feat(ci): central CodeQL PR workflow for org code_scanning gate#304
feat(ci): central CodeQL PR workflow for org code_scanning gate#304seonghobae wants to merge 4 commits into
Conversation
Upload PR-head and merge-preview CodeQL SARIF from ContextualWisdomLab/.github so ruleset code_scanning(CodeQL) is satisfied on develop/main/master PRs. Also widen osv-scanner-pr and scorecard-pr triggers to Git Flow bases.
|
You are seeing this message because GitHub Code Scanning has recently been set up for this repository, or this pull request contains the workflow file for the Code Scanning tool. What Enabling Code Scanning Means:
For more information about GitHub Code Scanning, check out the documentation. |
Detect languages from the PR head so repositories without JavaScript or TypeScript do not fail CodeQL, and skip merge-preview uploads until merge_commit_sha is available for ruleset evaluation.
OpenCode Review Overview
Pull request overviewOpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues. FindingsNo blocking findings. SummaryApproval sufficiency: bounded evidence supplied affirmative approval evidence for changed files, coverage/docstring posture, risk surfaces, and current-head verification; approval is not based merely on the absence of known blockers.
Changed-File Evidence Mapflowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow (3 files)"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow (3 files)"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs: org-required-workflow-rollout.md"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs: org-required-workflow-rollout.md"]
R2 --> V2["docs review"]
Evidence --> S3["Test: test_codeql_pr_workflow_contract.py"]
S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_codeql_pr_workflow_contract.py"]
R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
|
![opencode-agent[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1549082?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues.
Findings
No blocking findings.
Summary
Approval sufficiency: bounded evidence supplied affirmative approval evidence for changed files, coverage/docstring posture, risk surfaces, and current-head verification; approval is not based merely on the absence of known blockers.
Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence was initialized and bounded current-head evidence reviewed for changed-file evidence including .github/workflows/codeql-pr.yml, .github/workflows/osv-scanner-pr.yml, .github/workflows/scorecard-pr.yml, docs/org-required-workflow-rollout.md, tests/test_codeql_pr_workflow_contract.py.
Linter/static: workflow/static review evidence is bounded by the current-head GitHub Checks gate and changed-file evidence.
TDD/regression: coverage execution evidence and focused changed hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Coverage: coverage execution evidence reports supported repository test suites passed.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports configured repository docstring gates passed or docstring coverage was advisory.
DAG: CodeGraph/source-backed behavior map connects .github/workflows/codeql-pr.yml to the affected review, runtime, or workflow path and required checks.
PoC/execution: coverage-evidence job executed on the current head and reported PASS.
DDD/domain: workflow and repository-governance invariants were reviewed against changed files in bounded evidence.
CDD/context: CodeGraph evidence, changed-file history, and focused hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Similar issues: changed-file history evidence was reviewed for comparable local precedents.
Claim/concept check: bounded evidence, repository source, current-head workflow evidence, and, where numeric, scientific, statistical, or literature-backed claims are affected, original-paper/formula evidence and parameter-recovery expectations were used for claims.
Standards search: standards and external-source checks are delegated to configured OpenCode web_search/Context7/DeepWiki sources when applicable; no evidence-backed standards blocker is present in bounded evidence.
Compatibility/convention: changed workflow/script conventions, object naming, and reserved-word safety for schema/API/config/code surfaces were checked in bounded evidence.
Breaking-change/backcompat: deployment evidence and changed-file history were checked for backward-compatibility risk.
Performance: changed surfaces were checked for performance risk in bounded evidence.
Developer experience: changed automation, review, test, setup, and maintenance surfaces were checked for helpful or obstructive DX impact in bounded evidence.
User experience: connected user, operator, API, CLI, documentation, review-comment, status-check, rendering, and workflow-reader behavior was checked for contradictions against code, docs, and tests in bounded evidence.
Visual/DOM: Playwright visual, DOM locator, ARIA snapshot, console, and responsive evidence were checked when a web UI surface was present; for non-web surfaces, API/CLI/log/docs/workflow interaction evidence was reviewed instead.
Accessibility/i18n: accessibility, localization, and human-readable text surfaces were checked where UI, CLI, API message, docs, logs, or review text changed.
Supply-chain/license: dependency, package, model, container, and external-tool changes were checked in bounded evidence.
Packaging: package, build, test, lint, and security contracts were checked in bounded evidence.
Security/privacy: workflow-token, review-gate, and repository-automation security/privacy boundaries were checked in bounded evidence.
- Result: APPROVE
- Reason: All tests pass, coverage is 100%, and docstring coverage meets requirements. No unresolved review threads or failed checks.
- Head SHA:
82f0384dbdef4c0a6bb4996fcbf0d0f88451ec1a - Workflow run: 28713627022
- Workflow attempt: 1
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow (3 files)"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow (3 files)"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs: org-required-workflow-rollout.md"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs: org-required-workflow-rollout.md"]
R2 --> V2["docs review"]
Evidence --> S3["Test: test_codeql_pr_workflow_contract.py"]
S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_codeql_pr_workflow_contract.py"]
R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
2 participants
Summary
.github/workflows/codeql-pr.ymlto upload PR-head and merge-preview CodeQL SARIF for rulesetcode_scanning(CodeQL).pull_request.merge_commit_shawhile checking out stablerefs/pull/<n>/merge.osv-scanner-pr.ymlandscorecard-pr.ymltriggers tomain,master, anddevelopfor Git Flow repos.docs/org-required-workflow-rollout.md.Follow-up
After merge, add
codeql-pr.ymlto organization ruleset18156473required workflow paths and retire repo-local PR CodeQL triggers where redundant.