Skip to content

ci: add umm-actually review workflow - #5

Merged
aliasunder merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
ci-umm-review
Sep 3, 2026
Merged

aliasunder merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
ci-umm-review

Conversation

@aliasunder

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

What

Adds the umm-actually review workflow (.github/workflows/umm_review.yml), copied byte-for-byte from vault-onboarding (verified with diff).

Why

Bot review on agent-plugins PRs. The workflow reviews owner-opened PRs on open/sync/reopen/ready, and re-reviews on an owner's @umm review comment. Repo-specific knobs all come from Actions variables with sane defaults; the required secrets (UMM_CLIENT_ID, UMM_PRIVATE_KEY, OPENROUTER_KEY) and variables are already configured on this repo. The defaults it reads from the tree — AGENTS.md as the conventions file, README.md as the priority doc — both exist here.

vault-onboarding has no dependabot config, so there was nothing to copy on that front.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Byte-for-byte copy of vault-onboarding's umm_review.yml. Secrets and
variables are already configured on the repo; the conventions file
(AGENTS.md) and priority doc (README.md) defaults both exist here.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Comment thread .github/workflows/umm_review.yml Dismissed
Comment thread .github/workflows/umm_review.yml
@umm-actually

umm-actually Bot commented Sep 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

umm-actually reviewed at fd2f038

1 new finding(s) posted (1 tracked finding(s) across all runs).

Context notes
  • Priority docs not included: plugins/ship-check/READEME.mdREADME.md, plugins/ship-check/READEME.md (missing, unreadable, or over budget)

umm-actually · deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731

@aliasunder
aliasunder merged commit ae16a0f into main Sep 3, 2026
7 checks passed
@aliasunder
aliasunder deleted the ci-umm-review branch September 3, 2026 20:30
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