[Pelis Agent Factory Advisor] Agentic Workflow Opportunities Analysis - January 2026 #450

2026-01-29T21:05:30Z

github-actions[bot]
bot Jan 29, 2026

📊 Executive Summary

The gh-aw-firewall repository demonstrates strong agentic workflow maturity (Level 3/5) with 14 specialized workflows covering security, CI/CD, documentation, and issue management. The repository follows Pelis Agent Factory best practices with safe-outputs, permission minimization, and domain-specific specialization.

Key findings:

✅ Strong security focus (3 security-specific workflows) - appropriate for a firewall tool
✅ CI/CD hygiene workflows catch failures proactively
⚠️ Missing workflow health monitoring (no meta-agent for the ecosystem)
⚠️ No firewall log analysis despite being a network security tool
⚠️ Limited continuous quality workflows (no simplification/refactoring)

Top opportunities: Workflow Health Monitor (P0), Firewall Log Analyzer (P0), Container Security Auditor (P1), Performance Regression Detector (P1), Continuous Code Simplifier (P1).

🎓 Patterns Learned from Pelis Agent Factory

After exploring the Pelis Agent Factory documentation and the agentics repository, here are the key patterns:

Design Principles

1. Specialization Over Generalization

100+ focused workflows > one monolithic agent
Each workflow has a specific, well-defined task
Examples: issue triage, code simplification, security scanning

2. Safe Outputs Pattern

All write operations through safe-outputs MCP server
Frontmatter declares allowed operations
Prevents runaway agents

3. Meta-Monitoring

Workflows that monitor other workflows
"Metrics Collector" tracks ecosystem performance
"Portfolio Analyst" identifies cost reduction opportunities
"Audit Workflows" audits all workflow runs

4. Continuous Quality

"Continuous Simplicity" - automatically simplifies complex code
"Continuous Refactoring" - proactive code improvements
"Continuous Style" - style consistency enforcement

5. Domain-Specific Workflows

Tailored to repository's specific needs
For gh-aw: daily-workflow-sync, maintainer, migrate-workflow
For this repo: Should have firewall log analysis!

Workflow Categories in Pelis Factory

Issue & PR Management - Triage, duplication, assignment
Continuous Quality - Simplification, refactoring, style
Documentation - Sync, maintenance, generation
Security & Compliance - Scanning, vulnerability tracking, firewall testing
Metrics & Analytics - Meta-agents monitoring agents
Testing & Validation - Coverage, fault investigation
Operations & Release - Release notes, deployment
Multi-Phase - Long-running improvement campaigns

How This Repo Compares

Strong alignment:

✅ Specialized workflows (14 workflows)
✅ Safe-outputs consistently used
✅ Security-focused (appropriate for firewall)
✅ Has meta-workflow (pelis-agent-factory-advisor)

Gaps vs. Pelis Factory:

⚠️ No workflow health monitoring
⚠️ No continuous quality workflows (simplification, refactoring)
⚠️ Missing domain-specific analytics (firewall logs!)
⚠️ Limited observability/metrics

📋 Current Agentic Workflow Inventory

Workflow	Purpose	Trigger	Assessment
ci-doctor	Investigates failed workflows, creates diagnostic issues	workflow_run (failed)	✅ Strong - automated triage
ci-cd-gaps-assessment	Identifies CI/CD gaps and improvements	monthly schedule	✅ Strategic planning
dependency-security-monitor	Monitors dependencies for vulnerabilities	schedule	✅ Security critical
doc-maintainer	Syncs docs with code changes	daily schedule	✅ Reduces documentation drift
issue-duplication-detector	Finds and links duplicate issues	issues opened, hourly	✅ Reduces noise
issue-monster	Assigns issues to Copilot agents	hourly, workflow_dispatch	🔧 Needs permission fix (issue #391)
pelis-agent-factory-advisor	Analyzes agentic workflow opportunities	daily	✅ Meta-improvement (this workflow!)
plan	Multi-turn planning for complex tasks	workflow_dispatch	✅ Complex task support
security-guard	Reviews PRs for security weakening	pull_request	✅ Security critical
security-review	Comprehensive security analysis	schedule, manual	✅ Deep security analysis
smoke-claude / smoke-copilot	Integration testing for agents	manual dispatch	🔧 Secret configuration issues
test-coverage-improver	Identifies and improves test coverage gaps	weekly	✅ Quality focus
update-release-notes	Generates release notes from commits	release	✅ Release automation

Summary:

14 workflows total (11 active, 2 with known issues, 1 meta)
Strong security focus: 3 dedicated security workflows
Good CI/CD hygiene: ci-doctor, ci-cd-gaps-assessment
Documentation automation: doc-maintainer
Quality focus: test-coverage-improver

🚀 Actionable Recommendations

P0 - Implement Immediately

P0.1: Workflow Health Monitor

What: Meta-agent monitoring all agentic workflow runs for failures, cost, and performance trends

Why:

14 workflows with no systematic health monitoring
Issue 🏥 CI FailureIssue Monster workflow fails to assign Copilot agents due to permission error #391 shows issue-monster is broken (permission errors)
Reactive instead of proactive failure detection
Pelis Factory emphasizes "you can't optimize what you don't measure"

How:

Daily schedule checking workflow run status via GitHub Actions API
Track: failure rate per workflow, execution time trends, cost estimates
Create issues for patterns: repeated failures (>20%), slow workflows (>2x baseline), expensive runs
Generate weekly summary discussion with metrics and trends

Effort: Medium (3-4 hours)

Example Pattern (based on Pelis Factory's "Workflow Health Manager"):

---
description: Monitors health of all agentic workflows
on:
  schedule: daily
permissions:
  contents: read
  actions: read
tools:
  github:
    toolsets: [actions]
  cache-memory: true
safe-outputs:
  create-issue:
    labels: [agentic-workflows, monitoring]
  create-discussion:
    title-prefix: "[Workflow Health] "
    category: "General"
timeout-minutes: 15
---

# Workflow Health Monitor

Monitor all agentic workflow runs from the past 7 days. Track:
- Failure rate by workflow (target: <10%)
- Average execution time (detect slowdowns)
- Cost estimates (runner minutes × cost)
- Failure patterns (same error repeated)

Create issues for:
- Workflows with >20% failure rate
- Workflows taking >2x baseline time
- Repeated failures with same error

Generate weekly summary discussion with:
- Workflow health scorecard
- Cost trends
- Top failures and recommendations

P0.2: Firewall Log Analyzer

What: Daily analysis of Squid and iptables logs to identify traffic patterns, anomalies, and policy improvements

Why:

This is a firewall tool - log analysis is core domain functionality!
Logs preserved in /tmp/awf-agent-logs-*/ and /tmp/squid-logs-*/ but never analyzed
Could detect: common blocked domains, allowlist gaps, attack patterns, policy optimization opportunities
Pelis Factory emphasizes domain-specific workflows - this is quintessentially domain-specific
Existing awf logs stats and awf logs summary commands provide foundation

How:

Scheduled daily to analyze logs from recent workflow runs
Use GitHub Actions API to download log artifacts
Leverage existing awf logs stats command for aggregation
Analyze: most blocked domains, traffic volume, error rates, trends
Create discussion with findings and actionable recommendations
Suggest: allowlist additions for frequently blocked legitimate domains, overly broad patterns to tighten

Effort: Medium (4-5 hours)

Example Pattern:

---
description: Analyzes firewall logs for patterns and anomalies
on:
  schedule: daily
permissions:
  contents: read
  actions: read
tools:
  github:
    toolsets: [actions]
  bash:
    - "awf:logs:*"
    - "grep:*"
    - "awk:*"
safe-outputs:
  create-discussion:
    title-prefix: "[Firewall Logs] "
    category: "General"
timeout-minutes: 15
---

# Firewall Log Analyzer

Download and analyze Squid access.log and iptables logs from recent workflow runs (past 7 days).

## Analysis Tasks

1. **Traffic Patterns**
   - Top 10 allowed domains (use `awf logs stats`)
   - Top 10 blocked domains
   - Traffic volume trends (requests/day)
   - Protocol breakdown (HTTP vs HTTPS)

2. **Anomaly Detection**
   - Unusual spike in blocked requests (>2x normal)
   - New blocked domains not previously seen
   - Failed DNS queries patterns
   - Repeated connection attempts to blocked domains

3. **Policy Recommendations**
   - Frequently blocked legitimate domains → suggest allowlist addition
   - Rarely used allowed domains (0 requests in 7 days) → suggest review
   - Overly broad patterns (e.g., `*`, `*.*`) → security risk warning
   - Common subdomain patterns → suggest wildcard consolidation

4. **Security Insights**
   - Potential data exfiltration attempts (unusual domains)
   - DNS tunneling indicators
   - Port scanning detection (varied ports to same domain)

Generate discussion with:
- Summary statistics (total requests, allow/deny rate)
- Top findings (traffic patterns, anomalies)
- Actionable recommendations (policy changes)
- Security alerts (if suspicious patterns detected)

P1 - Plan for Near-Term

P1.1: Container Security Auditor

What: Weekly audit of container security configuration (seccomp, capabilities, volumes, privileges)

Why:

Security-critical tool running user code in containers
Existing security-guard reviews PR changes, but no periodic baseline audit
Could detect: capability creep, insecure volume mounts, seccomp profile drift, privilege escalation risks
Complements security-guard (which is reactive on PRs)

How:

Scheduled weekly
Read container configuration: src/docker-manager.ts, containers/agent/Dockerfile, containers/agent/seccomp-profile.json
Validate against security baseline:
- cap_drop includes all dangerous capabilities
- seccomp profile blocks dangerous syscalls
- No privileged mode
- Volumes mounted read-only where possible
- User is non-root (awfuser)
Create PR with fixes if deviations found

Effort: High (6-8 hours)

Example Pattern:

---
description: Audits container security configuration against baseline
on:
  schedule: weekly
permissions:
  contents: read
tools:
  view:
  bash:
safe-outputs:
  create-pull-request:
    title-prefix: "[Security] "
    labels: [security, container-hardening]
    draft: false
timeout-minutes: 20
---

# Container Security Auditor

Audit container security configuration for compliance with security baseline.

## Security Baseline

Containers must:
- Drop all dangerous capabilities (NET_RAW, SYS_PTRACE, SYS_MODULE, etc.)
- Use strict seccomp profile (block mount, reboot, etc.)
- Mount volumes read-only where possible (no `/:/host:rw`)
- Run as non-root user (awfuser)
- Never use privileged mode

## Audit Process

1. Read `src/docker-manager.ts` - Docker Compose generation
2. Read `containers/agent/Dockerfile` - Build configuration
3. Read `containers/agent/seccomp-profile.json` - Syscall filtering
4. Validate each component against baseline
5. If deviations found, create PR with fixes
6. If compliant, exit without creating PR

## Validation Checks

- [ ] cap_drop includes: NET_RAW, SYS_PTRACE, SYS_MODULE, SYS_ADMIN
- [ ] seccomp profile blocks: mount, umount2, reboot, swapon, swapoff
- [ ] No privileged: true in Docker config
- [ ] Host volumes mounted read-only where possible
- [ ] User is awfuser (UID 1000), not root
- [ ] No NET_ADMIN capability in final container (dropped after setup)

P1.2: Performance Regression Detector

What: Tracks workflow run durations and detects performance regressions

Why:

No visibility into CI/CD performance trends
Integration tests use Docker (can be slow)
Could detect: inefficient code changes, Docker layer cache misses, resource contention
Pelis Factory's "CI Coach" pattern for pipeline optimization

How:

Triggered after workflow_run completion
Fetch run duration via GitHub Actions API
Load historical baseline from cache-memory (rolling average of past 10 runs)
If current run >20% slower than baseline: comment on PR with warning
Update rolling baseline in cache-memory

Effort: Medium-High (5-6 hours)

Example Pattern:

---
description: Detects performance regressions in workflow runs
on:
  workflow_run:
    workflows: ["Build", "Test Coverage", "Integration Tests"]
    types: [completed]
permissions:
  contents: read
  actions: read
  pull-requests: write
tools:
  github:
    toolsets: [actions, pull_requests]
  cache-memory: true
safe-outputs:
  add-comment:
    max: 1
timeout-minutes: 10
---

# Performance Regression Detector

Track workflow run durations and alert on significant performance degradation.

## Process

1. **Fetch metrics** for triggering workflow:
   - Total workflow duration
   - Individual job durations
   - Step timings (test execution, Docker build, etc.)

2. **Load baseline** from cache-memory:
   - Rolling average of past 10 successful runs
   - Standard deviation for variance detection

3. **Compare and analyze**:
   - If current run >20% slower: WARN (regression likely)
   - If current run >50% slower: ALERT (serious regression)
   - Identify which job/step is slowest

4. **Take action**:
   - Comment on PR with warning and details
   - Link to run comparison (current vs baseline)
   - Suggest investigation areas (Docker cache, test parallelization, etc.)

5. **Update baseline**:
   - Add current run to rolling average
   - Store in cache-memory for next comparison

## Metrics Tracked

- Workflow total duration
- Job durations (test, build, lint)
- Docker build time
- Test execution time
- Artifact upload/download time

P1.3: Continuous Code Simplifier

What: Weekly workflow identifying and simplifying overly complex code

Why:

Pelis Factory's "Continuous Simplicity" is a flagship pattern
Codebase has complexity (AGENTS.md is 25KB, some functions >100 lines)
Reduces cognitive load for contributors
Complements test-coverage-improver (quality from different angle)

How:

Scheduled weekly
Analyze recent commits (past 7 days) for complexity issues
Identify: long functions (>50 lines), deep nesting (>3 levels), duplicated patterns, complex conditionals
Create PR with simplifications: extract functions, early returns, consolidate duplicates
Preserve functionality (no behavior changes)

Effort: High (7-8 hours)

Example Pattern:

---
description: Continuously simplifies overly complex code
on:
  schedule: weekly
  skip-if-match:
    query: 'is:pr is:open in:title "[Simplify]"'
    max: 1
permissions:
  contents: read
tools:
  bash:
    - "npm:*"
    - "git:*"
  view:
  edit:
safe-outputs:
  create-pull-request:
    title-prefix: "[Simplify] "
    labels: [refactoring, code-quality]
    draft: true
timeout-minutes: 25
---

# Continuous Code Simplifier

Analyze recent code changes and create PRs with simplifications.

## Simplification Targets

1. **Long functions** (>50 lines)
   - Extract logical sections into helper functions
   - Improve readability and testability

2. **Deep nesting** (>3 levels of indentation)
   - Use early returns to flatten logic
   - Extract nested blocks into functions

3. **Duplicated patterns** (same logic in 2+ places)
   - Extract into shared utility function
   - Reduce maintenance burden

4. **Complex conditionals** (&&, ||, !)
   - Extract to named boolean variables
   - Use early returns instead of nested if-else

5. **Magic numbers/strings**
   - Convert to named constants
   - Improve code self-documentation

## Process

1. Analyze commits from past 7 days
2. Identify files with complexity issues
3. For each issue:
   - Propose simplification
   - Verify functionality preserved (no behavior change)
   - Document reasoning in commit message
4. Create draft PR for human review

## Guidelines

- ONE focused simplification per PR
- Preserve all tests (must pass)
- No behavior changes (only structure)
- Clear commit messages explaining what and why

P2 - Consider for Roadmap

P2.1: Dependency Update Helper

What: Automates testing of dependency updates before merging Dependabot PRs

Why: Issues #289, #356 show dependency updates causing CI failures (ESM compatibility, API changes)

Effort: High (8+ hours)

P2.2: Documentation Quality Checker

What: Validates documentation for completeness, accuracy, and consistency

Why: 18 doc files, doc-maintainer handles drift but no quality checks (broken links, outdated examples)

Effort: Medium-High (6-7 hours)

P2.3: Release Readiness Checker

What: Pre-release validation ensuring all checks pass before release

Why: Issue #406 shows release workflow failures - could validate tests, docs, version bump, changelog

Effort: Medium (4-5 hours)

P3 - Future Ideas

P3.1: Contributor Onboarding Bot

What: Welcomes new contributors, guides through first contribution

Why: Reduces friction for open-source contributors

Effort: Medium (4-5 hours)

P3.2: Stale Issue/PR Closer

What: Closes inactive issues/PRs after warning period

Why: Keeps issue tracker clean

Effort: Low (2-3 hours)

📈 Maturity Assessment

Current Level: 3 out of 5 (Good)

Level 1 (Basic): No agentic workflows
Level 2 (Starting): 1-3 workflows, mostly manual triggers
Level 3 (Good): 5-15 specialized workflows, automated triggers, safe-outputs ← YOU ARE HERE
Level 4 (Mature): 15-30 workflows, meta-monitoring, continuous quality, domain-specific analytics
Level 5 (Advanced): 30+ workflows, multi-phase campaigns, ML-based, cross-repo coordination

Characteristics of Level 3

✅ Strengths:

Multiple specialized workflows (14 total)
Security-focused (3 security workflows)
Safe-outputs consistently applied
Meta-workflow for self-improvement (pelis-agent-factory-advisor)
CI/CD hygiene (ci-doctor, ci-cd-gaps-assessment)
Documentation automation (doc-maintainer)

⚠️ Gaps to reach Level 4:

No workflow health monitoring (meta-monitoring)
Limited observability/metrics
No continuous quality workflows (simplification, refactoring)
Missing domain-specific analytics (firewall logs!)
No performance regression detection

Target Level: 4 out of 5 (Mature)

To reach Level 4, implement:

Workflow Health Monitoring (P0.1) - Meta-agent tracking ecosystem health
Domain-Specific Analytics (P0.2) - Firewall log analysis
Performance Observability (P1.2) - Regression detection
Continuous Quality (P1.3) - Code simplification
Enhanced Security (P1.1) - Container auditor

Gap Analysis

Gap	Current State	Target State	Priority
Workflow health	Reactive (discover failures manually)	Proactive (monitor all workflows)	P0
Log analysis	Logs preserved but unused	Daily analysis with insights	P0
Performance	No visibility	Regression detection, trends	P1
Code quality	test-coverage-improver only	+ simplification, refactoring	P1
Security	PR reviews only	+ periodic baseline audits	P1

🔄 Comparison with Pelis Factory Best Practices

✅ What This Repo Does Well

1. Security-First Approach (Exemplary)

3 dedicated security workflows: security-guard, security-review, dependency-security-monitor
Appropriate for a security-critical firewall tool
Follows Pelis Factory pattern: specialized workflows for critical domains
Better than many Pelis Factory workflows (not all have 3 security agents!)

2. Safe Outputs Pattern (Perfect)

All workflows consistently use safe-outputs
Scoped permissions (read-only by default)
Prevents runaway agents
Matches Pelis Factory best practice exactly

3. Meta-Workflow (Good)

pelis-agent-factory-advisor (this workflow!) provides self-improvement
Follows Pelis Factory's "agents monitoring agents" pattern
Could be enhanced with workflow health monitoring

4. Domain Specialization (Good)

Workflows tailored to firewall domain
issue-monster for task automation
ci-doctor for CI hygiene
doc-maintainer for documentation sync

⚠️ What Could Be Improved

1. Missing Workflow Health Monitoring (Critical Gap)

Pelis Factory emphasizes: "you can't optimize what you don't measure"
No meta-agent tracking workflow ecosystem health
Issue 🏥 CI FailureIssue Monster workflow fails to assign Copilot agents due to permission error #391 (issue-monster broken) discovered manually, not automatically
Recommendation: Implement P0.1 (Workflow Health Monitor)

2. No Continuous Quality Workflows (Major Gap)

Pelis Factory's flagship "Continuous Simplicity" and "Continuous Refactoring" patterns missing
Code quality treated as destination, not journey
Only test-coverage-improver addresses quality
Recommendation: Implement P1.3 (Continuous Code Simplifier)

3. Missing Domain-Specific Analytics (Missed Opportunity)

This is a firewall tool - logs are goldmine of insights!
Pelis Factory emphasizes domain-specific workflows
Logs preserved (/tmp/awf-agent-logs-*/, /tmp/squid-logs-*/) but never analyzed
Recommendation: Implement P0.2 (Firewall Log Analyzer)

4. Limited Observability (Moderate Gap)

No performance regression detection
No cost tracking
Can't detect if PRs make CI slower or more expensive
Pelis Factory's "Portfolio Analyst" and "Metrics Collector" patterns
Recommendation: Implement P1.2 (Performance Regression Detector)

🔥 Unique Opportunities Given Firewall Domain

1. Firewall Log Analyzer (P0.2)

Quintessentially domain-specific - this is what makes a firewall tool agentic!
Analyze: traffic patterns, blocked domains, anomalies, attack indicators
Suggest: allowlist improvements, policy optimizations
Detect: data exfiltration attempts, DNS tunneling, port scanning
No equivalent in Pelis Factory - opportunity to pioneer firewall-specific pattern!

2. Container Security Auditor (P1.1)

Critical for security tool - containers run untrusted user code
Periodic audit: capability dropping, seccomp profiles, volume mounts
Ensure security baseline maintained over time
Complements PR-based security-guard with scheduled baseline checks
Pelis Factory has "Daily Malicious Code Scan" but not container auditor

3. Network Policy Optimizer (Future/Advanced)

Analyze allowlist usage patterns (which domains actually accessed)
Suggest optimal domain patterns (consolidate with wildcards)
Detect overly permissive rules (allowed but never used)
ML-based anomaly detection in traffic patterns
Level 5 (Advanced) capability - multi-phase optimization campaign

4. SSL Bump Validator (Future)

Repository has SSL Bump feature for HTTPS content inspection
Could validate: certificate handling, path filtering correctness, URL pattern security
Domain-specific to firewall functionality
Unique to this repository - no parallel in Pelis Factory

📝 Implementation Roadmap

Phase 1: Foundation (Weeks 1-2) - P0 Implementation

Week 1:

Implement P0.1: Workflow Health Monitor (3-4 hours)
- Set up daily schedule
- GitHub Actions API integration
- Failure rate tracking
- Cost estimation logic
- Issue creation for failures >20%
Test and validate workflow health monitor
Create initial baseline in cache-memory

Week 2:

Implement P0.2: Firewall Log Analyzer (4-5 hours)
- GitHub Actions API artifact download
- Integrate with existing awf logs stats command
- Traffic pattern analysis
- Anomaly detection logic
- Policy recommendation generation
Test with real logs from recent runs
Create first analysis discussion

Expected Outcomes:

Proactive visibility into workflow ecosystem health
Domain-specific insights from firewall logs
Baseline metrics for future optimization

Phase 2: Security & Observability (Weeks 3-4) - P1 Implementation Part 1

Week 3:

Implement P1.1: Container Security Auditor (6-8 hours)
- Security baseline definition
- Configuration file parsing (docker-manager.ts, Dockerfile, seccomp-profile.json)
- Validation logic for each security check
- PR generation for deviations
Run first audit and verify findings
Document security baseline in repository

Week 4:

Implement P1.2: Performance Regression Detector (5-6 hours)
- workflow_run trigger setup
- Duration tracking via Actions API
- Rolling average baseline in cache-memory
- PR comment logic for regressions >20%
Establish initial performance baselines
Test with intentionally slow PR

Expected Outcomes:

Continuous container security validation
Performance regression early warning system
Security and performance observability

Phase 3: Code Quality (Weeks 5-6) - P1 Implementation Part 2

Week 5:

Implement P1.3: Continuous Code Simplifier (7-8 hours)
- Complexity detection logic (function length, nesting, duplicates)
- Code analysis of recent commits
- Simplification pattern library
- PR generation with explanations
Run first simplification pass
Review and merge first simplification PR

Week 6:

Refine workflows based on initial experience
Adjust thresholds (failure rates, performance baselines, complexity triggers)
Update documentation with new workflows
Create workflow usage guide for maintainers

Expected Outcomes:

Continuous code quality improvement
Reduced cognitive load for contributors
Workflow ecosystem fully operational

Phase 4: Consolidation & P2 (Weeks 7-8) - Stability & Enhancement

Week 7:

Monitor workflow performance over 1-2 weeks
Fix any issues discovered
Analyze workflow metrics (failure rate, execution time, usefulness)
Update pelis-agent-factory-advisor with learnings

Week 8:

Plan P2 implementation (Dependency Update Helper, Doc Quality Checker, Release Readiness)
Prioritize based on pain points discovered
Begin P2.1: Dependency Update Helper (if high priority)

Expected Outcomes:

Stable, reliable workflow ecosystem
Data-driven insights for further improvements
Foundation for P2 roadmap

Success Metrics (Track Monthly)

Metric	Baseline (Now)	Target (3 months)	Measurement
Workflow failure rate	Unknown	<10% per workflow	Workflow Health Monitor
Test coverage	38% overall	48% overall (+10%)	test-coverage-improver + reports
Security issues caught pre-merge	Unknown	100%	security-guard findings
Documentation drift time	Unknown	<7 days	doc-maintainer PR frequency
CI run time	Unknown	Stable or improving	Performance Regression Detector
Workflow cost trend	Unknown	Stable or decreasing	Workflow Health Monitor cost tracking

📚 Resources for Implementation

Pelis Factory Reference Workflows

Workflow Health Manager: https://github.com/githubnext/gh-aw/blob/v0.37.7/.github/workflows/workflow-health-manager.md
Metrics Collector: https://github.com/githubnext/gh-aw/blob/v0.37.7/.github/workflows/metrics-collector.md
Portfolio Analyst: https://github.com/githubnext/gh-aw/blob/v0.37.7/.github/workflows/portfolio-analyst.md
Continuous Simplicity: https://github.com/githubnext/gh-aw/blob/v0.37.7/.github/workflows/code-simplifier.md
Container Security (Daily Malicious Code Scan): https://github.com/githubnext/gh-aw/blob/v0.37.7/.github/workflows/daily-malicious-code-scan.md
CI Coach: https://github.com/githubnext/gh-aw/blob/v0.37.7/.github/workflows/ci-coach.md

Documentation

Pelis Agent Factory: https://githubnext.github.io/gh-aw/blog/2026-01-12-welcome-to-pelis-agent-factory/
Meet the Workflows Series: https://githubnext.github.io/gh-aw/blog/2026-01-13-meet-the-workflows/
GitHub Agentic Workflows: https://githubnext.github.io/gh-aw/
Quick Start: https://githubnext.github.io/gh-aw/setup/quick-start/
Agentics Repository: https://github.com/githubnext/agentics

Adding Workflows

Use gh aw add to import workflows from Pelis Factory or agentics:

# Add Workflow Health Manager
gh aw add https://github.com/githubnext/gh-aw/blob/v0.37.7/.github/workflows/workflow-health-manager.md -n workflow-health-monitor

# Add Continuous Simplifier
gh aw add https://github.com/githubnext/gh-aw/blob/v0.37.7/.github/workflows/code-simplifier.md -n continuous-simplifier

# Add CI Coach
gh aw add https://github.com/githubnext/gh-aw/blob/v0.37.7/.github/workflows/ci-coach.md -n performance-coach

Then customize for gh-aw-firewall domain specifics.

🎯 Next Actions (Immediate)

For Maintainers

Review this analysis - Discuss priorities with team
Fix issue-monster (issue 🏥 CI FailureIssue Monster workflow fails to assign Copilot agents due to permission error #391) - Unblock hourly issue assignment
Implement P0.1 (Workflow Health Monitor) - Gain immediate visibility
Implement P0.2 (Firewall Log Analyzer) - Leverage domain-specific data
Plan P1 timeline - Schedule P1.1, P1.2, P1.3 implementation

For Contributors

Study Pelis Factory patterns - Read the blog post series
Explore existing workflows - Understand current patterns in .github/workflows/
Propose workflow ideas - Share domain-specific automation opportunities
Help implement P0/P1 - Contribute to workflow development

For Community

Provide feedback - Comment on this discussion with thoughts
Share use cases - What workflows would help your usage of awf?
Report workflow issues - Help improve existing workflows
Suggest improvements - New ideas for automation

🔗 Related Issues & PRs

🏥 CI FailureIssue Monster workflow fails to assign Copilot agents due to permission error #391 - Issue Monster permission error (needs fix)
[agentics] Release failed #406 - Release workflow failure (needs investigation)
[agentics] Security Guard failed #389, [agentics] Smoke Claude failed #392 - Smoke test secret configuration issues
Filter benign operational logs from Squid access.log #380 - Squid log filtering (domain-specific improvement)
[Security] Mount host filesystem as read-only with isolate.sh fallback #420, [DevTools] Configure Jest for ESM dependency compatibility #421, [Feature] Propagate host.docker.internal DNS to spawned containers #422 - Feature backlog items

Analysis conducted by Pelis Agent Factory Advisor workflow on January 29, 2026
Next scheduled analysis: February 5, 2026
Workflow run: https://github.com/githubnext/gh-aw-firewall/actions/runs/21494406546

AI generated by Pelis Agent Factory Advisor

expires on Feb 5, 2026, 9:05 PM UTC

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[Pelis Agent Factory Advisor] Agentic Workflow Opportunities Analysis - January 2026 #450

Uh oh!

{{title}}

Uh oh!

Replies: 0 comments

Select a reply

Uh oh!

[Pelis Agent Factory Advisor] Agentic Workflow Opportunities Analysis - January 2026 #450

Uh oh!

github-actions[bot] bot Jan 29, 2026

📊 Executive Summary

🎓 Patterns Learned from Pelis Agent Factory

Design Principles

Workflow Categories in Pelis Factory

How This Repo Compares

📋 Current Agentic Workflow Inventory

🚀 Actionable Recommendations

P0 - Implement Immediately

P0.1: Workflow Health Monitor

P0.2: Firewall Log Analyzer

P1 - Plan for Near-Term

P1.1: Container Security Auditor

P1.2: Performance Regression Detector

P1.3: Continuous Code Simplifier

P2 - Consider for Roadmap

P2.1: Dependency Update Helper

P2.2: Documentation Quality Checker

P2.3: Release Readiness Checker

P3 - Future Ideas

P3.1: Contributor Onboarding Bot

P3.2: Stale Issue/PR Closer

📈 Maturity Assessment

Current Level: 3 out of 5 (Good)

Characteristics of Level 3

Target Level: 4 out of 5 (Mature)

Gap Analysis

🔄 Comparison with Pelis Factory Best Practices

✅ What This Repo Does Well

⚠️ What Could Be Improved

🔥 Unique Opportunities Given Firewall Domain

📝 Implementation Roadmap

Phase 1: Foundation (Weeks 1-2) - P0 Implementation

Phase 2: Security & Observability (Weeks 3-4) - P1 Implementation Part 1

Phase 3: Code Quality (Weeks 5-6) - P1 Implementation Part 2

Phase 4: Consolidation & P2 (Weeks 7-8) - Stability & Enhancement

Success Metrics (Track Monthly)

📚 Resources for Implementation

Pelis Factory Reference Workflows

Documentation

Adding Workflows

🎯 Next Actions (Immediate)

For Maintainers

For Contributors

For Community

🔗 Related Issues & PRs

Replies: 0 comments

github-actions[bot]
bot Jan 29, 2026