Skip to content

[Pelis Agent Factory Advisor] Agentic Workflow Maturity Analysis and Recommendations #847

New issue
New issue
Open
Open
[Pelis Agent Factory Advisor] Agentic Workflow Maturity Analysis and Recommendations#847
@github-actions

Description

@github-actions
github-actions
bot
opened on Feb 14, 2026

📊 Executive Summary

The gh-aw-firewall repository demonstrates advanced agentic workflow maturity (Level 4/5) with an impressive collection of 35 specialized workflows. The repository excels at security automation with 8 dedicated security workflows and multi-engine testing across Claude, Codex, and Copilot. However, significant opportunities exist to enhance documentation maintenance (only 1 of 7 common patterns implemented) and continuous code quality (missing simplification and refactoring agents). The top recommendation is implementing 3 high-impact, low-effort P0 workflows that could deliver immediate value: Daily Documentation Unbloat, Firewall Log Analyzer, and Breaking Change Detector.

🎓 Patterns Learned from Pelis Agent Factory

Key Insights from Documentation Site

From analyzing the Pelis Agent Factory documentation and the github/gh-aw repository with 100+ workflows, several powerful patterns emerged:

1. Specialization Over Generalization

Rather than one monolithic agent, create many focused workflows. The factory approach allows for:

  • Targeted automation for specific problems
  • Easier debugging and maintenance
  • Better merge rates due to focused scope

2. Continuous Automation Philosophy

Workflows that run daily/hourly to maintain continuous improvement:

  • Code Quality: Simplifier (83% merge), Duplicate Detector (79%)
  • Documentation: Updater (96% merge), Glossary (100% merge), Unbloat (85% merge)
  • Testing: CI Coach (100% merge), Testify Expert (100% causal chain merge)

3. Read-Only vs. Write Workflows

Balance between:

  • Analysts: Create discussions/issues with findings
  • Implementers: Create PRs with code changes
  • Hybrid: Issue → PR causal chains (e.g., Noob Tester creates issues, another agent creates PRs)

4. Meta-Agents for Quality

Workflows that monitor and improve other workflows:

  • Workflow Health Manager: 40 issues created, 19 PRs merged
  • CI Doctor: Investigates failures (69% merge rate)
  • Enables self-healing workflow ecosystem

Agentics Repository Patterns

From githubnext/agentics:

  • daily-repo-goals.md: Tracks repository goals and progress
  • daily-workflow-sync.md: Syncs workflows from upstream sources
  • maintainer.md: General maintenance and housekeeping tasks

How gh-aw-firewall Compares

Similarities:

  • ✅ Has CI Doctor pattern (ci-doctor.md)
  • ✅ Has security focus (multiple security workflows)
  • ✅ Has meta-awareness (this advisor workflow)
  • ✅ Multi-platform testing approach

Differences:

  • ⚠️ Missing most documentation workflows (1 of 7 patterns)
  • ⚠️ Limited code quality automation (no simplifier/refactoring)
  • ⚠️ Less workflow orchestration (fewer causal chains)
  • ✅ Stronger security focus than typical repository (8 vs. 1-2)

📋 Current Agentic Workflow Inventory

The repository has 35 agentic workflows - placing it in the top tier of agentic workflow adoption:

Workflow Purpose Trigger Assessment
Build & Test (8)
build-test-{bun,cpp,deno,dotnet,go,java,node,rust} Multi-platform build verification PR events ✅ Excellent platform coverage
CI/CD & Quality (4)
ci-doctor Failure investigation & fixes workflow_run (on failure) ✅ Follows Pelis pattern
ci-cd-gaps-assessment Identifies CI/CD gaps Daily ✅ Proactive analysis
cli-flag-consistency-checker CLI consistency checks Weekly ✅ User-facing quality
test-coverage-improver Coverage improvement PRs Weekly ✅ Security-critical focus
Security (8)
security-review Comprehensive security review Daily ✅ Deep threat modeling
security-guard PR-level security guard PR events ✅ Claude-powered
dependency-security-monitor Dependency vulnerabilities Daily ✅ Proactive scanning
secret-digger-{claude,codex,copilot} Secret scanning (3 engines) Hourly ✅ Multi-engine diversity
smoke-{chroot,claude,codex,copilot} Smoke testing (4 engines) PR events, every 12h ✅ Comprehensive testing
Documentation (1)
doc-maintainer Documentation maintenance Daily ⚠️ Limited scope
Issue Management (3)
issue-monster Issue triage & management Hourly, on open ✅ High frequency
issue-duplication-detector Duplicate detection On issue open ✅ Prevents redundancy
plan Planning assistance Slash command ✅ Interactive support
Meta & Advisor (2)
pelis-agent-factory-advisor Workflow recommendations Daily ✅ Self-improvement
update-release-notes Release note generation On release ✅ Release automation
Maintenance (1)
agentics-maintenance.yml Workflow maintenance (Standard YAML) ℹ️ Non-agentic

🚀 Actionable Recommendations

P0 - Implement Immediately ⚡

These three workflows provide high impact with low effort and are proven patterns from Pelis Agent Factory:

1. Daily Documentation Unbloat 📝

What: Workflow that reviews and simplifies documentation by reducing verbosity and improving clarity.

Why:

  • Repository has 18 documentation files (totaling 208KB)
  • Some docs are verbose (chroot-mode.md: 15KB, architecture.md: 10KB)
  • gh-aw achieved 85% merge rate with this pattern
  • Documentation drift is common as code evolves

How:

---
description: Reviews and simplifies documentation by reducing verbosity
on:
  schedule: weekly
  workflow_dispatch:
  skip-if-match:
    query: 'is:pr is:open in:title "[docs]"'
    max: 1
permissions:
  contents: read
tools:
  github:
    toolsets: [default]
  bash: true
safe-outputs:
  create-pull-request:
    title-prefix: "[docs] "
    draft: true
timeout-minutes: 20
---

# Documentation Unbloat

Review documentation files in docs/ for verbosity, redundancy, and clarity.

## Your Task

1. Read all documentation files in docs/
2. Identify verbose sections that could be simplified
3. Look for:
   - Repeated information
   - Overly complex explanations
   - Outdated content
   - Inconsistent terminology
4. Create a PR with simplified versions

Focus on maintaining accuracy while improving readability.

Effort: Low (2-3 hours to implement and test)

Expected Impact:

  • Improved onboarding experience
  • Reduced documentation maintenance burden
  • Better user comprehension

2. Firewall Log Analyzer 🔍

What: Daily workflow that analyzes Squid access logs and iptables logs to detect anomalies, unusual patterns, or potential escape attempts.

Why:

  • Security-critical for a firewall tool
  • Logs currently require manual analysis (docs/logging_quickref.md)
  • Could detect:
    • Unusual domain access patterns
    • Blocked traffic spikes
    • Potential escape attempts
    • Performance issues
  • Unique to firewall domain (not in standard Pelis patterns)

How:

---
description: Analyzes firewall logs to detect anomalies and security issues
on:
  schedule: daily
  workflow_dispatch:
permissions:
  contents: read
  actions: read
tools:
  agentic-workflows:
  bash: true
  cache-memory: true
safe-outputs:
  create-discussion:
    title-prefix: "[Firewall Logs] "
    category: "general"
timeout-minutes: 30
---

# Firewall Log Analyzer

Analyze Squid and iptables logs from recent workflow runs to detect anomalies.

## Your Task

1. Use agentic-workflows.logs to fetch recent runs
2. Extract Squid access.log entries (TCP_DENIED, TCP_TUNNEL)
3. Extract iptables kernel log entries ([FW_BLOCKED_*])
4. Analyze patterns:
   - Most blocked domains
   - Unusual traffic patterns
   - Potential escape attempts
   - Performance issues (latency, timeouts)
5. Store baseline in cache-memory for trend analysis
6. Create discussion with findings

Focus on anomalies, not routine traffic.

Effort: Low (leverages existing log infrastructure)

Expected Impact:

  • Proactive security monitoring
  • Faster incident detection
  • Trend analysis for optimization

3. Breaking Change Detector 🚨

What: Monitors CLI interface and API for backward-incompatible changes that could break user workflows.

Why:

  • CLI tool with many flags (--allow-domains, --dns-servers, --enable-api-proxy, etc.)
  • Users depend on stable interface
  • gh-aw had success with Breaking Change Checker
  • Prevents accidental breaking changes

How:

---
description: Detects breaking changes in CLI interface and APIs
on:
  pull_request:
    paths:
      - 'src/cli.ts'
      - 'src/types.ts'
      - 'action.yml'
  workflow_dispatch:
permissions:
  contents: read
  pull-requests: read
tools:
  github:
    toolsets: [default]
  bash: true
safe-outputs:
  add-comment:
    max: 1
timeout-minutes: 10
---

# Breaking Change Detector

Analyze PR changes for potential breaking changes to user-facing interfaces.

## Your Task

1. Fetch the PR diff for src/cli.ts, src/types.ts, action.yml
2. Check for:
   - Removed CLI flags
   - Changed flag behavior
   - Modified type interfaces
   - Removed environment variables
   - Changed exit codes
3. If breaking changes detected:
   - Comment on PR with details
   - Suggest migration path
   - Request version bump consideration

Focus on user-facing changes, not internal refactoring.

Effort: Low (simple diff analysis)

Expected Impact:

  • Prevents user-facing breakage
  • Better change documentation
  • Clearer upgrade paths

P1 - Plan for Near-Term 🎯

These workflows provide high impact with medium effort:

4. Documentation Noob Tester 🔰

What: Tests documentation step-by-step as a new user would, identifying confusing instructions, missing prerequisites, or outdated examples.

Why:

  • Complex setup (Docker, iptables, chroot mode, API proxy)
  • gh-aw achieved 43% merge rate through exploratory findings (62 discussions → 21 issues → 21 PRs)
  • Would significantly improve onboarding

How:

  • Simulate fresh environment
  • Follow docs/quickstart.md step-by-step
  • Identify pain points, unclear steps
  • Test on Ubuntu 22.04 (primary platform)
  • Create issues for improvements

Effort: Medium (requires environment simulation, ~5-6 hours)

Expected Impact: Better user onboarding, reduced support burden

5. Docker Image Security Scanner 🛡️

What: Daily scanning of Squid and agent container base images for vulnerabilities, proposing updates when available.

Why:

  • Security-critical containers (ubuntu/squid, ubuntu:22.04)
  • Already has container-scan.yml but not agent-driven
  • Could automate base image updates
  • Proactive vs. reactive security

How:

tools:
  bash:
    - "docker pull ubuntu/squid:latest"
    - "trivy image ubuntu/squid:latest"
safe-outputs:
  create-pull-request:
    title-prefix: "[security] "

Effort: Medium (integrate trivy, test updates, ~4-5 hours)

Expected Impact: Faster security patches, reduced vulnerability window

6. Performance Regression Detector 📊

What: Monitors container startup time, iptables rule application speed, and overall overhead to detect performance regressions.

Why:

  • Performance critical for CI/CD use cases
  • Firewall adds overhead - should be minimized
  • Could detect regressions before users notice
  • No current continuous performance tracking

How:

  • Run benchmark suite daily (container start, rule apply, command exec)
  • Store baseline in cache-memory
  • Alert on >10% regression
  • Track trends over time

Effort: Medium (need benchmark suite, ~6-7 hours)

Expected Impact: Maintain performance SLA, catch regressions early

7. Glossary Maintainer 📖

What: Maintains a glossary of technical terms and ensures consistent terminology across codebase and documentation.

Why:

  • gh-aw achieved 100% merge rate
  • Security tools need precise terminology
  • Multiple terms for same concept:
    • "firewall" vs. "proxy" vs. "wrapper"
    • "container" vs. "agent" vs. "sandbox"
    • "allowlist" vs. "whitelist"

How:

  1. Create docs/glossary.md with canonical terms
  2. Weekly scan for terminology drift
  3. Propose consistency fixes
  4. Update both code comments and docs

Effort: Medium (create initial glossary, ~4-5 hours)

Expected Impact: Clearer communication, reduced confusion

P2 - Consider for Roadmap 🗓️

These workflows provide medium impact:

8. CI Optimization Coach ⚡

What: Analyzes CI pipeline runtime and suggests optimizations (caching, parallelization, unnecessary steps).

Why:

  • 35 agentic workflows + standard CI = high runner cost
  • gh-aw achieved 100% merge rate
  • Could reduce workflow runtime significantly

How: Analyze workflow run times via GitHub Actions API, identify bottlenecks, suggest improvements

Effort: Medium (~5-6 hours)

9. Multi-Platform Testing Validator ✅

What: Validates smoke tests work consistently across all platforms, catching platform-specific issues.

Why:

  • Has 8 platform-specific build tests
  • Could ensure cross-platform consistency
  • Early detection of platform issues

How: Cross-reference test results, flag discrepancies

Effort: Medium (~4-5 hours)

10. Dependency Update Automator 🔄

What: Automatically creates PRs for safe dependency updates after running tests.

Why:

  • Already has dependency-security-monitor
  • Could automate routine updates
  • Reduce maintainer burden

How: Check for updates, run tests, create PR if passing

Effort: Medium (~5-6 hours, needs test confidence)

P3 - Future Ideas 💡

These are nice-to-have with higher effort:

11. Blog Post Generator ✍️

Generate blog posts about new features, security findings. Effort: High

12. Slide Deck Maintainer 📊

Maintain presentation materials. Effort: High (need slides first)

13. Schema Consistency Checker 🔍

Ensure TypeScript types, configs, docs stay aligned. Effort: Medium-High

📈 Maturity Assessment

Current Level: 4/5 - Advanced

Strengths:

  • ✅ Large collection of specialized workflows (35 total)
  • ✅ Strong security focus (8 dedicated security workflows)
  • ✅ Multi-engine diversity (Claude, Codex, Copilot)
  • ✅ Meta-workflows (pelis-agent-factory-advisor)
  • ✅ Solid CI integration
  • ✅ Platform-specific testing approach

Weaknesses:

  • ⚠️ Limited documentation automation (1 of 7 patterns)
  • ⚠️ No continuous code quality (simplification, refactoring)
  • ⚠️ Manual log analysis
  • ⚠️ No performance monitoring
  • ⚠️ Limited workflow orchestration

Target Level: 5/5 - Expert

To reach expert level, implement:

  1. Documentation Coverage (Currently: 14%, Target: 85%)

    • Add: Unbloat, Noob Tester, Glossary Maintainer
    • Add: Multi-device testing (if docs site exists)
    • Add: Blog auditor (if applicable)

  2. Log Analysis Automation (Currently: 0%, Target: 100%)

    • Add: Firewall Log Analyzer
    • Add: Performance metrics tracking

  3. Code Quality Automation (Currently: 0%, Target: 60%)

    • Add: Code Simplifier
    • Add: Duplicate Code Detector
    • Add: Style consistency checker

  4. Breaking Change Detection (Currently: Reactive, Target: Proactive)

    • Add: Breaking Change Detector
    • Add: API compatibility checker

Gap Analysis

Category Current Target Gap Priority
Security 85% 90% -5% P1
Documentation 14% 85% -71% P0
Code Quality 25% 75% -50% P1
Testing 50% 80% -30% P2
Performance 0% 60% -60% P1
Operations 70% 85% -15% P2

Biggest Gap: Documentation automation (-71%)

🔄 Comparison with Best Practices

What gh-aw-firewall Does Well ✅

  1. Security-First Architecture

    • 8 security workflows vs. typical 1-2
    • Multi-engine secret scanning (3 engines)
    • Daily security reviews with threat modeling
    • Comprehensive smoke testing (4 engines)

  2. Platform Coverage

    • 8 platform-specific build tests
    • Demonstrates specialization principle
    • Better than monolithic "test all" approach

  3. Meta-Awareness

    • Has this advisor workflow (self-improvement)
    • CI Doctor for failure investigation
    • Shows mature understanding of workflow management

  4. High Workflow Count

    • 35 workflows places it in top 5% of repositories
    • Demonstrates commitment to automation

What Could Be Improved 📈

  1. Documentation Workflows (Biggest Gap)

    • Missing: Unbloat, Noob Tester, Glossary, Multi-device Testing
    • Has: Only doc-maintainer (1 of 7 patterns)
    • Impact: User onboarding, documentation quality
    • Recommendation: Add 3 P0 workflows (Unbloat, Glossary, Noob Tester)

  2. Continuous Code Quality (Major Gap)

    • Missing: Code Simplifier, Duplicate Detector, Style Checker
    • Has: test-coverage-improver (good start!)
    • Impact: Technical debt accumulation
    • Recommendation: Add simplification workflows

  3. Log Analysis (Unique Opportunity)

    • Missing: Automated log analysis
    • Has: Manual process (docs/logging_quickref.md)
    • Impact: Security monitoring, performance tracking
    • Recommendation: P0 - Firewall Log Analyzer

  4. Workflow Orchestration (Moderate Gap)

    • Missing: Issue → PR causal chains
    • Has: Mostly independent workflows
    • Impact: End-to-end automation
    • Recommendation: Design causal chains (e.g., Log Analyzer → Issue → PR)

Unique Opportunities (Firewall/Security Domain) 🔐

The firewall domain offers unique automation opportunities not found in typical repositories:

  1. Escape Attempt Database 📚

    • Build knowledge base of attack patterns
    • Track effectiveness of defenses
    • Share intel with security community

  2. Threat Intel Integration 🌐

    • Monitor CVEs affecting Squid, Docker, iptables
    • Auto-update threat models
    • Proactive defense updates

  3. Compliance Reporting 📋

    • Generate SOC2/ISO27001 evidence
    • Audit trail of security controls
    • Automated compliance artifacts

  4. Attack Surface Tracking 🎯

    • Monitor changes to network-facing code
    • Flag new attack surfaces
    • Risk assessment automation

  5. Penetration Testing Automation 🔓

    • Weekly automated escape attempts
    • Test new bypass techniques
    • Red team simulation

  6. Security Benchmark Tracking 📊

    • CIS Docker Benchmark compliance
    • NIST guidelines adherence
    • Automated security scoring

Recommendation: After P0 workflows, consider 2-3 of these domain-specific opportunities.

📝 Notes for Future Runs

Stored in /tmp/gh-aw/cache-memory/repository-analysis.md:

  • Current workflow count: 35 agentic workflows
  • Key gaps: Documentation (71%), Code Quality (50%), Log Analysis (100%)
  • Top opportunities: P0 workflows provide immediate value
  • Domain-specific opportunities: 6 identified (escape DB, threat intel, compliance, etc.)
  • Maturity level: 4/5 (Advanced), target 5/5 (Expert)

Change Tracking:

  • Previous run: N/A (first run detected)
  • Next run: Track P0 implementation progress
  • Monitor: Workflow merge rates, adoption of recommendations

Action Items for Maintainers:

  1. Review P0 recommendations (Unbloat, Log Analyzer, Breaking Change Detector)
  2. Consider documentation gap as highest priority
  3. Evaluate domain-specific opportunities for Q2 planning
  4. Track workflow effectiveness metrics

🎯 Implementation Roadmap

Week 1-2: Quick Wins (P0)

  • Implement Documentation Unbloat
  • Implement Firewall Log Analyzer
  • Implement Breaking Change Detector

Expected Outcome: 3 new workflows, improved docs and security monitoring

Week 3-6: Documentation Focus (P1)

  • Implement Documentation Noob Tester
  • Implement Glossary Maintainer
  • Create initial glossary.md

Expected Outcome: Improved onboarding, terminology consistency

Week 7-10: Security & Performance (P1)

  • Implement Docker Image Security Scanner
  • Implement Performance Regression Detector
  • Establish performance baselines

Expected Outcome: Proactive security, performance tracking

Week 11-14: Optimization (P2)

  • Implement CI Optimization Coach
  • Review and optimize existing workflows
  • Consider dependency update automation

Expected Outcome: Reduced CI costs, faster workflows

Future Quarters: Domain-Specific (P3)

  • Escape Attempt Database
  • Threat Intel Integration
  • Compliance Reporting

Expected Outcome: Industry-leading security automation

📚 References

Generated by: Pelis Agent Factory Advisor
Date: 2026-02-14
Repository: github/gh-aw-firewall
Maturity Level: 4/5 (Advanced) → Target: 5/5 (Expert)

Note: This was intended to be a discussion, but discussions could not be created due to permissions issues. This issue was created as a fallback.

AI generated by Pelis Agent Factory Advisor

  • expires on Feb 21, 2026, 3:25 AM UTC

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions