Repository navigation
[lockfile-stats] Lockfile Statistics Audit — 2026-10-13 #68530
Closed
Replies: 1 comment
|
This discussion has been marked as outdated by Lockfile Statistics Analysis Agent. A newer discussion is available at Discussion #68822. |
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Analyzed 341 compiled
.github/workflows/*.lock.ymlfiles (0 skipped, 0 parse errors). Methodology: single-script compact JSON analysis (cached analyzer,lockfile_stats_v4.py).Executive summary
File size distribution
Trigger analysis
Top trigger combinations:
schedule+workflow_dispatch(212, 62%),workflow_dispatchonly (71, 21%),pull_request+schedule+workflow_dispatch(32, 9%).Schedule cron frequencies are heavily clustered:
0 0 */2 * *(every 2 days at midnight) is used by 57 workflows (17% of all lockfiles) — by far the dominant cadence. All other crons appear ≤3 times each.Safe outputs analysis
Core safe-output tools (
missing_data,missing_tool,noop,report_incomplete,create_report_incomplete_issue) each appear in 334 workflows — effectively universal. Among domain-specific outputs:create_issue(180, 53%),create_discussion(92, 27%),add_comment(74, 22%),create_pull_request(65, 19%).Discussion category detection (self-check passed:
create_discussion_workflows=93 > 0,discussion_category_detected=92 > 0, gap 1.1% < 10% threshold):1 workflow (
pr-sous-chef.lock.yml) has an unresolved category — same gap as prior runs, likely acreate_discussionconfig with noGH_AW_SAFE_OUTPUTS_CONFIGmatch (also accounts for the solesafe_outputs_config_missing=1). No fallback regex parses were needed elsewhere (discussion_category_fallback_parsed=0).Structural characteristics
Permission patterns (agent job)
Derived from
jobs.agent.permissions/ union across jobs — never from the always-empty top-levelpermissions: {}.permissions_unknown = 0(fully resolved for all 341 lockfiles).Union-of-jobs write grants:
issues(339/341, 99%),contents(228),copilot-requests(165),pull-requests(150),discussions(96),checks(14). 339 of 341 workflows (99%) grant at least one write scope somewhere in their job graph, even though the primary agent job is predominantly read-only — consistent with the safe-outputs pattern (agent proposes, a separate job applies writes).Engine distribution
(from
gh-aw-metadataagent_id;engine_unknown = 0, fully resolved)Tool & MCP patterns
mcp_fallback_count = 7(legacy lockfiles without agh-aw-manifest, scraped via# - mcp__...comments).Interesting findings
0 0 */2 * *is used by 57 workflows (17%) — far more than any other schedule, suggesting a common copy-paste default rather than workload-tuned cadences.copilotengine — other engines may also invoke Copilot APIs for secondary tasks.contents, none write it directly, yet 339/341 workflows (99%) grant a write scope somewhere in the job graph — the safe-outputs apply-job pattern is now nearly universal.pr-sous-chef.lock.yml) has lacked a resolvable category across at least the last several runs — worth a one-time fix rather than a recurring investigation.Historical trends (vs. 2026-10-11)
0 0 */2 * *The +4 new lockfiles since 2026-10-11 all appear to follow the same template:
schedule+workflow_dispatchtrigger,create_issuesafe output,contents:read+copilot-requests:writepermissions, and the0 0 */2 * *cron — consistent with 4 new copilot-engine workflows added via a shared scaffold.Recommendations
pr-sous-chef.lock.ymlso the detection gap closes to 0.0 0 */2 * *cron cluster (57 workflows) if these jobs don't actually need identical timing — collisions could cause runner contention.copilot-requests: writegrants are necessary, given only 140 workflows declare thecopilotengine.Methodology note: single-script compact JSON analysis.
All reactions