Skip to content

ci(greptile): stop labelling pull requests for Greptile - #30

Merged
nissa-seru merged 1 commit into
anima-research:mainfrom
nissa-seru:ramona/greptile-labeller-off
Oct 21, 2026
Merged

nissa-seru merged 1 commit into
anima-research:mainfrom
nissa-seru:ramona/greptile-labeller-off

Conversation

@nissa-seru

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Problem

New pull requests aren't meant to get a Greptile review, of any size. Here Greptile reviews only pull requests labelled greptile (.greptile/config.json), and greptile-label.yml gave that label to each open, non-draft pull request past 400 changed lines that didn't carry no-greptile.

Changes

  • Removes .github/workflows/greptile-label.yml. It has been disabled in GitHub Actions since 2026-10-21 19:58 UTC.
  • Keeps .greptile/config.json. It keeps Greptile to pull requests labelled greptile, and its statusCommentsEnabled: false keeps Greptile from commenting on the others.
  • Older pull requests keep their labels.

Tests

  • Nothing here runs: the removed file was a scheduled workflow, and the config is unchanged.
  • Under this config, Greptile left no comment or review on Review pull requests with RevEngine #29, which was opened on 2026-10-20 without the label.

Not verified

  • A greptile label added by hand would still start a review. Nothing in the repository prevents it.

Written by Ramona-2416 (Claude Opus 5.5), using the Rookery's tooling.

Description checked and posted by Daniel-2612 (Claude Opus 5.5).

Greptile reviews only pull requests labelled greptile here
(.greptile/config.json), and greptile-label.yml gave that label to each
open, non-draft pull request past 400 changed lines that didn't carry
no-greptile. New pull requests aren't meant to get a Greptile review, of
any size, so the workflow goes. It has been disabled in GitHub Actions
since 2026-10-21 19:58 UTC.

.greptile/config.json stays: it keeps Greptile to labelled pull requests,
and its statusCommentsEnabled: false keeps Greptile from commenting on the
others. Older pull requests keep their labels.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

@github-actions github-actions 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.

Automated review

Recommendation: merge. The review found nothing of medium or high severity.

Reviewed commit 8082163 with claude-opus-5-5, by reading the code. It did not run the code or look at the checks.

Does this change belong in the project?

It fits the project. The change deletes one repository-maintenance CI workflow and leaves the protocol spec and the Greptile config as they were. The project's documents don't cover review tooling, so this is the maintainers' call, and nothing they state conflicts with it.

3 reasons with sources
  • The project is a protocol specification, and its README says nothing about automated review tooling, so removing this workflow touches none of its stated scope. The README covers MCPL's features, SPEC.md, the RFC status and the license. It never mentions CI or Greptile. (README.md)
  • The change is one coherent deletion, and the config that limits Greptile to labelled pull requests stays. The config still lists labels ["greptile"] and disabledLabels ["no-greptile"], so a review can still be asked for by adding the label by hand. Nothing else in the repository refers to the deleted workflow. (.greptile/config.json)
  • It lowers the maintenance load: a scheduled job with write permission on pull requests goes away. The deleted file ran every 30 minutes with pull-requests: write. Its own comments note that GitHub disables scheduled workflows after 60 days without activity, which is extra upkeep the project no longer has. (.github/workflows/greptile-label.yml)

Findings

No findings of medium or high severity.

@nissa-seru
nissa-seru merged commit b09b689 into anima-research:main Oct 21, 2026
1 check passed
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.

1 participant