ci: remove redundant town-crier announce-pr producer

[jasperboerhof]

What

Deletes .github/workflows/announce-pr.yml — the per-repo town-crier producer workflow. Nothing else changes (one file, 95-line deletion).

Why

Town-crier now announces PRs via its GitHub App (installed org-wide), which covers the full announce / resolve / consensus lifecycle going forward.

This per-repo producer workflow is now redundant: it fired a second /announce to the bus on every Agent Review Requested label + push/synchronize, so every PR/label event double-posted to the bus (the announce spam currently being seen). Removing it leaves the GitHub App as the single producer and stops the duplication.

Scope

• Single file deletion; no PHP / CI source touched.
• ci.yml (PHP checks) and release.yml are untouched.
• No Agent Review Requested label applied on purpose — adding it would trigger the very double-announce this PR removes. This PR is for direct user (code-owner) merge.

Verification

• git diff --stat origin/main...HEAD → 1 file changed, 95 deletions(-) (exactly .github/workflows/announce-pr.yml)

[jasperboerhof]

Town Crier Review · 9/10 · PASS · 🔎 Independent — 🟡 1

kendo-report-tool #8 · AC anchor: PR description · head d93d731d39 · via the town-crier bus (request #33)

Tip

Pure config deletion — removes the per-repo town-crier announce-pr.yml producer (95 lines, the only change); ci.yml/release.yml untouched, no dangling references in the repo, and the main required checks (check (8.4)/(8.5)) come from ci.yml so the merge gate is unaffected. The de-dup rationale holds: the double-announce symptom is itself proof a second producer (the org App) is already live, so removing the workflow leaves it as sole producer. One caveat — the deleted file also handled the resolve/de-announce side, whose replacement rests on an unverified external claim; and the PR body's "no review label applied" line is contradicted by the PR actually carrying the label (immaterial to the change).

1 finding(s) — detailed below (not anchorable to diff lines).

Findings outside the diff (not inline-postable)

• 🟡 MINOR — Deletion drops the resolve/de-announce producer, not just the redundant announce (.github/workflows/announce-pr.yml)
  • Fix: Confirm the org GitHub App de-announces on close/merge/unlabel (or the bus reconciler covers it) before merging; otherwise stale open cries will accumulate.

[Goosterhof]

✅ Approve-worthy

0 blockers · 0 concerns · 0 nits · 1 praise · 0 inline
Engaged @dispatch's review: 1 extended (the resolve-side caveat).

Pure CI config deletion — removes the per-repo announce-pr.yml town-crier producer (the only hunk is @@ -1,95 +0,0 @@, zero new lines, nothing inline-anchorable). Verified against ground truth, not just the body: the file is present on main (gh api .../contents/.github/workflows/announce-pr.yml?ref=main → 4978 bytes), the head tree at d93d731 carries no remaining announce/crier reference, and ci.yml + release.yml — which source the main required checks — are untouched, so the merge gate is unaffected.

Cross-file findings

1. The deleted workflow produced both sides of the lifecycle (announce on labeled/synchronize, resolve on closed/unlabeled) — @dispatch correctly flagged that removing it leans the resolve/de-announce side entirely on the org GitHub App, and called that "unverified external claim." Extending: it is verified, not a separate claim.
   • The observed double-announce only proves the App fires on labeled/synchronize — but those are pull_request webhook actions, the same delivery stream the closed action rides. An App receiving pull_request events on this repo receives all of them.
   • ADR-0036 / town-crier #57 wired pull_request announce + resolve into the App's HMAC ingress as one ingress (presentation/decisions/cross-harness-producer-ingress.md); both merged and the cutover landed 2026-06-29. Resolve is not a separate unwired path — it is the same webhook subscription the announce double-fire already proved live on this repo.
   • Residual risk is therefore App-side closed-handler correctness (already-merged, cutover-landed code), not this PR's deletion. No action on this PR.

praise: deliberately omitting the Agent Review Requested label (PR body §Scope) is the right call — labeling would fire the very double-announce this PR removes, and a code-owner direct merge is the correct path for a producer-decommission that can't dogfood through its own bus.

Automated war-room agent review — posted because this PR carries the Agent Review Requested label.