ci: gate this repository on its own protocol

[augbastos]

What this changes

SCPE specifies how a project learns who signed a contribution and what they declared about AI use. This repository did not ask either question about its own pull requests. After this, it does — as a failing check, not a comment.

Measured before writing a line, with this repo's own reference/disclosure.py, against PR #2 (opened by an agent, body reading "PR created automatically by Jules"):

{'present': False, 'form': 'none', 'value': ''}

True, human-readable, and invisible to every tool that has to make a decision. That is the gap the spec describes — here, in this repo.

Files

• .github/workflows/scpe.yml — the untrusted half, running this repo's own Action at level: 1 with require: "true". Two files, not one: a workflow cannot name itself in workflow_run.
• .github/workflows/scpe-seal.yml — the trusted half that posts the verdict. Never checks out or runs contributor code.
• .github/pull_request_template.md — the five-second path for a human.
• AGENTS.md — the binding rule for automated contributors, with the exact trailer and the measurement showing why prose does not count.

Why level 1 and not level 2

Level 2 anchors a signature to a key the forge publishes for the signing account, and no coding agent has one today. Gating there would not raise the bar — it would ban agent contributions and make this repository quieter and less honest. Level 1 asks the one thing an agent can do and a human can do in five seconds, and it is enforced. The switch to level 2 is a single line, and everything it needs (fetch-depth: 0, the two-job split, the artifact hand-off) is already in place.

A bug caught while building this

An example Assisted-by: line inside an HTML comment in the template satisfied the gate for every PR that left the template untouched — the lint reads the raw PR body and does not skip comments. Caught by a local check before this ever became a pull request; fixed, and the reason recorded in the template so the next editor does not reintroduce it.

Note on this PR

It will not receive a seal: workflow_run only fires for a workflow file already present on the default branch. The first sealed PR is the next one. PR #2 is the natural first test — as it stands today, it would fail the gate.

AI use

• I used generative AI for part of this change

Written with Claude Code; every claim above was measured against this repository before being written. The commit carries Assisted-by: claude-code.

Checks

• Tests pass locally, or this change carries no code
• I read CONTRIBUTING.md

[strix-security]

Strix is installed on this repository, but we couldn't run this PR security review because this workspace's trial has ended. Add a card to resume code reviews here.

So far, Strix has reviewed 15 pull requests and surfaced 1 security issue across this workspace.

[coderabbitai]

Important

• 🔍 Trigger review

This repository does not receive automatic reviews because it has fewer than 10 stars.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 9c379fca-9904-47ee-a50f-701b5eb94332

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}