2026-07-18 17:34:51 +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 |
refactor(labels): split PR labels into state (whose ball) and blocker (what is in the way)
`state:needs-rebase` is retired. PR labels now sit on two axes: `state:*`
(whose ball it is, exactly one) and `blocker:*` (what is in the way,
additive — conflict / ci-red / unrequested). One rule joins them:
`state:needs-human` requires zero blockers.
The single-label design projected independent facts — mergeability, check
status, where the review round stands — onto one totally-ordered value. A
total order must pick a winner, so the rest silently vanished, and every
precedence bug this machine has had lived on that ordering.
`state:needs-rebase` was the clearest casualty: it fired on both a conflict
and a red check, which need opposite work, and told an agent to rebase when
what it owed was a bug fix. Blockers are a set, so there is no precedence
between them to get wrong; what remains on the ordered axis is purely about
reviews, the one place an ordering is meaningful.
`state:bots-reviewing` tightens to mean strictly "a request is live". A ready
PR nobody was asked to review is `state:addressing` + `blocker:unrequested`,
not "waiting on the reviewers" for the 48h it took the stale sweep to notice.
The reconciler carries a RETIRED array and strips `state:needs-rebase` on
sight, so the retirement heals the board instead of stranding a label nothing
recomputes. Fixtures 51 -> 64.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-20 17:31:18 +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 17:34:51 +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.
refactor(labels): split PR labels into state (whose ball) and blocker (what is in the way)
`state:needs-rebase` is retired. PR labels now sit on two axes: `state:*`
(whose ball it is, exactly one) and `blocker:*` (what is in the way,
additive — conflict / ci-red / unrequested). One rule joins them:
`state:needs-human` requires zero blockers.
The single-label design projected independent facts — mergeability, check
status, where the review round stands — onto one totally-ordered value. A
total order must pick a winner, so the rest silently vanished, and every
precedence bug this machine has had lived on that ordering.
`state:needs-rebase` was the clearest casualty: it fired on both a conflict
and a red check, which need opposite work, and told an agent to rebase when
what it owed was a bug fix. Blockers are a set, so there is no precedence
between them to get wrong; what remains on the ordered axis is purely about
reviews, the one place an ordering is meaningful.
`state:bots-reviewing` tightens to mean strictly "a request is live". A ready
PR nobody was asked to review is `state:addressing` + `blocker:unrequested`,
not "waiting on the reviewers" for the 48h it took the stale sweep to notice.
The reconciler carries a RETIRED array and strips `state:needs-rebase` on
sight, so the retirement heals the board instead of stranding a label nothing
recomputes. Fixtures 51 -> 64.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-20 17:31:18 +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 17:34:51 +00:00
fix(labels): state:needs-human means a human could merge it right now
Ported from heavy-duty/box#137 (heavy-duty/box#136) so the three repos'
reconcilers stay byte-identical. The state machine here was byte-identical to
box's before this change and remains so after -- only the scope:* taxonomy
differs, correctly.
decide_state() derived state from three inputs -- draft flag, requested
reviewers, submitted reviews -- and read NOTHING about mergeability or checks.
With the `if requested "$HUMAN"` short-circuit at the top of its precedence,
the label was sticky: once the maintainer was requested, a PR read
state:needs-human through conflicts, through red CI, through a force-push that
staled every approval.
In this repo the SECOND half is the live one: three PRs sit at
state:needs-human simultaneously with nothing saying which to merge first, and
they will conflict through CHANGELOG.md the moment one lands. The stickiness
has not bitten here yet only because nothing has conflicted -- the code carried
it identically, so the first merge would have reproduced box's situation.
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 -- MISSING
(nobody has reviewed yet) is a different fact from STALE (everyone reviewed
something else). UNKNOWN mergeability is NOT treated as unmergeable: GitHub
reports it for about a minute after every merge, and flapping every open PR
through needs-rebase on each merge would be worse than the bug. A failed read
degrades to the same "do not know" value.
Also adds merge-next -- the label this repo needs most today, since a correct
needs-human still does not say which of three ready PRs to merge first. Queue
order is intent, so the reconciler never sets it, only CLEARS it.
Fixtures 19 -> 29. DRY_RUN against this repo changes NOTHING, which is the
correct result: every open PR here is currently mergeable, so the new
precedence is a no-op on a healthy board and fires only when something is
actually wrong. npm test 623 passed.
Closes #127
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-20 15:28:50 +00:00
**`state:needs-human` means one thing: a human could merge this right now.**
refactor(labels): split PR labels into state (whose ball) and blocker (what is in the way)
`state:needs-rebase` is retired. PR labels now sit on two axes: `state:*`
(whose ball it is, exactly one) and `blocker:*` (what is in the way,
additive — conflict / ci-red / unrequested). One rule joins them:
`state:needs-human` requires zero blockers.
The single-label design projected independent facts — mergeability, check
status, where the review round stands — onto one totally-ordered value. A
total order must pick a winner, so the rest silently vanished, and every
precedence bug this machine has had lived on that ordering.
`state:needs-rebase` was the clearest casualty: it fired on both a conflict
and a red check, which need opposite work, and told an agent to rebase when
what it owed was a bug fix. Blockers are a set, so there is no precedence
between them to get wrong; what remains on the ordered axis is purely about
reviews, the one place an ordering is meaningful.
`state:bots-reviewing` tightens to mean strictly "a request is live". A ready
PR nobody was asked to review is `state:addressing` + `blocker:unrequested`,
not "waiting on the reviewers" for the 48h it took the stale sweep to notice.
The reconciler carries a RETIRED array and strips `state:needs-rebase` on
sight, so the retirement heals the board instead of stranding a label nothing
recomputes. Fixtures 51 -> 64.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-20 17:31:18 +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
Ported from heavy-duty/box#137 (heavy-duty/box#136) so the three repos'
reconcilers stay byte-identical. The state machine here was byte-identical to
box's before this change and remains so after -- only the scope:* taxonomy
differs, correctly.
decide_state() derived state from three inputs -- draft flag, requested
reviewers, submitted reviews -- and read NOTHING about mergeability or checks.
With the `if requested "$HUMAN"` short-circuit at the top of its precedence,
the label was sticky: once the maintainer was requested, a PR read
state:needs-human through conflicts, through red CI, through a force-push that
staled every approval.
In this repo the SECOND half is the live one: three PRs sit at
state:needs-human simultaneously with nothing saying which to merge first, and
they will conflict through CHANGELOG.md the moment one lands. The stickiness
has not bitten here yet only because nothing has conflicted -- the code carried
it identically, so the first merge would have reproduced box's situation.
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 -- MISSING
(nobody has reviewed yet) is a different fact from STALE (everyone reviewed
something else). UNKNOWN mergeability is NOT treated as unmergeable: GitHub
reports it for about a minute after every merge, and flapping every open PR
through needs-rebase on each merge would be worse than the bug. A failed read
degrades to the same "do not know" value.
Also adds merge-next -- the label this repo needs most today, since a correct
needs-human still does not say which of three ready PRs to merge first. Queue
order is intent, so the reconciler never sets it, only CLEARS it.
Fixtures 19 -> 29. DRY_RUN against this repo changes NOTHING, which is the
correct result: every open PR here is currently mergeable, so the new
precedence is a no-op on a healthy board and fires only when something is
actually wrong. npm test 623 passed.
Closes #127
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-20 15:28:50 +00:00
explicit human request:
- **nobody reviewed *this* head** — every approval staled by a push → `state:addressing` ,
because the agent owes a re-request
refactor(labels): split PR labels into state (whose ball) and blocker (what is in the way)
`state:needs-rebase` is retired. PR labels now sit on two axes: `state:*`
(whose ball it is, exactly one) and `blocker:*` (what is in the way,
additive — conflict / ci-red / unrequested). One rule joins them:
`state:needs-human` requires zero blockers.
The single-label design projected independent facts — mergeability, check
status, where the review round stands — onto one totally-ordered value. A
total order must pick a winner, so the rest silently vanished, and every
precedence bug this machine has had lived on that ordering.
`state:needs-rebase` was the clearest casualty: it fired on both a conflict
and a red check, which need opposite work, and told an agent to rebase when
what it owed was a bug fix. Blockers are a set, so there is no precedence
between them to get wrong; what remains on the ordered axis is purely about
reviews, the one place an ordering is meaningful.
`state:bots-reviewing` tightens to mean strictly "a request is live". A ready
PR nobody was asked to review is `state:addressing` + `blocker:unrequested`,
not "waiting on the reviewers" for the 48h it took the stale sweep to notice.
The reconciler carries a RETIRED array and strips `state:needs-rebase` on
sight, so the retirement heals the board instead of stranding a label nothing
recomputes. Fixtures 51 -> 64.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-20 17:31:18 +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
Ported from heavy-duty/box#137 (heavy-duty/box#136) so the three repos'
reconcilers stay byte-identical. The state machine here was byte-identical to
box's before this change and remains so after -- only the scope:* taxonomy
differs, correctly.
decide_state() derived state from three inputs -- draft flag, requested
reviewers, submitted reviews -- and read NOTHING about mergeability or checks.
With the `if requested "$HUMAN"` short-circuit at the top of its precedence,
the label was sticky: once the maintainer was requested, a PR read
state:needs-human through conflicts, through red CI, through a force-push that
staled every approval.
In this repo the SECOND half is the live one: three PRs sit at
state:needs-human simultaneously with nothing saying which to merge first, and
they will conflict through CHANGELOG.md the moment one lands. The stickiness
has not bitten here yet only because nothing has conflicted -- the code carried
it identically, so the first merge would have reproduced box's situation.
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 -- MISSING
(nobody has reviewed yet) is a different fact from STALE (everyone reviewed
something else). UNKNOWN mergeability is NOT treated as unmergeable: GitHub
reports it for about a minute after every merge, and flapping every open PR
through needs-rebase on each merge would be worse than the bug. A failed read
degrades to the same "do not know" value.
Also adds merge-next -- the label this repo needs most today, since a correct
needs-human still does not say which of three ready PRs to merge first. Queue
order is intent, so the reconciler never sets it, only CLEARS it.
Fixtures 19 -> 29. DRY_RUN against this repo changes NOTHING, which is the
correct result: every open PR here is currently mergeable, so the new
precedence is a no-op on a healthy board and fires only when something is
actually wrong. npm test 623 passed.
Closes #127
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-20 15:28:50 +00:00
and "waiting on the human" over code no reviewer has seen.
refactor(labels): split PR labels into state (whose ball) and blocker (what is in the way)
`state:needs-rebase` is retired. PR labels now sit on two axes: `state:*`
(whose ball it is, exactly one) and `blocker:*` (what is in the way,
additive — conflict / ci-red / unrequested). One rule joins them:
`state:needs-human` requires zero blockers.
The single-label design projected independent facts — mergeability, check
status, where the review round stands — onto one totally-ordered value. A
total order must pick a winner, so the rest silently vanished, and every
precedence bug this machine has had lived on that ordering.
`state:needs-rebase` was the clearest casualty: it fired on both a conflict
and a red check, which need opposite work, and told an agent to rebase when
what it owed was a bug fix. Blockers are a set, so there is no precedence
between them to get wrong; what remains on the ordered axis is purely about
reviews, the one place an ordering is meaningful.
`state:bots-reviewing` tightens to mean strictly "a request is live". A ready
PR nobody was asked to review is `state:addressing` + `blocker:unrequested`,
not "waiting on the reviewers" for the 48h it took the stale sweep to notice.
The reconciler carries a RETIRED array and strips `state:needs-rebase` on
sight, so the retirement heals the board instead of stranding a label nothing
recomputes. Fixtures 51 -> 64.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-20 17:31:18 +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
Ported from heavy-duty/box#137 (heavy-duty/box#136) so the three repos'
reconcilers stay byte-identical. The state machine here was byte-identical to
box's before this change and remains so after -- only the scope:* taxonomy
differs, correctly.
decide_state() derived state from three inputs -- draft flag, requested
reviewers, submitted reviews -- and read NOTHING about mergeability or checks.
With the `if requested "$HUMAN"` short-circuit at the top of its precedence,
the label was sticky: once the maintainer was requested, a PR read
state:needs-human through conflicts, through red CI, through a force-push that
staled every approval.
In this repo the SECOND half is the live one: three PRs sit at
state:needs-human simultaneously with nothing saying which to merge first, and
they will conflict through CHANGELOG.md the moment one lands. The stickiness
has not bitten here yet only because nothing has conflicted -- the code carried
it identically, so the first merge would have reproduced box's situation.
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 -- MISSING
(nobody has reviewed yet) is a different fact from STALE (everyone reviewed
something else). UNKNOWN mergeability is NOT treated as unmergeable: GitHub
reports it for about a minute after every merge, and flapping every open PR
through needs-rebase on each merge would be worse than the bug. A failed read
degrades to the same "do not know" value.
Also adds merge-next -- the label this repo needs most today, since a correct
needs-human still does not say which of three ready PRs to merge first. Queue
order is intent, so the reconciler never sets it, only CLEARS it.
Fixtures 19 -> 29. DRY_RUN against this repo changes NOTHING, which is the
correct result: every open PR here is currently mergeable, so the new
precedence is a no-op on a healthy board and fires only when something is
actually wrong. npm test 623 passed.
Closes #127
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-20 15:28:50 +00:00
reports it for about a minute after every merge while it recomputes, and
refactor(labels): split PR labels into state (whose ball) and blocker (what is in the way)
`state:needs-rebase` is retired. PR labels now sit on two axes: `state:*`
(whose ball it is, exactly one) and `blocker:*` (what is in the way,
additive — conflict / ci-red / unrequested). One rule joins them:
`state:needs-human` requires zero blockers.
The single-label design projected independent facts — mergeability, check
status, where the review round stands — onto one totally-ordered value. A
total order must pick a winner, so the rest silently vanished, and every
precedence bug this machine has had lived on that ordering.
`state:needs-rebase` was the clearest casualty: it fired on both a conflict
and a red check, which need opposite work, and told an agent to rebase when
what it owed was a bug fix. Blockers are a set, so there is no precedence
between them to get wrong; what remains on the ordered axis is purely about
reviews, the one place an ordering is meaningful.
`state:bots-reviewing` tightens to mean strictly "a request is live". A ready
PR nobody was asked to review is `state:addressing` + `blocker:unrequested`,
not "waiting on the reviewers" for the 48h it took the stale sweep to notice.
The reconciler carries a RETIRED array and strips `state:needs-rebase` on
sight, so the retirement heals the board instead of stranding a label nothing
recomputes. Fixtures 51 -> 64.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-20 17:31:18 +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
Ported from heavy-duty/box#137 (heavy-duty/box#136) so the three repos'
reconcilers stay byte-identical. The state machine here was byte-identical to
box's before this change and remains so after -- only the scope:* taxonomy
differs, correctly.
decide_state() derived state from three inputs -- draft flag, requested
reviewers, submitted reviews -- and read NOTHING about mergeability or checks.
With the `if requested "$HUMAN"` short-circuit at the top of its precedence,
the label was sticky: once the maintainer was requested, a PR read
state:needs-human through conflicts, through red CI, through a force-push that
staled every approval.
In this repo the SECOND half is the live one: three PRs sit at
state:needs-human simultaneously with nothing saying which to merge first, and
they will conflict through CHANGELOG.md the moment one lands. The stickiness
has not bitten here yet only because nothing has conflicted -- the code carried
it identically, so the first merge would have reproduced box's situation.
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 -- MISSING
(nobody has reviewed yet) is a different fact from STALE (everyone reviewed
something else). UNKNOWN mergeability is NOT treated as unmergeable: GitHub
reports it for about a minute after every merge, and flapping every open PR
through needs-rebase on each merge would be worse than the bug. A failed read
degrades to the same "do not know" value.
Also adds merge-next -- the label this repo needs most today, since a correct
needs-human still does not say which of three ready PRs to merge first. Queue
order is intent, so the reconciler never sets it, only CLEARS it.
Fixtures 19 -> 29. DRY_RUN against this repo changes NOTHING, which is the
correct result: every open PR here is currently mergeable, so the new
precedence is a no-op on a healthy board and fires only when something is
actually wrong. npm test 623 passed.
Closes #127
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-20 15:28:50 +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 17:34:51 +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
Ported from heavy-duty/box#137 (heavy-duty/box#136) so the three repos'
reconcilers stay byte-identical. The state machine here was byte-identical to
box's before this change and remains so after -- only the scope:* taxonomy
differs, correctly.
decide_state() derived state from three inputs -- draft flag, requested
reviewers, submitted reviews -- and read NOTHING about mergeability or checks.
With the `if requested "$HUMAN"` short-circuit at the top of its precedence,
the label was sticky: once the maintainer was requested, a PR read
state:needs-human through conflicts, through red CI, through a force-push that
staled every approval.
In this repo the SECOND half is the live one: three PRs sit at
state:needs-human simultaneously with nothing saying which to merge first, and
they will conflict through CHANGELOG.md the moment one lands. The stickiness
has not bitten here yet only because nothing has conflicted -- the code carried
it identically, so the first merge would have reproduced box's situation.
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 -- MISSING
(nobody has reviewed yet) is a different fact from STALE (everyone reviewed
something else). UNKNOWN mergeability is NOT treated as unmergeable: GitHub
reports it for about a minute after every merge, and flapping every open PR
through needs-rebase on each merge would be worse than the bug. A failed read
degrades to the same "do not know" value.
Also adds merge-next -- the label this repo needs most today, since a correct
needs-human still does not say which of three ready PRs to merge first. Queue
order is intent, so the reconciler never sets it, only CLEARS it.
Fixtures 19 -> 29. DRY_RUN against this repo changes NOTHING, which is the
correct result: every open PR here is currently mergeable, so the new
precedence is a no-op on a healthy board and fires only when something is
actually wrong. npm test 623 passed.
Closes #127
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-20 15:28:50 +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 17:34:51 +00:00
## Scope — which surface? (PRs and issues, any number)
All scopes share one calm color, `#C5DEF5` — scopes locate, states alert.
| Label | Covers |
|---|---|
| `scope:capture` | `draft.ts` , `capture.ts` — reading the live world into a manifest |
| `scope:apply` | `apply.ts` , `diff.ts` , `destroy.ts` — reconciling the manifest onto Coolify |
| `scope:secrets` | `secrets.ts` , age handling, the encrypted state repo |
| `scope:fleet` | `fleet.ts` , `inventory.ts` , `server.ts` — placement and the server side |
| `scope:manifest` | `manifest.ts` , `resolve.ts` , `envtemplate.ts` — the manifest language itself |
| `scope:coolify-api` | `coolify.ts` , the OpenAPI reference — the client surface |
## 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 18:31:54 +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 17:34:51 +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
refactor(labels): split PR labels into state (whose ball) and blocker (what is in the way)
`state:needs-rebase` is retired. PR labels now sit on two axes: `state:*`
(whose ball it is, exactly one) and `blocker:*` (what is in the way,
additive — conflict / ci-red / unrequested). One rule joins them:
`state:needs-human` requires zero blockers.
The single-label design projected independent facts — mergeability, check
status, where the review round stands — onto one totally-ordered value. A
total order must pick a winner, so the rest silently vanished, and every
precedence bug this machine has had lived on that ordering.
`state:needs-rebase` was the clearest casualty: it fired on both a conflict
and a red check, which need opposite work, and told an agent to rebase when
what it owed was a bug fix. Blockers are a set, so there is no precedence
between them to get wrong; what remains on the ordered axis is purely about
reviews, the one place an ordering is meaningful.
`state:bots-reviewing` tightens to mean strictly "a request is live". A ready
PR nobody was asked to review is `state:addressing` + `blocker:unrequested`,
not "waiting on the reviewers" for the 48h it took the stale sweep to notice.
The reconciler carries a RETIRED array and strips `state:needs-rebase` on
sight, so the retirement heals the board instead of stranding a label nothing
recomputes. Fixtures 51 -> 64.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-20 17:31:18 +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
Ported from heavy-duty/box#137 (heavy-duty/box#136) so the three repos'
reconcilers stay byte-identical. The state machine here was byte-identical to
box's before this change and remains so after -- only the scope:* taxonomy
differs, correctly.
decide_state() derived state from three inputs -- draft flag, requested
reviewers, submitted reviews -- and read NOTHING about mergeability or checks.
With the `if requested "$HUMAN"` short-circuit at the top of its precedence,
the label was sticky: once the maintainer was requested, a PR read
state:needs-human through conflicts, through red CI, through a force-push that
staled every approval.
In this repo the SECOND half is the live one: three PRs sit at
state:needs-human simultaneously with nothing saying which to merge first, and
they will conflict through CHANGELOG.md the moment one lands. The stickiness
has not bitten here yet only because nothing has conflicted -- the code carried
it identically, so the first merge would have reproduced box's situation.
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 -- MISSING
(nobody has reviewed yet) is a different fact from STALE (everyone reviewed
something else). UNKNOWN mergeability is NOT treated as unmergeable: GitHub
reports it for about a minute after every merge, and flapping every open PR
through needs-rebase on each merge would be worse than the bug. A failed read
degrades to the same "do not know" value.
Also adds merge-next -- the label this repo needs most today, since a correct
needs-human still does not say which of three ready PRs to merge first. Queue
order is intent, so the reconciler never sets it, only CLEARS it.
Fixtures 19 -> 29. DRY_RUN against this repo changes NOTHING, which is the
correct result: every open PR here is currently mergeable, so the new
precedence is a no-op on a healthy board and fires only when something is
actually wrong. npm test 623 passed.
Closes #127
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-20 15:28:50 +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 17:34:51 +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:capture" --color C5DEF5 --description "draft/capture — reading the live world into a manifest" --force
gh label create "scope:apply" --color C5DEF5 --description "apply/diff/destroy — reconciling onto Coolify" --force
gh label create "scope:secrets" --color C5DEF5 --description "secrets, age, the encrypted state repo" --force
gh label create "scope:fleet" --color C5DEF5 --description "fleet/inventory/server — placement" --force
gh label create "scope:manifest" --color C5DEF5 --description "manifest/resolve/envtemplate — the manifest language" --force
gh label create "scope:coolify-api" --color C5DEF5 --description "coolify.ts + OpenAPI reference — the client" --force
2026-07-18 18:04:52 +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 17:34:51 +00:00
```
