ci(secret-scan): rename caller job key secret-scan -> scan (D243) - #50
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. (18)
|
| Layer / File(s) | Summary |
|---|---|
Rename workflow job key .github/workflows/secret-scanner.yml |
The job key changes from secret-scan to scan. The reusable workflow and inherited-secret configuration remain unchanged. |
Priority: ⬇️ Low
Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~2 minutes
Change: Bug fix
Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to 8ea82
The secret-scanner check keeps its existing workflow and now reports the intended scan / gitleaks context. No actionable merge risk is identified.
Architecture Summary
Architecture risk: 🔵 Low · up to 8ea82
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-secret configuration remain unchanged.
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5
✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
| Check name | Status | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Title check | ✅ Passed | The title clearly identifies the CI job rename from secret-scan to scan, which is the main change. |
| Description check | ✅ Passed | The description explains the job-key rename and its required check-context change. It is directly related to the changeset. |
| 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 spots the scanner’s name,
One small key shifts in the workflow frame.
The same shared steps still run along,
With secrets passed as they were all along.
I nibble clover, pleased to see,
A tidy rename in one small key.
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