2026-07-18 17:34:34 +00:00
# Labels
How this repo uses GitHub labels. The taxonomy is shared across the
heavy-duty repos (box, rig, cast) — only the `scope:` set differs per repo,
because it names this repo's actual surfaces.
## State — who is the ball with? (PRs, exactly one)
Every open PR carries exactly one `state:` label, and it answers the only
question a board scan actually asks: *who is this PR waiting on?* The states
mirror the review loop this repo runs — PRs open as drafts, three reviewer
bots pick up ready PRs with reviews requested, each round is answered in a
single reply, and a human takes the final review.
| Label | Color | Waiting on | Enters when | Leaves when |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| `state:building` | `#FBCA04` | the coding agent, still building | PR opened as draft | marked ready + bot reviews requested |
| `state:bots-reviewing` | `#1D76DB` | the reviewer bots to finish the round | ready with reviews requested, or fixes pushed and reviews re-requested | all three bots have reviewed the round |
2026-07-20 17:27:06 +00:00
| `state:addressing` | `#D93F0B` | the coding agent to reply, fix, or ask | all bots reviewed and not all approved; or nobody was asked; or a blocker is up | the thing the blocker names is done |
| `state:needs-human` | `#8250DF` | the human reviewer | the PR **could be merged right now** : no blockers, three formal head-current approvals — and the human review is requested | merged — or changes requested, which cycles back to `state:addressing` |
2026-07-18 17:34:34 +00:00
`bots-reviewing` and `addressing` are deliberately distinct: staleness in the
first means *poke the bots* , staleness in the second means *the agent dropped
the ball*. Collapsing them loses exactly the information a sweep needs.
2026-07-20 17:27:06 +00:00
`bots-reviewing` therefore means strictly *a request is live and an answer is
coming* — a PR nobody was asked to review is the agent's ball, not the bots'.
## The second axis: `blocker:*`
State answers *whose ball is it* . Blockers answer *what is in the way* , and
unlike states they are *facts about the branch* — mutually independent, so a
PR carries as many as apply.
| Label | Color | Means | Clears when |
|---|---|---|---|
| `blocker:conflict` | `#B60205` | GitHub says `CONFLICTING` — the agent owes a **rebase** | it merges cleanly |
| `blocker:ci-red` | `#B60205` | a check failed — the agent owes a **fix** , which a rebase will not provide | checks are green |
| `blocker:unrequested` | `#E99695` | somebody still owes a verdict and **nobody was asked** for one | reviews are requested |
One rule joins the axes: ** `state:needs-human` requires zero blockers.** Any
blocker means the work is the agent's, whatever the review round says.
This split exists because the single-label version kept lying. Independent
facts were projected onto one totally-ordered label, so one always had to win
and the losers vanished off the board: a PR that was *both* conflicted and red
could only say one of them, and `needs-rebase` told an agent to rebase when
what it actually owed was a bug fix. Precedence between two blockers is not a
question a set has to answer, which is why every ordering bug this machine has
had — `needs-human` surviving a conflict, `MISSING` swallowing `STALE` — lived
on the axis that had to be totally ordered.
`state:needs-rebase` was the first attempt at this and is **retired** ; the
reconciler strips it on sight so no PR is left carrying a label nothing
recomputes.
2026-07-18 17:34:34 +00:00
fix(labels): state:needs-human means a human could merge it right now
decide_state() derived state from three inputs -- draft flag, requested
reviewers, submitted reviews -- and read NOTHING about mergeability or checks.
Combined with the `if requested "$HUMAN"` short-circuit at the top of its
precedence, the label was sticky: once the maintainer was requested, the PR
read state:needs-human through conflicts, through red CI, through a
force-push that staled every approval. Nothing demoted it.
Observed twice in one afternoon, in two different shapes. Three PRs sat at
state:needs-human while CONFLICTING for hours -- the board inviting a merge
GitHub had already disabled. And #119, after a rebase, read MERGEABLE, four
green checks, state:needs-human, with ZERO reviews bound to its head: every
visible signal saying "merge me" over a tree no reviewer had seen. That second
shape is the dangerous one, because unlike a conflict nothing on the page
contradicts it.
The rule the label now keeps: state:needs-human means a human could merge this
RIGHT NOW, so anything making that false outranks the request that put it
there.
CONFLICTING or failing checks -> state:needs-rebase (new; the agent's to fix)
approvals staled by a push -> state:addressing (nobody reviewed this tree)
An UNFINISHED round still yields to an explicit human request -- a maintainer
pulling a PR to themselves early is deliberate, and MISSING (nobody has
reviewed yet) is a different fact from STALE (everyone reviewed something
else). That distinction is why the two are handled in different arms rather
than collapsed.
UNKNOWN mergeability is deliberately NOT treated as unmergeable: GitHub
reports it for about a minute after every merge while it recomputes, and
flapping every open PR through needs-rebase on each merge would be worse than
the bug being fixed. A failed read of either fact degrades to the same "do not
know" value, for the same reason -- an API hiccup must not relabel the board.
Also adds merge-next, because a correct needs-human still does not say WHICH
PR to merge first, and order matters when they conflict through CHANGELOG.md.
Queue order is intent, so the reconciler never sets it; it only CLEARS it the
moment the PR stops being mergeable-by-a-human -- precisely the staleness that
made needs-human untrustworthy.
Both live shapes are pinned in test/labels-reconcile.sh (19 -> 29 fixtures),
including that UNKNOWN does not trigger needs-rebase and that a draft outranks
a conflict. Proven non-vacuous: dropping the mergeability arm fails 4
assertions, dropping the STALE precedence fails 2, restoring returns 29/0.
Closes #136
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-20 15:18:49 +00:00
**`state:needs-human` means one thing: a human could merge this right now.**
2026-07-20 17:27:06 +00:00
The label is the only signal a maintainer scanning the board (or a phone)
actually reads, and one that says "your turn" on an unmergeable PR is worse
than no label at all. So beyond the blockers, one review fact also outranks an
fix(labels): state:needs-human means a human could merge it right now
decide_state() derived state from three inputs -- draft flag, requested
reviewers, submitted reviews -- and read NOTHING about mergeability or checks.
Combined with the `if requested "$HUMAN"` short-circuit at the top of its
precedence, the label was sticky: once the maintainer was requested, the PR
read state:needs-human through conflicts, through red CI, through a
force-push that staled every approval. Nothing demoted it.
Observed twice in one afternoon, in two different shapes. Three PRs sat at
state:needs-human while CONFLICTING for hours -- the board inviting a merge
GitHub had already disabled. And #119, after a rebase, read MERGEABLE, four
green checks, state:needs-human, with ZERO reviews bound to its head: every
visible signal saying "merge me" over a tree no reviewer had seen. That second
shape is the dangerous one, because unlike a conflict nothing on the page
contradicts it.
The rule the label now keeps: state:needs-human means a human could merge this
RIGHT NOW, so anything making that false outranks the request that put it
there.
CONFLICTING or failing checks -> state:needs-rebase (new; the agent's to fix)
approvals staled by a push -> state:addressing (nobody reviewed this tree)
An UNFINISHED round still yields to an explicit human request -- a maintainer
pulling a PR to themselves early is deliberate, and MISSING (nobody has
reviewed yet) is a different fact from STALE (everyone reviewed something
else). That distinction is why the two are handled in different arms rather
than collapsed.
UNKNOWN mergeability is deliberately NOT treated as unmergeable: GitHub
reports it for about a minute after every merge while it recomputes, and
flapping every open PR through needs-rebase on each merge would be worse than
the bug being fixed. A failed read of either fact degrades to the same "do not
know" value, for the same reason -- an API hiccup must not relabel the board.
Also adds merge-next, because a correct needs-human still does not say WHICH
PR to merge first, and order matters when they conflict through CHANGELOG.md.
Queue order is intent, so the reconciler never sets it; it only CLEARS it the
moment the PR stops being mergeable-by-a-human -- precisely the staleness that
made needs-human untrustworthy.
Both live shapes are pinned in test/labels-reconcile.sh (19 -> 29 fixtures),
including that UNKNOWN does not trigger needs-rebase and that a draft outranks
a conflict. Proven non-vacuous: dropping the mergeability arm fails 4
assertions, dropping the STALE precedence fails 2, restoring returns 29/0.
Closes #136
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-20 15:18:49 +00:00
explicit human request:
- **nobody reviewed *this* head** — every approval staled by a push → `state:addressing` ,
because the agent owes a re-request
2026-07-20 17:27:06 +00:00
That case is more dangerous than any blocker: a blocked PR at least shows an X
or a disabled merge button, while a staled-approval PR reads green, mergeable
fix(labels): state:needs-human means a human could merge it right now
decide_state() derived state from three inputs -- draft flag, requested
reviewers, submitted reviews -- and read NOTHING about mergeability or checks.
Combined with the `if requested "$HUMAN"` short-circuit at the top of its
precedence, the label was sticky: once the maintainer was requested, the PR
read state:needs-human through conflicts, through red CI, through a
force-push that staled every approval. Nothing demoted it.
Observed twice in one afternoon, in two different shapes. Three PRs sat at
state:needs-human while CONFLICTING for hours -- the board inviting a merge
GitHub had already disabled. And #119, after a rebase, read MERGEABLE, four
green checks, state:needs-human, with ZERO reviews bound to its head: every
visible signal saying "merge me" over a tree no reviewer had seen. That second
shape is the dangerous one, because unlike a conflict nothing on the page
contradicts it.
The rule the label now keeps: state:needs-human means a human could merge this
RIGHT NOW, so anything making that false outranks the request that put it
there.
CONFLICTING or failing checks -> state:needs-rebase (new; the agent's to fix)
approvals staled by a push -> state:addressing (nobody reviewed this tree)
An UNFINISHED round still yields to an explicit human request -- a maintainer
pulling a PR to themselves early is deliberate, and MISSING (nobody has
reviewed yet) is a different fact from STALE (everyone reviewed something
else). That distinction is why the two are handled in different arms rather
than collapsed.
UNKNOWN mergeability is deliberately NOT treated as unmergeable: GitHub
reports it for about a minute after every merge while it recomputes, and
flapping every open PR through needs-rebase on each merge would be worse than
the bug being fixed. A failed read of either fact degrades to the same "do not
know" value, for the same reason -- an API hiccup must not relabel the board.
Also adds merge-next, because a correct needs-human still does not say WHICH
PR to merge first, and order matters when they conflict through CHANGELOG.md.
Queue order is intent, so the reconciler never sets it; it only CLEARS it the
moment the PR stops being mergeable-by-a-human -- precisely the staleness that
made needs-human untrustworthy.
Both live shapes are pinned in test/labels-reconcile.sh (19 -> 29 fixtures),
including that UNKNOWN does not trigger needs-rebase and that a draft outranks
a conflict. Proven non-vacuous: dropping the mergeability arm fails 4
assertions, dropping the STALE precedence fails 2, restoring returns 29/0.
Closes #136
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-20 15:18:49 +00:00
and "waiting on the human" over code no reviewer has seen.
2026-07-20 17:27:06 +00:00
`UNKNOWN` mergeability is deliberately **not** treated as a conflict. GitHub
fix(labels): state:needs-human means a human could merge it right now
decide_state() derived state from three inputs -- draft flag, requested
reviewers, submitted reviews -- and read NOTHING about mergeability or checks.
Combined with the `if requested "$HUMAN"` short-circuit at the top of its
precedence, the label was sticky: once the maintainer was requested, the PR
read state:needs-human through conflicts, through red CI, through a
force-push that staled every approval. Nothing demoted it.
Observed twice in one afternoon, in two different shapes. Three PRs sat at
state:needs-human while CONFLICTING for hours -- the board inviting a merge
GitHub had already disabled. And #119, after a rebase, read MERGEABLE, four
green checks, state:needs-human, with ZERO reviews bound to its head: every
visible signal saying "merge me" over a tree no reviewer had seen. That second
shape is the dangerous one, because unlike a conflict nothing on the page
contradicts it.
The rule the label now keeps: state:needs-human means a human could merge this
RIGHT NOW, so anything making that false outranks the request that put it
there.
CONFLICTING or failing checks -> state:needs-rebase (new; the agent's to fix)
approvals staled by a push -> state:addressing (nobody reviewed this tree)
An UNFINISHED round still yields to an explicit human request -- a maintainer
pulling a PR to themselves early is deliberate, and MISSING (nobody has
reviewed yet) is a different fact from STALE (everyone reviewed something
else). That distinction is why the two are handled in different arms rather
than collapsed.
UNKNOWN mergeability is deliberately NOT treated as unmergeable: GitHub
reports it for about a minute after every merge while it recomputes, and
flapping every open PR through needs-rebase on each merge would be worse than
the bug being fixed. A failed read of either fact degrades to the same "do not
know" value, for the same reason -- an API hiccup must not relabel the board.
Also adds merge-next, because a correct needs-human still does not say WHICH
PR to merge first, and order matters when they conflict through CHANGELOG.md.
Queue order is intent, so the reconciler never sets it; it only CLEARS it the
moment the PR stops being mergeable-by-a-human -- precisely the staleness that
made needs-human untrustworthy.
Both live shapes are pinned in test/labels-reconcile.sh (19 -> 29 fixtures),
including that UNKNOWN does not trigger needs-rebase and that a draft outranks
a conflict. Proven non-vacuous: dropping the mergeability arm fails 4
assertions, dropping the STALE precedence fails 2, restoring returns 29/0.
Closes #136
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-20 15:18:49 +00:00
reports it for about a minute after every merge while it recomputes, and
2026-07-20 17:27:06 +00:00
flapping every open PR through `blocker:conflict` on each merge would be worse
than the bug this fixes. A failed read of either branch fact degrades to the
same "do not know" value, for the same reason.
fix(labels): state:needs-human means a human could merge it right now
decide_state() derived state from three inputs -- draft flag, requested
reviewers, submitted reviews -- and read NOTHING about mergeability or checks.
Combined with the `if requested "$HUMAN"` short-circuit at the top of its
precedence, the label was sticky: once the maintainer was requested, the PR
read state:needs-human through conflicts, through red CI, through a
force-push that staled every approval. Nothing demoted it.
Observed twice in one afternoon, in two different shapes. Three PRs sat at
state:needs-human while CONFLICTING for hours -- the board inviting a merge
GitHub had already disabled. And #119, after a rebase, read MERGEABLE, four
green checks, state:needs-human, with ZERO reviews bound to its head: every
visible signal saying "merge me" over a tree no reviewer had seen. That second
shape is the dangerous one, because unlike a conflict nothing on the page
contradicts it.
The rule the label now keeps: state:needs-human means a human could merge this
RIGHT NOW, so anything making that false outranks the request that put it
there.
CONFLICTING or failing checks -> state:needs-rebase (new; the agent's to fix)
approvals staled by a push -> state:addressing (nobody reviewed this tree)
An UNFINISHED round still yields to an explicit human request -- a maintainer
pulling a PR to themselves early is deliberate, and MISSING (nobody has
reviewed yet) is a different fact from STALE (everyone reviewed something
else). That distinction is why the two are handled in different arms rather
than collapsed.
UNKNOWN mergeability is deliberately NOT treated as unmergeable: GitHub
reports it for about a minute after every merge while it recomputes, and
flapping every open PR through needs-rebase on each merge would be worse than
the bug being fixed. A failed read of either fact degrades to the same "do not
know" value, for the same reason -- an API hiccup must not relabel the board.
Also adds merge-next, because a correct needs-human still does not say WHICH
PR to merge first, and order matters when they conflict through CHANGELOG.md.
Queue order is intent, so the reconciler never sets it; it only CLEARS it the
moment the PR stops being mergeable-by-a-human -- precisely the staleness that
made needs-human untrustworthy.
Both live shapes are pinned in test/labels-reconcile.sh (19 -> 29 fixtures),
including that UNKNOWN does not trigger needs-rebase and that a draft outranks
a conflict. Proven non-vacuous: dropping the mergeability arm fails 4
assertions, dropping the STALE precedence fails 2, restoring returns 29/0.
Closes #136
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-20 15:18:49 +00:00
An *unfinished* round still yields to an explicit human request — a maintainer
pulling a PR to themselves early is a deliberate act. `MISSING` (nobody has
reviewed yet) and `STALE` (everyone reviewed something else) are different
facts and are treated differently.
2026-07-18 17:34:34 +00:00
## Cross-cutting (PRs and issues)
| Label | Color | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| `stale` | `#B60205` | No activity for 48h. Sweep-managed, never hand-applied. `state:building` + `stale` is precisely a forgotten draft. |
| `blocked` | `#6A737D` | Waiting on another PR or issue to land first. Quiet *legitimately* — the staleness sweep skips it. |
| `release` | `#0E8A16` | Release flow, versioning, and packaging work. |
fix(labels): state:needs-human means a human could merge it right now
decide_state() derived state from three inputs -- draft flag, requested
reviewers, submitted reviews -- and read NOTHING about mergeability or checks.
Combined with the `if requested "$HUMAN"` short-circuit at the top of its
precedence, the label was sticky: once the maintainer was requested, the PR
read state:needs-human through conflicts, through red CI, through a
force-push that staled every approval. Nothing demoted it.
Observed twice in one afternoon, in two different shapes. Three PRs sat at
state:needs-human while CONFLICTING for hours -- the board inviting a merge
GitHub had already disabled. And #119, after a rebase, read MERGEABLE, four
green checks, state:needs-human, with ZERO reviews bound to its head: every
visible signal saying "merge me" over a tree no reviewer had seen. That second
shape is the dangerous one, because unlike a conflict nothing on the page
contradicts it.
The rule the label now keeps: state:needs-human means a human could merge this
RIGHT NOW, so anything making that false outranks the request that put it
there.
CONFLICTING or failing checks -> state:needs-rebase (new; the agent's to fix)
approvals staled by a push -> state:addressing (nobody reviewed this tree)
An UNFINISHED round still yields to an explicit human request -- a maintainer
pulling a PR to themselves early is deliberate, and MISSING (nobody has
reviewed yet) is a different fact from STALE (everyone reviewed something
else). That distinction is why the two are handled in different arms rather
than collapsed.
UNKNOWN mergeability is deliberately NOT treated as unmergeable: GitHub
reports it for about a minute after every merge while it recomputes, and
flapping every open PR through needs-rebase on each merge would be worse than
the bug being fixed. A failed read of either fact degrades to the same "do not
know" value, for the same reason -- an API hiccup must not relabel the board.
Also adds merge-next, because a correct needs-human still does not say WHICH
PR to merge first, and order matters when they conflict through CHANGELOG.md.
Queue order is intent, so the reconciler never sets it; it only CLEARS it the
moment the PR stops being mergeable-by-a-human -- precisely the staleness that
made needs-human untrustworthy.
Both live shapes are pinned in test/labels-reconcile.sh (19 -> 29 fixtures),
including that UNKNOWN does not trigger needs-rebase and that a draft outranks
a conflict. Proven non-vacuous: dropping the mergeability arm fails 4
assertions, dropping the STALE precedence fails 2, restoring returns 29/0.
Closes #136
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-20 15:18:49 +00:00
| `merge-next` | `#0E8A16` | Head of the merge queue — **merge this one next** . Queue order is *intent* (which PR lands first, given how they conflict), so the reconciler never sets it: you or the agent maintaining the queue do. The reconciler only **clears** it, the moment the PR stops being something a human could merge — so it cannot go stale the way `state:needs-human` did. |
2026-07-18 17:34:34 +00:00
## Scope — which surface? (PRs and issues, any number)
All scopes share one calm color, `#C5DEF5` — scopes locate, states alert.
| Label | Covers |
|---|---|
| `scope:cli` | `bin/box` — the command surface itself |
| `scope:installer` | `install.sh` , the versioned install layout, upgrade/uninstall |
| `scope:host` | `host/` — setup-host, teardown, the firewall and isolation stack |
| `scope:tiers` | the restricted tier — grant/revoke, multi-user semantics |
| `scope:templates` | `templates/` — the box seeds |
| `scope:drill` | `drill/` — the rehearsals, doctor, RUNS.md |
## Issue types
`bug` , `enhancement` , `documentation` — issues only. PRs carry their type in
the conventional title (`feat:`, `fix:` , `docs:` ), so typing a PR with a label
would just say the same thing twice, drifting apart eventually.
## Maintenance
State labels are written by automation, never by hand. Every state above is
derivable from GitHub's own facts — the draft flag, requested reviewers,
2026-07-18 18:31:51 +00:00
review states, push timestamps — so the labels workflow
([.github/workflows/labels.yml](.github/workflows/labels.yml)) recomputes the
state and reconciles labels statelessly, on a 15-minute cron plus PR events.
A hand-moved label is a lie waiting to happen; the workflow asserts the
effective state instead. `scope:` labels on PRs are applied from the changed
paths by actions/labeler ([.github/labeler.yml](.github/labeler.yml));
[CONTRIBUTING.md ](CONTRIBUTING.md ) says who sets what.
The same workflow bootstraps the taxonomy: a manual dispatch creates any
missing label idempotently. To create them by hand (needs push access):
2026-07-18 17:34:34 +00:00
```sh
gh label create "state:building" --color FBCA04 --description "PR is a draft — the coding agent is still building" --force
gh label create "state:bots-reviewing" --color 1D76DB --description "Waiting on the bot reviewers to finish the round" --force
gh label create "state:addressing" --color D93F0B --description "All bots reviewed — coding agent owes the single reply + fixes" --force
2026-07-20 17:27:06 +00:00
gh label create "blocker:conflict" --color B60205 --description "Does not merge — the branch conflicts and the agent owes a rebase" --force
gh label create "blocker:ci-red" --color B60205 --description "A check is failing — the agent owes a fix (not a rebase)" --force
gh label create "blocker:unrequested" --color E99695 --description "Somebody still owes a verdict and nobody was asked for one" --force
# retired — the reconciler strips it; delete it once no PR carries it
# gh label delete "state:needs-rebase"
gh label create "state:needs-human" --color 8250DF --description "No blockers, all bots approve — waiting on the human reviewer" --force
fix(labels): state:needs-human means a human could merge it right now
decide_state() derived state from three inputs -- draft flag, requested
reviewers, submitted reviews -- and read NOTHING about mergeability or checks.
Combined with the `if requested "$HUMAN"` short-circuit at the top of its
precedence, the label was sticky: once the maintainer was requested, the PR
read state:needs-human through conflicts, through red CI, through a
force-push that staled every approval. Nothing demoted it.
Observed twice in one afternoon, in two different shapes. Three PRs sat at
state:needs-human while CONFLICTING for hours -- the board inviting a merge
GitHub had already disabled. And #119, after a rebase, read MERGEABLE, four
green checks, state:needs-human, with ZERO reviews bound to its head: every
visible signal saying "merge me" over a tree no reviewer had seen. That second
shape is the dangerous one, because unlike a conflict nothing on the page
contradicts it.
The rule the label now keeps: state:needs-human means a human could merge this
RIGHT NOW, so anything making that false outranks the request that put it
there.
CONFLICTING or failing checks -> state:needs-rebase (new; the agent's to fix)
approvals staled by a push -> state:addressing (nobody reviewed this tree)
An UNFINISHED round still yields to an explicit human request -- a maintainer
pulling a PR to themselves early is deliberate, and MISSING (nobody has
reviewed yet) is a different fact from STALE (everyone reviewed something
else). That distinction is why the two are handled in different arms rather
than collapsed.
UNKNOWN mergeability is deliberately NOT treated as unmergeable: GitHub
reports it for about a minute after every merge while it recomputes, and
flapping every open PR through needs-rebase on each merge would be worse than
the bug being fixed. A failed read of either fact degrades to the same "do not
know" value, for the same reason -- an API hiccup must not relabel the board.
Also adds merge-next, because a correct needs-human still does not say WHICH
PR to merge first, and order matters when they conflict through CHANGELOG.md.
Queue order is intent, so the reconciler never sets it; it only CLEARS it the
moment the PR stops being mergeable-by-a-human -- precisely the staleness that
made needs-human untrustworthy.
Both live shapes are pinned in test/labels-reconcile.sh (19 -> 29 fixtures),
including that UNKNOWN does not trigger needs-rebase and that a draft outranks
a conflict. Proven non-vacuous: dropping the mergeability arm fails 4
assertions, dropping the STALE precedence fails 2, restoring returns 29/0.
Closes #136
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-20 15:18:49 +00:00
gh label create "merge-next" --color 0E8A16 --description "Head of the merge queue — merge this one next (set by hand/agent, cleared here)" --force
2026-07-18 17:34:34 +00:00
gh label create "stale" --color B60205 --description "No activity for 48h — needs a poke (sweep-managed)" --force
gh label create "blocked" --color 6A737D --description "Waiting on another PR or issue to land first" --force
gh label create "release" --color 0E8A16 --description "Release flow and version/packaging work" --force
gh label create "scope:cli" --color C5DEF5 --description "bin/box — the command surface" --force
gh label create "scope:installer" --color C5DEF5 --description "install.sh, versioned installs, upgrade/uninstall" --force
gh label create "scope:host" --color C5DEF5 --description "host/ — setup, teardown, firewall, isolation stack" --force
gh label create "scope:tiers" --color C5DEF5 --description "restricted tier — grant/revoke, multi-user" --force
gh label create "scope:templates" --color C5DEF5 --description "templates/ — the box seeds" --force
gh label create "scope:drill" --color C5DEF5 --description "drill/ — rehearsals, doctor, RUNS.md" --force
2026-07-18 18:04:49 +00:00
# delete is not an upsert: a label that is already gone exits non-zero. Swallow
# that, so this block converges on re-run instead of erroring after first success.
for L in duplicate invalid question wontfix "help wanted" "good first issue"; do
gh label delete "$L" --yes 2>/dev/null || true
done
2026-07-18 17:34:34 +00:00
```
