ci(secret-scan): rename caller job key secret-scan -> scan (D243) - #64
Conversation
Secret-Scan-Floor (D243/D244) requires the context `scan / gitleaks` estate-wide. The caller job key here was `secret-scan`, which emits `secret-scan / gitleaks` and can never satisfy the floor. Rename only; the reusable pin and permissions are unchanged. actionlint output identical before and after. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0136eszqrQ53Kj7aBH1D4rXK
|
Navigate logical layers of code changes, visualize relationships, and explore their blast radius. No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: ASSERTIVE Plan: Advanced Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
Included review availability: This review used your included allowance. Your plan provides up to 1 included review per hour; 0 remain after this review. 📜 Recent review details⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout. (4)
|
| Layer / File(s) | Summary |
|---|---|
Rename the workflow job .github/workflows/secret-scanner.yml |
The job key changes from secret-scan to scan. The reusable workflow and inherited secrets remain unchanged. |
Priority: ⬇️ Low
Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~3 minutes
Change: Bug fix
Suggested reviewers: metadatastician
Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to 07998
The workflow change is limited to the requested job rename, with no repository-controlled breakage identified.
Architecture Summary
Architecture risk: 🔵 Low · up to 07998
The changed surface does not map to a changed system, dependency edge, entrypoint, or external dependency.
Changed systems: None identified.
Architecture concerns
No architecture-level concerns identified.
Review details
Before / after behavior
- observed — Modified behavior in .github/workflows/secret-scanner.yml: The workflow job key changes from
secret-scantoscan; its reusable workflow and inherited secrets remain unchanged.
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5
✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
| Check name | Status | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Title check | ✅ Passed | The title clearly states the CI change: it renames the secret-scan caller job key to scan. |
| Description check | ✅ Passed | The description directly explains the job-key rename, the required scan / gitleaks context, and the unchanged workflow settings. |
| Docstring Coverage | ✅ Passed | No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 0 functions across 0… |
| Linked Issues check | ✅ Passed | Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request. |
| Out of Scope Changes check | ✅ Passed | Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request. |
✨ Finishing Touches 💡 1
🛠️ Fix failing CI checks 💡
- Commit to this branch
- Create a new PR
- Autopilot · Keep fixing CodeRabbit findings and required CI, and resolving merge conflicts
Autopilot is currently an internal CodeRabbit preview.
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.
A rabbit checks the scanner’s name
“scan” now marks its workflow frame
The secrets stay as they were
The workflow call stays there
Then hops away without a claim
Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.
What
Rename the secret-scanner caller job key
secret-scan→scanin.github/workflows/secret-scanner.yml, so the check context becomesscan / gitleaks— the context the estate Secret-Scan-Floor ruleset (D243/D244) requires. One-line change; reusable pin, triggers and permissions unchanged. actionlint output is identical before and after.Commit created via GraphQL
createCommitOnBranch(GitHub-signed, signature valid: true).🤖 Generated with Claude Code
https://claude.ai/code/session_0136eszqrQ53Kj7aBH1D4rXK