelemetry/ AgenticOps and harness-experience-learning content into a new token-optimization-observability.md, bringing it back under the 400-line target.

Initial plan

6231841

Copilot AI assigned Copilot and pelikhan Aug 2, 2026

Copilot AI linked an issue Aug 2, 2026 that may be closed by this pull request

Feature: agent-job-level if:/ eeds: hook to gate the agent on a custom setup job #38564

Closed

Copilot started work on behalf of pelikhan August 2, 2026 16:26 View session

Add agent job if augmentation support

a539ee9

Co-authored-by: pelikhan <4175913+pelikhan@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot AI changed the title ~~[WIP] Add gate for agent job based on custom setup job~~ Add first-class agent job gating via jobs.agent.needs and jobs.agent.if Aug 2, 2026

Copilot finished work on behalf of pelikhan August 2, 2026 16:43

Copilot AI requested a review from pelikhan August 2, 2026 16:43

github-actions Bot mentioned this pull request Aug 2, 2026

[Contribution Check Report] Contribution Check — 2026-08-02 #49688

Closed

pelikhan marked this pull request as ready for review August 2, 2026 17:34

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings August 2, 2026 17:34

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of pelikhan August 2, 2026 17:35 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Aug 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread pkg/workflow/compiler_custom_jobs.go

Comment thread pkg/workflow/compiler_custom_jobs.go

Comment thread pkg/workflow/compiler_custom_jobs.go Outdated

github-actions Bot requested changes Aug 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

github-actions Bot reviewed Aug 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread pkg/workflow/compiler_custom_jobs.go Outdated

Comment thread pkg/workflow/compiler_agent_job_gating_test.go

docs(adr): add draft ADR-49814 for jobs.agent.if built-in job gating

97c2148

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

github-actions Bot previously requested changes Aug 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

github-actions Bot mentioned this pull request Aug 2, 2026

[aw] No-Op Runs #48838

Open

github-actions Bot mentioned this pull request Aug 2, 2026

[pr-sous-chef] PR Sous Chef run report #49683

Closed

Copilot started work on behalf of gh-aw-bot August 2, 2026 18:19 View session

Copilot finished work on behalf of gh-aw-bot August 2, 2026 18:40

Copilot AI requested a review from gh-aw-bot August 2, 2026 18:40

Merge branch 'main' into copilot/feature-agent-job-level-if

553959d

Copilot started work on behalf of gh-aw-bot August 2, 2026 18:48 View session

refactor: rename applyBuiltinJobNeedsAugmentations to applyBuiltinJob…

f3f00b3

…Augmentations; strengthen integration test if assertion Co-authored-by: gh-aw-bot <259018956+gh-aw-bot@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot finished work on behalf of gh-aw-bot August 2, 2026 19:12

Copilot started work on behalf of gh-aw-bot August 2, 2026 19:26 View session

Copilot finished work on behalf of gh-aw-bot August 2, 2026 19:33

pelikhan merged commit f07eef8 into main Aug 2, 2026
30 checks passed

pelikhan deleted the copilot/feature-agent-job-level-if branch August 2, 2026 19:53

github-actions Bot mentioned this pull request Aug 3, 2026

[aw-failures] PR Sous Chef's update_pull_request branch-refresh crashes safe_outputs job on stale (already-merged) PR targets #49878

Closed

Copilot AI mentioned this pull request Aug 3, 2026

Handle stale merged PRs in update_pull_request branch refresh without failing safe-outputs processing #49881

Merged

github-actions Bot mentioned this pull request Aug 3, 2026

[blog] Weekly blog post – 2026-08-03 #49890

Merged

github-actions Bot mentioned this pull request Aug 3, 2026

Suggested test: copilot/agent-job-if-gating githubnext/gh-aw-test#10904

Open

Copilot AI mentioned this pull request Aug 3, 2026

feat: add test-copilot-agent-job-if-gating e2e test githubnext/gh-aw-test#10907

Closed

Uh oh!

Conversation

Copilot AI commented Aug 2, 2026 • edited by github-actions Bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 2, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Review details

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 2, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 2, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 2, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 2, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

REQUEST_CHANGES — jobs.agent.if augmentation has 3 unresolved correctness issues

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Skills-Based Review 🧠

Positive Highlights

Issues Found

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 2, 2026

🏗️ Design Decision Gate — ADR Required

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Review: jobs.agent.needs and jobs.agent.if gating

Uh oh!

gh-aw-bot commented Aug 2, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI commented Aug 2, 2026

Uh oh!

gh-aw-bot commented Aug 2, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI commented Aug 2, 2026

Uh oh!

gh-aw-bot commented Aug 2, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI commented Aug 2, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

gh-aw-bot commented Aug 2, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 3, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

Copilot AI commented Aug 2, 2026 •

edited by github-actions Bot

Loading

github-actions Bot commented Aug 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

github-actions Bot commented Aug 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

github-actions Bot commented Aug 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

github-actions Bot commented Aug 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Review: `jobs.agent.needs` and `jobs.agent.if` gating