feat(github-copilot-sdk): release v0.10.0 with native prompt restoration and live todo widget
- Restore native Copilot CLI prompts for authentic Plan Mode behavior - Add SQLite-backed session management for state persistence via system prompt - Implement Adaptive Autonomy (Agent chooses planning vs direct execution) - Fix OpenWebUI custom tool context injection for v0.8.x compatibility - Add compact Live TODO widget synchronized with session.db - Upgrade SDK to github-copilot-sdk==0.1.30 - Remove legacy mode switch RPC calls (moved to prompt-driven orchestration) - Fix intent status localization and widget whitespace optimization - Sync bilingual READMEs and all documentation mirrors to v0.10.0
This commit is contained in:
fujie
426
docs/development/gh-aw-integration-plan.md
Normal file
426
docs/development/gh-aw-integration-plan.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,426 @@
|
||||
# gh-aw Integration Plan
|
||||
|
||||
> This document proposes a safe, incremental adoption plan for GitHub Agentic Workflows (`gh-aw`) in the `openwebui-extensions` repository.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Goals
|
||||
|
||||
- Add repository-aware AI maintenance without replacing stable script-based CI.
|
||||
- Use `gh-aw` where natural language reasoning is stronger than deterministic shell logic.
|
||||
- Preserve the current release, deploy, publish, and stats workflows as the execution backbone.
|
||||
- Introduce observability, diagnosis, and long-term maintenance memory for repository operations.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Why gh-aw Fits This Repository
|
||||
|
||||
This repository already has strong deterministic automation:
|
||||
|
||||
- `/.github/workflows/release.yml`
|
||||
- `/.github/workflows/plugin-version-check.yml`
|
||||
- `/.github/workflows/deploy.yml`
|
||||
- `/.github/workflows/publish_plugin.yml`
|
||||
- `/.github/workflows/community-stats.yml`
|
||||
|
||||
Those workflows are good at exact execution, but they do not deeply understand repository policy.
|
||||
|
||||
`gh-aw` is a good fit for tasks that require:
|
||||
|
||||
- reading code, docs, and PR descriptions together
|
||||
- applying repository conventions with nuance
|
||||
- generating structured review comments
|
||||
- diagnosing failed workflow runs
|
||||
- keeping long-term maintenance notes across runs
|
||||
|
||||
This matches the repository's real needs:
|
||||
|
||||
- bilingual documentation synchronization
|
||||
- plugin code + README + docs consistency
|
||||
- release-prep validation across many files
|
||||
- issue and PR maintenance at scale
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Non-Goals
|
||||
|
||||
The first adoption phase should not:
|
||||
|
||||
- replace `release.yml`
|
||||
- replace `publish_plugin.yml`
|
||||
- replace MkDocs deployment
|
||||
- auto-merge or auto-push code changes by default
|
||||
- grant broad write permissions to the agent
|
||||
|
||||
`gh-aw` should begin as a review, diagnosis, and preflight layer.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Adoption Principles
|
||||
|
||||
### 4.1 Keep deterministic workflows for execution
|
||||
|
||||
Existing YAML workflows remain responsible for:
|
||||
|
||||
- release creation
|
||||
- plugin publishing
|
||||
- documentation deployment
|
||||
- version extraction and comparison
|
||||
- stats generation
|
||||
|
||||
### 4.2 Add agentic workflows for judgment
|
||||
|
||||
`gh-aw` workflows should focus on:
|
||||
|
||||
- policy-aware review
|
||||
- release readiness checks
|
||||
- docs drift analysis
|
||||
- CI failure investigation
|
||||
- issue triage and response drafting
|
||||
|
||||
### 4.3 Default to read-only behavior
|
||||
|
||||
Start with minimal permissions and use safe outputs only for controlled comments or issue creation.
|
||||
|
||||
### 4.4 Keep the blast radius small
|
||||
|
||||
Roll out one workflow at a time, verify output quality, then expand.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Proposed Repository Layout
|
||||
|
||||
### 5.1 New files and directories
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
.github/
|
||||
├── workflows/
|
||||
│ ├── release.yml
|
||||
│ ├── plugin-version-check.yml
|
||||
│ ├── deploy.yml
|
||||
│ ├── publish_plugin.yml
|
||||
│ ├── community-stats.yml
|
||||
│ ├── aw-pr-maintainer-review.md
|
||||
│ ├── aw-pr-maintainer-review.lock.yml
|
||||
│ ├── aw-release-preflight.md
|
||||
│ ├── aw-release-preflight.lock.yml
|
||||
│ ├── aw-ci-audit.md
|
||||
│ ├── aw-ci-audit.lock.yml
|
||||
│ ├── aw-docs-drift-review.md
|
||||
│ └── aw-docs-drift-review.lock.yml
|
||||
├── gh-aw/
|
||||
│ ├── prompts/
|
||||
│ │ ├── pr-review-policy.md
|
||||
│ │ ├── release-preflight-policy.md
|
||||
│ │ ├── ci-audit-policy.md
|
||||
│ │ └── docs-drift-policy.md
|
||||
│ ├── schemas/
|
||||
│ │ └── review-output-example.json
|
||||
│ └── README.md
|
||||
└── copilot-instructions.md
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 5.2 Naming convention
|
||||
|
||||
Use an `aw-` prefix for all agentic workflow source files:
|
||||
|
||||
- `aw-pr-maintainer-review.md`
|
||||
- `aw-release-preflight.md`
|
||||
- `aw-ci-audit.md`
|
||||
- `aw-docs-drift-review.md`
|
||||
|
||||
Reasons:
|
||||
|
||||
- clearly separates agentic workflows from existing handwritten YAML workflows
|
||||
- keeps `gh-aw` assets easy to search
|
||||
- avoids ambiguity during debugging and release review
|
||||
|
||||
### 5.3 Why not replace `.yml` files
|
||||
|
||||
The current workflows are production logic. `gh-aw` should complement them first, not absorb their responsibility.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 6. Recommended Workflow Portfolio
|
||||
|
||||
### 6.1 Phase 1: PR Maintainer Review
|
||||
|
||||
**File**: `/.github/workflows/aw-pr-maintainer-review.md`
|
||||
|
||||
**Purpose**:
|
||||
|
||||
- review PRs that touch plugins, docs, or development guidance
|
||||
- comment on missing repository-standard updates
|
||||
- act as a semantic layer on top of `plugin-version-check.yml`
|
||||
|
||||
**Checks to perform**:
|
||||
|
||||
- plugin version updated when code changes
|
||||
- `README.md` and `README_CN.md` both updated when required
|
||||
- docs mirror pages updated when required
|
||||
- root README badge/date update needed for release-related changes
|
||||
- i18n and helper-method standards followed for plugin code
|
||||
- Conventional Commit quality in PR title/body if relevant
|
||||
|
||||
**Suggested permissions**:
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
permissions:
|
||||
contents: read
|
||||
pull-requests: write
|
||||
issues: write
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Suggested tools**:
|
||||
|
||||
- `github:` read-focused issue/PR/repo tools
|
||||
- `bash:` limited read commands only
|
||||
- `edit:` disabled in early phase
|
||||
- `agentic-workflows:` optional only after adoption matures
|
||||
|
||||
### 6.2 Phase 1: Release Preflight
|
||||
|
||||
**File**: `/.github/workflows/aw-release-preflight.md`
|
||||
|
||||
**Purpose**:
|
||||
|
||||
- run before release or on manual dispatch
|
||||
- verify release completeness before `release.yml` does packaging and publishing
|
||||
|
||||
**Checks to perform**:
|
||||
|
||||
- code version and docs versions are aligned
|
||||
- bilingual README updates exist
|
||||
- docs plugin mirrors exist and match the release target
|
||||
- release notes sources exist where expected
|
||||
- commit message and release draft are coherent
|
||||
|
||||
**Output style**:
|
||||
|
||||
- summary comment on PR or issue
|
||||
- optional checklist artifact
|
||||
- no direct release creation
|
||||
|
||||
### 6.3 Phase 2: CI Audit
|
||||
|
||||
**File**: `/.github/workflows/aw-ci-audit.md`
|
||||
|
||||
**Purpose**:
|
||||
|
||||
- inspect failed runs of `release.yml`, `publish_plugin.yml`, `community-stats.yml`, and other important workflows
|
||||
- summarize likely root cause and next fix steps
|
||||
|
||||
**Why gh-aw is strong here**:
|
||||
|
||||
- it can use `logs` and `audit` via `gh aw mcp-server`
|
||||
- it is designed for workflow introspection and post-hoc analysis
|
||||
|
||||
### 6.4 Phase 2: Docs Drift Review
|
||||
|
||||
**File**: `/.github/workflows/aw-docs-drift-review.md`
|
||||
|
||||
**Purpose**:
|
||||
|
||||
- periodically inspect whether plugin code, local README files, mirrored docs, and root indexes have drifted apart
|
||||
|
||||
**Checks to perform**:
|
||||
|
||||
- missing `README_CN.md`
|
||||
- README sections out of order
|
||||
- docs page missing after plugin update
|
||||
- version mismatches across code and docs
|
||||
|
||||
### 6.5 Phase 3: Issue Maintainer
|
||||
|
||||
**Candidate file**: `/.github/workflows/aw-issue-maintainer.md`
|
||||
|
||||
**Purpose**:
|
||||
|
||||
- summarize unreplied issues
|
||||
- propose bilingual responses
|
||||
- group repeated bug reports by plugin
|
||||
|
||||
This should come after the earlier review and audit flows are trusted.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 7. Mapping to Existing Workflows
|
||||
|
||||
| Current Workflow | Keep As-Is | gh-aw Companion | Role Split |
|
||||
|------|------|------|------|
|
||||
| `/.github/workflows/release.yml` | Yes | `aw-release-preflight.md` | `release.yml` executes; `gh-aw` judges readiness |
|
||||
| `/.github/workflows/plugin-version-check.yml` | Yes | `aw-pr-maintainer-review.md` | hard gate + semantic review |
|
||||
| `/.github/workflows/deploy.yml` | Yes | none initially | deterministic build and deploy |
|
||||
| `/.github/workflows/publish_plugin.yml` | Yes | `aw-ci-audit.md` | deterministic publish + failure diagnosis |
|
||||
| `/.github/workflows/community-stats.yml` | Yes | `aw-ci-audit.md` | deterministic stats + anomaly diagnosis |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 8. Tooling Model
|
||||
|
||||
### 8.1 Built-in tools to enable first
|
||||
|
||||
For early workflows, prefer a narrow tool set:
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
tools:
|
||||
github:
|
||||
toolsets: [default]
|
||||
bash:
|
||||
- echo
|
||||
- pwd
|
||||
- ls
|
||||
- cat
|
||||
- head
|
||||
- tail
|
||||
- grep
|
||||
- wc
|
||||
- git status
|
||||
- git diff
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Do not enable unrestricted shell access in phase 1.
|
||||
|
||||
### 8.2 MCP usage model
|
||||
|
||||
Use `gh aw mcp-server` later for:
|
||||
|
||||
- workflow `status`
|
||||
- workflow `compile`
|
||||
- workflow `logs`
|
||||
- workflow `audit`
|
||||
- `mcp-inspect`
|
||||
|
||||
This is especially valuable for `aw-ci-audit.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
### 8.3 Safe output policy
|
||||
|
||||
In early adoption, only allow safe outputs that:
|
||||
|
||||
- comment on PRs
|
||||
- comment on issues
|
||||
- open a low-risk maintenance issue when explicitly needed
|
||||
|
||||
Avoid any automatic code-writing safe outputs at first.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 9. Repo Memory Strategy
|
||||
|
||||
`gh-aw` repo memory is a strong fit for this repository, but it should be constrained.
|
||||
|
||||
### 9.1 Recommended first use cases
|
||||
|
||||
- recurring CI failure signatures
|
||||
- repeated docs sync omissions
|
||||
- common reviewer reminders
|
||||
- issue clusters by plugin name
|
||||
|
||||
### 9.2 Recommended configuration shape
|
||||
|
||||
- store only `.md` and `.json`
|
||||
- small patch size limit
|
||||
- one memory stream per concern
|
||||
|
||||
Suggested conceptual layout:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
memory/review-notes/*.md
|
||||
memory/ci-patterns/*.md
|
||||
memory/issue-clusters/*.json
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 9.3 Important caution
|
||||
|
||||
Do not store secrets, tokens, or unpublished sensitive data in repo memory.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 10. Rollout Plan
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 0: Preparation
|
||||
|
||||
- install `gh-aw` locally for maintainers
|
||||
- add a short `/.github/gh-aw/README.md`
|
||||
- document workflow naming and review expectations
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 1: Read-only semantic review
|
||||
|
||||
- introduce `aw-pr-maintainer-review.md`
|
||||
- introduce `aw-release-preflight.md`
|
||||
- keep outputs limited to summaries and comments
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 2: Diagnostics and memory
|
||||
|
||||
- introduce `aw-ci-audit.md`
|
||||
- enable `agentic-workflows:` where useful
|
||||
- add constrained `repo-memory` configuration for repeated failure patterns
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 3: Maintenance automation
|
||||
|
||||
- add docs drift patrol
|
||||
- add issue maintenance workflow
|
||||
- consider limited code-change proposals only after trust is established
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 11. Local Maintainer Setup
|
||||
|
||||
For local experimentation and debugging:
|
||||
|
||||
### 11.1 Install CLI
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
curl -sL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/github/gh-aw/main/install-gh-aw.sh | bash
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 11.2 Useful commands
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
gh aw version
|
||||
gh aw compile
|
||||
gh aw status
|
||||
gh aw run aw-pr-maintainer-review
|
||||
gh aw logs
|
||||
gh aw audit <run-id>
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 11.3 VS Code MCP integration
|
||||
|
||||
A future optional improvement is adding `gh aw mcp-server` to local MCP configuration so workflow introspection tools are available in editor-based agent sessions.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 12. Recommended First Deliverables
|
||||
|
||||
Start with these two workflows only:
|
||||
|
||||
1. `aw-pr-maintainer-review.md`
|
||||
2. `aw-release-preflight.md`
|
||||
|
||||
This gives the repository the highest-value upgrade with the lowest operational risk.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 13. Success Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
Adoption is working if:
|
||||
|
||||
- PR review comments become more specific and repository-aware
|
||||
- release preparation catches missing docs or version sync earlier
|
||||
- CI failures produce actionable summaries faster
|
||||
- maintainers spend less time on repetitive policy review
|
||||
- deterministic workflows remain stable and unchanged in core behavior
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 14. Summary
|
||||
|
||||
For `openwebui-extensions`, `gh-aw` should be adopted as an intelligent maintenance layer.
|
||||
|
||||
- Keep current YAML workflows for execution.
|
||||
- Add agentic workflows for policy-aware review and diagnosis.
|
||||
- Start read-only.
|
||||
- Expand only after signal quality is proven.
|
||||
|
||||
This approach aligns with the repository's existing strengths: strong conventions, bilingual maintenance, plugin lifecycle complexity, and growing repository operations.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user