Skip to content

👷 ci(code-review): call the workflow from xdanger/xdanger - #74

Merged
xdanger merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
ci/move-code-review-to-xdanger
Oct 20, 2026
Merged

xdanger merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
ci/move-code-review-to-xdanger

Conversation

@xdanger

@xdanger xdanger commented Oct 20, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

The shared code-review workflow moved from krosdai/.github to xdanger/xdanger when the repositories moved to the personal account. This points uses: at the new location, keeping the same @v2 tag.

On @v2, the review authenticates through workload identity federation. The four FEDERATION_* repository variables it reads are now set on this repository, copied from xdanger/xdanger.

The FEDERATION_* variables were also added to this repository, because a personal account has no account-level Actions variables.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

- 👷 the shared review workflow moved from `krosdai/.github` to `xdanger/xdanger`; keep the same tag so the review behaviour stays unchanged

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@xdanger xdanger self-assigned this Oct 20, 2026
@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Oct 20, 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 2026-10-20T05:03:41.929083Z fc49ffd PR opened
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.

@xdanger
xdanger requested a balanced review from Copilot October 20, 2026 04:58
Comment thread .github/workflows/code-review.yml

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🟡 Changes recommended

The new workflow owner requires full commit-SHA pinning rather than a mutable tag.

1 open issue
What changed in this PR

Updates the scaffold’s shared code-review workflow reference following its move to a personal account.

Changes:

  • Switches the upstream repository from krosdai/.github to xdanger/xdanger, retaining @v2.
File Description
.github/​workflows/​code-review.yml Points to the relocated reusable workflow.

Review effort: Balanced

Comment thread .github/workflows/code-review.yml

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: fc49ffd719

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".

Comment thread .github/workflows/code-review.yml
- 📝 the shared review workflow now comes from `xdanger/xdanger`, so the owner whose tags are tracked on purpose moves with it; `krosdai` no longer hosts anything this repo calls

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@xdanger
xdanger force-pushed the ci/move-code-review-to-xdanger branch from e872e7b to 0c68a8f Compare October 20, 2026 05:09
Comment thread REVIEW.md
@xdanger
xdanger merged commit 9406276 into main Oct 20, 2026
2 checks passed
@xdanger
xdanger deleted the ci/move-code-review-to-xdanger branch October 20, 2026 05:18
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.

2 participants