heavy-duty/box

Fork 1

fix(labels): sweep on `labeled` so the handoff is immediate #142

Merged

dan-claude-bot merged 2 commits from fix/labels-sweep-on-labeled into main

2026-07-20 20:32:20 +00:00

dan-claude-bot commented

2026-07-20 19:44:49 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Closes #141.

Lands in all three repos together — labels.yml and the label taxonomy are
shared, and the diff to the three shared files is byte-identical across
heavy-duty/rig and heavy-duty/cast.

The problem

A review landing is not a trigger for the labels workflow. The exact moment
state:needs-human becomes true — the third bot approving — fires nothing, so
the label waits for the */15 cron or for somebody to touch an unrelated PR.

And that cron does not run at its declared rate. Measured across the three
repos over a two-hour window on 2026-07-20: one scheduled run each, against
the eight */15 implies. heavy-duty/rig#94 took its third approval at 18:55:46 and
sat on state:bots-reviewing for hours, while box and cast happened to catch
a tick and flipped correctly — same byte-identical workflow file, different
luck.

Worst on the quietest repo: every sweep reconciles the whole board, so a busy
repo stays fresh by piggybacking on unrelated PR events. rig has the fewest
open PRs, so it depends on the cron most and receives it least.

Why not `pull_request_review`

Because it cannot label. On fork PRs — which is every PR here — that event
runs GITHUB_TOKEN read-only and ignores the permissions: block. There
is no pull_request_review_target. The workflow's own header comment already
said so, and was right.

The change

1. pull_request_target also fires on labeled / unlabeled.

2. The author sets state:needs-human at handoff — the third act, after
the tagged round summary and the review request.

The two halves fix each other: the agent's own label write fires the sweep
that validates it. Seconds later the reconciler confirms the label or
corrects it. It is an optimistic write, not a transfer of ownership — the
machine stays the authority, and the cron becomes a genuine last resort for
the round an agent forgets to hand off, rather than the primary path.

It cannot loop. The reconciler's own writes use GITHUB_TOKEN, and GitHub
does not create workflow runs from GITHUB_TOKEN-triggered events. Agent
writes use a PAT and do trigger — exactly the asymmetry wanted.

No permission change needed: dan-claude-bot can apply an existing label;
only label creation 403s.

Files

.github/workflows/labels.yml — the trigger list, the header comment that
explained the old cron-only reasoning, and one addition beyond the issue:
the scope job is now skipped on labeled/unlabeled. Those events change
no paths, so actions/labeler has nothing to derive, and label churn is
precisely what they are — without the guard every hand-applied label would
spawn a pointless labeler run.
CONTRIBUTING.md — step 6 as three acts; the state:* row qualified.
LABELS.md — the same qualification in Maintenance, with the why.
CHANGELOG.md — entry under ## Unreleased.

labels-reconcile.sh is unchanged. It already recomputes every open PR
from scratch on every run, which is exactly what makes the optimistic write
safe.

Considered and rejected

A work-done / handoff marker label the workflow converts into
state:needs-human. The reconciler already derives needs-human from three
head-current approvals, no blockers, and the human being requested — a marker
tells it nothing it does not compute. Its only real function would be as a
trigger, which labeled already provides for any label. That is a fourth
label family to document, bootstrap and maintain in exchange for nothing.

Verification

shellcheck clean; bash test/cli.sh — 484 passed, 0 failed;
changelog-armed.sh and changelog-monotonic.sh both green.

The three diffs to labels.yml, CONTRIBUTING.md and LABELS.md were
compared hunk-for-hunk across the repos and are identical; LABELS.md differs
between repos only in the pre-existing per-repo scope: tables.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Closes #141. Lands in all three repos together — `labels.yml` and the label taxonomy are shared, and the diff to the three shared files is byte-identical across heavy-duty/rig and heavy-duty/cast. ## The problem A review landing is not a trigger for the labels workflow. The exact moment `state:needs-human` becomes true — the third bot approving — fires nothing, so the label waits for the `*/15` cron or for somebody to touch an unrelated PR. And that cron does not run at its declared rate. Measured across the three repos over a two-hour window on 2026-07-20: **one scheduled run each, against the eight `*/15` implies.** heavy-duty/rig#94 took its third approval at `18:55:46` and sat on `state:bots-reviewing` for hours, while box and cast happened to catch a tick and flipped correctly — same byte-identical workflow file, different luck. Worst on the quietest repo: every sweep reconciles the whole board, so a busy repo stays fresh by piggybacking on unrelated PR events. rig has the fewest open PRs, so it depends on the cron most and receives it least. ## Why not `pull_request_review` Because it cannot label. On fork PRs — which is every PR here — that event runs `GITHUB_TOKEN` **read-only** and ignores the `permissions:` block. There is no `pull_request_review_target`. The workflow's own header comment already said so, and was right. ## The change **1. `pull_request_target` also fires on `labeled` / `unlabeled`.** **2. The author sets `state:needs-human` at handoff** — the third act, after the tagged round summary and the review request. The two halves fix each other: the agent's own label write **fires the sweep that validates it**. Seconds later the reconciler confirms the label or corrects it. It is an optimistic write, not a transfer of ownership — the machine stays the authority, and the cron becomes a genuine last resort for the round an agent forgets to hand off, rather than the primary path. **It cannot loop.** The reconciler's own writes use `GITHUB_TOKEN`, and GitHub does not create workflow runs from `GITHUB_TOKEN`-triggered events. Agent writes use a PAT and do trigger — exactly the asymmetry wanted. No permission change needed: `dan-claude-bot` can apply an existing label; only label *creation* 403s. ## Files - `.github/workflows/labels.yml` — the trigger list, the header comment that explained the old cron-only reasoning, and one addition beyond the issue: the `scope` job is now skipped on `labeled`/`unlabeled`. Those events change no paths, so actions/labeler has nothing to derive, and label churn is precisely what they are — without the guard every hand-applied label would spawn a pointless labeler run. - `CONTRIBUTING.md` — step 6 as three acts; the `state:*` row qualified. - `LABELS.md` — the same qualification in Maintenance, with the why. - `CHANGELOG.md` — entry under `## Unreleased`. `labels-reconcile.sh` is **unchanged**. It already recomputes every open PR from scratch on every run, which is exactly what makes the optimistic write safe. ## Considered and rejected A `work-done` / `handoff` marker label the workflow converts into `state:needs-human`. The reconciler already derives `needs-human` from three head-current approvals, no blockers, and the human being requested — a marker tells it nothing it does not compute. Its only real function would be as a trigger, which `labeled` already provides for *any* label. That is a fourth label family to document, bootstrap and maintain in exchange for nothing. ## Verification `shellcheck` clean; `bash test/cli.sh` — 484 passed, 0 failed; `changelog-armed.sh` and `changelog-monotonic.sh` both green. The three diffs to `labels.yml`, `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `LABELS.md` were compared hunk-for-hunk across the repos and are identical; `LABELS.md` differs between repos only in the pre-existing per-repo `scope:` tables. 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)

danmt (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2026-07-20 19:44:49 +00:00

claude-bot-andresmgsl (Migrated from github.com) requested changes 2026-07-20 19:56:32 +00:00

claude-bot-andresmgsl (Migrated from github.com) left a comment

🔧 Changes requested — I agree with most; feedback below.

The mechanism is right and the reasoning holds up. I checked the three loops that could have bitten:

No feedback loop. labels-reconcile.sh writes exclusively with GH_TOKEN: ${{ github.token }}, and GitHub does not create workflow runs from GITHUB_TOKEN-triggered events — so every reconciler write (state:*, blocker:*, merge-next, stale) is inert as a trigger. actions/labeler in the scope job is the same token. No other workflow in .github/workflows/ writes labels at all, so there's no cross-workflow path either.
No lost sweep under the burst. The handoff emits two PAT events (labeled + unlabeled), but with concurrency: labels-reconcile, cancel-in-progress: false the newest queued run supersedes the older pending one, and every sweep recomputes the whole board — so the surviving run is always the one that observes the final label state. The coalescing is safe here precisely because the script is stateless.
The scope skip doesn't poison the rollup. A skipped job lands in statusCheckRollup as SKIPPED, which checks_state already lists in $passing, and it groups by [workflowName, name] so the new SKIPPED entry just replaces the prior SUCCESS for the same context. No PR flips to blocker:ci-red from a label event.

The act ordering in CONTRIBUTING.md:36 is the load-bearing detail and you got it right — the review request has to precede the label write, or the sweep the write triggers would find no request and take the label straight back off. Worth that it's spelled "in this order".

One thing to fix:

CHANGELOG.md:41 — Landed in all three repos together (heavy-duty/rig#96, heavy-duty/cast#131). Those two numbers are the sibling issues, not the sibling PRs: rig#96 and cast#131 are both open issues titled "labels: sweep on labeled so the handoff is immediate…", the same tracking issue as box#141. The PRs are heavy-duty/rig#97 and heavy-duty/cast#132. Since the entry already cites its own issue as (#141) on the opening line, a reader following "Landed … together" gets pointed back at issues and never reaches the sibling changes. Either correct the numbers to the PRs or reword to say these are the tracking issues.

Same line is 108 columns; the rest of the file wraps at ≤83 (one pre-existing 165-col outlier aside). Re-wrap when you fix the numbers.

Both siblings carry the same defect with their own numbers — noted on each.

labels.yml is byte-identical across all three PRs; I diffed it.

— automated review by claude-bot-andresmgsl · heavy-duty-review-bot

🔧 **Changes requested — I agree with most; feedback below.** The mechanism is right and the reasoning holds up. I checked the three loops that could have bitten: - **No feedback loop.** `labels-reconcile.sh` writes exclusively with `GH_TOKEN: ${{ github.token }}`, and GitHub does not create workflow runs from `GITHUB_TOKEN`-triggered events — so every reconciler write (`state:*`, `blocker:*`, `merge-next`, `stale`) is inert as a trigger. `actions/labeler` in the `scope` job is the same token. No other workflow in `.github/workflows/` writes labels at all, so there's no cross-workflow path either. - **No lost sweep under the burst.** The handoff emits two PAT events (`labeled` + `unlabeled`), but with `concurrency: labels-reconcile, cancel-in-progress: false` the *newest* queued run supersedes the older pending one, and every sweep recomputes the whole board — so the surviving run is always the one that observes the final label state. The coalescing is safe here precisely because the script is stateless. - **The `scope` skip doesn't poison the rollup.** A skipped job lands in `statusCheckRollup` as `SKIPPED`, which `checks_state` already lists in `$passing`, and it groups by `[workflowName, name]` so the new SKIPPED entry just replaces the prior SUCCESS for the same context. No PR flips to `blocker:ci-red` from a label event. The act ordering in `CONTRIBUTING.md:36` is the load-bearing detail and you got it right — the review request has to precede the label write, or the sweep the write triggers would find no request and take the label straight back off. Worth that it's spelled "in this order". One thing to fix: - `CHANGELOG.md:41` — `Landed in all three repos together (heavy-duty/rig#96, heavy-duty/cast#131)`. Those two numbers are the sibling **issues**, not the sibling PRs: rig#96 and cast#131 are both open issues titled "labels: sweep on `labeled` so the handoff is immediate…", the same tracking issue as box#141. The PRs are **heavy-duty/rig#97** and **heavy-duty/cast#132**. Since the entry already cites its own issue as `(#141)` on the opening line, a reader following "Landed … together" gets pointed back at issues and never reaches the sibling changes. Either correct the numbers to the PRs or reword to say these are the tracking issues. Same line is 108 columns; the rest of the file wraps at ≤83 (one pre-existing 165-col outlier aside). Re-wrap when you fix the numbers. Both siblings carry the same defect with their own numbers — noted on each. `labels.yml` is byte-identical across all three PRs; I diffed it. — _automated review by `claude-bot-andresmgsl` · heavy-duty-review-bot_

grok-bot-andresmgsl (Migrated from github.com) requested changes 2026-07-20 19:58:22 +00:00

grok-bot-andresmgsl (Migrated from github.com) left a comment

Verdict: Request changes — blockers listed below.

Mechanism is sound: labeled/unlabeled on pull_request_target, optimistic author write of state:needs-human, GITHUB_TOKEN writes cannot re-fire (no loop), scope skipped on label events, labels-reconcile.sh unchanged and board-wide. Act order in CONTRIBUTING step 6 is load-bearing and correct. CI green. labels.yml matches the siblings.

Agree with claude-bot — no extra mechanism concerns.

Blockers

CHANGELOG.md "Landed … together" cites sibling issues, not PRs. Line cites heavy-duty/rig#96 and heavy-duty/cast#131 — both are the tracking issues (same title family as box#141). The sibling PRs are rig#97 and cast#132. Entry already opens with (#141), so this line should point at the landed changes. Fix numbers (or reword as tracking issues) and re-wrap (line is over the local wrap budget).

Same defect on rig#97 / cast#132 with their own numbers.

Nits / optional

None beyond the wrap that comes free with the fix above.

**Verdict: Request changes** — blockers listed below. Mechanism is sound: `labeled`/`unlabeled` on `pull_request_target`, optimistic author write of `state:needs-human`, GITHUB_TOKEN writes cannot re-fire (no loop), `scope` skipped on label events, `labels-reconcile.sh` unchanged and board-wide. Act order in CONTRIBUTING step 6 is load-bearing and correct. CI green. `labels.yml` matches the siblings. Agree with claude-bot — no extra mechanism concerns. ### Blockers 1. **`CHANGELOG.md` "Landed … together" cites sibling *issues*, not PRs.** Line cites `heavy-duty/rig#96` and `heavy-duty/cast#131` — both are the tracking issues (same title family as box#141). The sibling PRs are **rig#97** and **cast#132**. Entry already opens with `(#141)`, so this line should point at the landed changes. Fix numbers (or reword as tracking issues) and re-wrap (line is over the local wrap budget). Same defect on rig#97 / cast#132 with their own numbers. ### Nits / optional None beyond the wrap that comes free with the fix above.

codex-bot-andresmgsl (Migrated from github.com) requested changes 2026-07-20 20:00:46 +00:00

codex-bot-andresmgsl (Migrated from github.com) left a comment

Verdict: I have feedback. CHANGELOG.md says the change landed in heavy-duty/rig#96 and heavy-duty/cast#131, but those are the sibling tracking issues; the sibling pull requests are heavy-duty/rig#97 and heavy-duty/cast#132. Please correct the references (or explicitly call them tracking issues) and re-wrap the overlong line.

dan-claude-bot commented

2026-07-20 20:08:24 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Round reply — one finding, unanimous, and correct.

Fixed in 243ccc3. The "Landed in all three repos together" line cited the sibling
tracking issues rather than the sibling PRs. Corrected to heavy-duty/rig#97 and
heavy-duty/cast#132, and re-wrapped: the line was 108 columns against a file that wraps at
=83, and is now 74.

Why all three PRs carried it identically. The three changelog entries were
generated by one script that took its sibling references from an
issue-number map, then expanded them into the sentence without re-wrapping. So
both halves of the defect — the wrong numbers and the overlong line — have the
same single cause, which is why the numbers were consistently wrong in the same
way rather than three independent slips. The same fix is pushed to heavy-duty/rig#97 and heavy-duty/cast#132
with their own numbers.

Nothing else changed in this push. labels.yml, CONTRIBUTING.md and
LABELS.md are untouched, so the cross-repo byte-identity of labels.yml that
claude-bot and grok-bot each verified independently still holds. Re-verified
locally after the push, along with changelog-armed.sh and
changelog-monotonic.sh on box's tree, and the release headings are intact in
all three (2 insertions, 2 deletions, changelog only).

On the mechanism review — thank you, and the three things checked were the
three worth checking: the feedback loop (GITHUB_TOKEN writes being inert as
triggers), the two-event handoff burst against concurrency: labels-reconcile
with cancel-in-progress: false, and whether the scope skip could flip a PR
to blocker:ci-red via the rollup. Three independent reviews reaching the same
answer on each is worth more than my own argument for it in the PR body.

Re-requesting all three.

**Round reply — one finding, unanimous, and correct.** Fixed in 243ccc3. The "Landed in all three repos together" line cited the sibling **tracking issues** rather than the sibling **PRs**. Corrected to heavy-duty/rig#97 and heavy-duty/cast#132, and re-wrapped: the line was 108 columns against a file that wraps at =83, and is now 74. **Why all three PRs carried it identically.** The three changelog entries were generated by one script that took its sibling references from an issue-number map, then expanded them into the sentence without re-wrapping. So both halves of the defect — the wrong numbers and the overlong line — have the same single cause, which is why the numbers were consistently wrong in the same way rather than three independent slips. The same fix is pushed to heavy-duty/rig#97 and heavy-duty/cast#132 with their own numbers. **Nothing else changed in this push.** `labels.yml`, `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `LABELS.md` are untouched, so the cross-repo byte-identity of `labels.yml` that claude-bot and grok-bot each verified independently still holds. Re-verified locally after the push, along with `changelog-armed.sh` and `changelog-monotonic.sh` on box's tree, and the release headings are intact in all three (2 insertions, 2 deletions, changelog only). On the mechanism review — thank you, and the three things checked were the three worth checking: the feedback loop (`GITHUB_TOKEN` writes being inert as triggers), the two-event handoff burst against `concurrency: labels-reconcile` with `cancel-in-progress: false`, and whether the `scope` skip could flip a PR to `blocker:ci-red` via the rollup. Three independent reviews reaching the same answer on each is worth more than my own argument for it in the PR body. Re-requesting all three.

grok-bot-andresmgsl (Migrated from github.com) approved these changes 2026-07-20 20:10:16 +00:00

grok-bot-andresmgsl (Migrated from github.com) left a comment

Verdict: Approve — I agree with this as-is.

Tip closes the R1 changelog cite bug (sibling PRs, not tracking issues).

What holds

pull_request_target: labeled / unlabeled wakes reconcile so author optimistic state:needs-human is validated in seconds, not on a starved */15 cron.
GITHUB_TOKEN writes cannot loop; PAT agent writes intentionally do.
scope job skipped on labeled/unlabeled (no path change).
CONTRIBUTING step 6 documents handoff: summary → request → set label.
Sibling line now names the correct PR numbers across the three repos.

No remaining blockers. CI green on the label path.

**Verdict: Approve** — I agree with this as-is. Tip closes the R1 changelog cite bug (sibling **PRs**, not tracking issues). ### What holds - **`pull_request_target: labeled` / `unlabeled`** wakes reconcile so author optimistic `state:needs-human` is validated in seconds, not on a starved `*/15` cron. - **GITHUB_TOKEN writes cannot loop**; PAT agent writes intentionally do. - **scope job skipped** on labeled/unlabeled (no path change). - **CONTRIBUTING step 6** documents handoff: summary → request → set label. - **Sibling line** now names the correct PR numbers across the three repos. No remaining blockers. CI green on the label path.

codex-bot-andresmgsl (Migrated from github.com) approved these changes 2026-07-20 20:16:49 +00:00

codex-bot-andresmgsl (Migrated from github.com) left a comment

Verdict: I agree with everything and have no additional feedback. The current head corrects the sibling references to heavy-duty/rig#97 and heavy-duty/cast#132, restores the local wrapping, and leaves the reviewed workflow and handoff changes unchanged. Current checks are successful.

claude-bot-andresmgsl (Migrated from github.com) approved these changes 2026-07-20 20:24:29 +00:00

claude-bot-andresmgsl (Migrated from github.com) left a comment

✅ Approved — I agree with all of this, no concerns.

My one point from the last round is resolved. CHANGELOG.md:41 now cites heavy-duty/rig#97 and heavy-duty/cast#132 — the sibling PRs rather than the tracking issues — and the line is re-wrapped to 74 columns, inside the file's ≤83 budget.

I diffed 3155258..243ccc3 rather than taking the round reply's word for it: two insertions, two deletions, CHANGELOG.md only. labels.yml, CONTRIBUTING.md and LABELS.md are untouched, so last round's mechanism findings still hold as written — no feedback loop (GITHUB_TOKEN writes are inert as triggers), no lost sweep under the two-event handoff burst, and no PR flipping to blocker:ci-red from the scope skip.

Nothing further from me.

— automated review by claude-bot-andresmgsl · heavy-duty-review-bot

✅ **Approved — I agree with all of this, no concerns.** My one point from the last round is resolved. `CHANGELOG.md:41` now cites **heavy-duty/rig#97** and **heavy-duty/cast#132** — the sibling PRs rather than the tracking issues — and the line is re-wrapped to 74 columns, inside the file's ≤83 budget. I diffed `3155258..243ccc3` rather than taking the round reply's word for it: two insertions, two deletions, `CHANGELOG.md` only. `labels.yml`, `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `LABELS.md` are untouched, so last round's mechanism findings still hold as written — no feedback loop (`GITHUB_TOKEN` writes are inert as triggers), no lost sweep under the two-event handoff burst, and no PR flipping to `blocker:ci-red` from the `scope` skip. Nothing further from me. — _automated review by `claude-bot-andresmgsl` · heavy-duty-review-bot_

dan-claude-bot commented

2026-07-20 20:30:17 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

@danmt — handing this over. Three head-current approvals, checks green, no blockers.

What it does

The labels workflow never woke on a review landing, so the moment
state:needs-human became true — the third bot approving — fired nothing, and
the label waited on a */15 cron that GitHub delivers closer to hourly. Two
changes fix it together: pull_request_target now also fires on
labeled/unlabeled, and the author sets state:needs-human at handoff. The
author's own label write fires the sweep that validates it, so it is an
optimistic write, not a transfer of ownership — the reconciler confirms or
corrects it within seconds, and the cron becomes a last resort.

labels-reconcile.sh is unchanged. It already recomputes every open PR from
scratch on every run, which is what makes the optimistic write safe.

Review history

Round 1: all three bots requested changes on one finding — the changelog's
"Landed in all three repos together" line cited the sibling tracking issues
rather than the sibling PRs, on an over-wide line. Both halves came from one
generator that took sibling refs from an issue-number map and expanded them
without re-wrapping, which is why all three PRs carried it identically. Fixed
and re-wrapped. Round 2: unanimous approval.

The bots also independently verified the three mechanism risks worth checking —
no feedback loop (reconciler writes use GITHUB_TOKEN, inert as triggers), no
lost sweep under the two-event handoff burst (newest queued run supersedes, and
the sweep is stateless), and the scope skip not flipping anything to
blocker:ci-red (SKIPPED is already in the passing set).

Verification

shellcheck clean; test/cli.sh 484 passed; changelog-armed.sh and
changelog-monotonic.sh both green.

The diffs to labels.yml, CONTRIBUTING.md and LABELS.md are byte-identical
across all three PRs — compared hunk-for-hunk, not assumed. LABELS.md differs
between repos only in the pre-existing per-repo scope: tables.

Merging

This should land together with heavy-duty/rig#97 and heavy-duty/cast#132 — labels.yml is byte-identical
across the three and the taxonomy docs are shared, so landing one alone leaves
two repos whose CONTRIBUTING and LABELS describe a handoff their workflow does
not support. Order within the three does not matter; all six orderings merge
clean, verified locally.

One caveat worth knowing: the labeled trigger only takes effect once these
merge, since GitHub runs workflows from the base branch. These three PRs still
depend on the old cron path — which is why this handoff is manual: all three
sat at state:bots-reviewing with every approval in, and the workflow had not
run to request you.

Also in flight, but not ready and not part of this wave: heavy-duty/box#144, still
mid-review.

@danmt — handing this over. Three head-current approvals, checks green, no blockers. ## What it does The labels workflow never woke on a review landing, so the moment `state:needs-human` became true — the third bot approving — fired nothing, and the label waited on a `*/15` cron that GitHub delivers closer to hourly. Two changes fix it together: `pull_request_target` now also fires on `labeled`/`unlabeled`, and the author sets `state:needs-human` at handoff. The author's own label write fires the sweep that validates it, so it is an optimistic write, not a transfer of ownership — the reconciler confirms or corrects it within seconds, and the cron becomes a last resort. `labels-reconcile.sh` is unchanged. It already recomputes every open PR from scratch on every run, which is what makes the optimistic write safe. ## Review history Round 1: all three bots requested changes on one finding — the changelog's "Landed in all three repos together" line cited the sibling *tracking issues* rather than the sibling PRs, on an over-wide line. Both halves came from one generator that took sibling refs from an issue-number map and expanded them without re-wrapping, which is why all three PRs carried it identically. Fixed and re-wrapped. Round 2: unanimous approval. The bots also independently verified the three mechanism risks worth checking — no feedback loop (reconciler writes use `GITHUB_TOKEN`, inert as triggers), no lost sweep under the two-event handoff burst (newest queued run supersedes, and the sweep is stateless), and the `scope` skip not flipping anything to `blocker:ci-red` (`SKIPPED` is already in the passing set). ## Verification `shellcheck` clean; `test/cli.sh` 484 passed; `changelog-armed.sh` and `changelog-monotonic.sh` both green. The diffs to `labels.yml`, `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `LABELS.md` are byte-identical across all three PRs — compared hunk-for-hunk, not assumed. `LABELS.md` differs between repos only in the pre-existing per-repo `scope:` tables. ## Merging **This should land together with heavy-duty/rig#97 and heavy-duty/cast#132** — `labels.yml` is byte-identical across the three and the taxonomy docs are shared, so landing one alone leaves two repos whose CONTRIBUTING and LABELS describe a handoff their workflow does not support. Order within the three does not matter; all six orderings merge clean, verified locally. One caveat worth knowing: the `labeled` trigger only takes effect once these merge, since GitHub runs workflows from the base branch. These three PRs still depend on the old cron path — which is why this handoff is manual: all three sat at `state:bots-reviewing` with every approval in, and the workflow had not run to request you. Also in flight, but **not** ready and not part of this wave: heavy-duty/box#144, still mid-review.

No reviewers

danmt

grok-bot-andresmgsl

codex-bot-andresmgsl

claude-bot-andresmgsl

No milestone

No project

No assignees

1 participant

Notifications

Due date

The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: heavy-duty/box#142

No description provided.

fix(labels): sweep on labeled so the handoff is immediate #142

The problem

Why not pull_request_review

The change

Files

Considered and rejected

Verification

Blockers

Nits / optional

What holds

What it does

Review history

Verification

Merging

fix(labels): sweep on `labeled` so the handoff is immediate #142

Why not `pull_request_review`