post-release-followup

name	post-release-followup
description	Analyze release workflow findings and recommend follow-up actions — execute immediately or register as issues
scope	harness
user-invocable	false
effort	medium

Post-Release Follow-up

Purpose

After PR creation in the auto-dev release workflow, collect unaddressed findings and present actionable follow-up recommendations. Genuine defects and process gaps are registered as GitHub issues automatically. Only code-changing immediate-action items require user confirmation.

Workflow

1. Collect Follow-up Candidates

Gather unfinished work from multiple sources:

Source A — Remaining verify-ready work:

• Run: gh issue list --label verify-ready --state open --json number,title,labels,milestone
• Treat this as the remaining automation queue, not verify-done.
• Exclude issues already assigned to the current release milestone/version; those belong to current-release verification, not follow-up.
• Deduplicate by issue number before joining this source with deep-verify, triage, TODO, and PR-review findings.

Source A2 — Human decision queue:

• Run separately: gh issue list --label decision-needed --state open --json number,title,labels,milestone
• Keep these items in a distinct human decision queue. Do not count them as auto-dev work, auto-register duplicates, or implement them without the required decision.

Source B — Deep-verify findings:

• Resolve the current release repository, semantic version, and exact verified 40-character lowercase merge SHA from direct release evidence. Do not infer identity from today's directory, file mtime, or a previous pipeline run.

• Resolve artifact_helper from the actual path of the currently loaded SKILL.md, never from $PWD or a hardcoded source/install/plugin root: take skills_root = dirname(dirname(loaded_skill_file)), then normalize join(skills_root, "deep-verify/scripts/artifact-contract.mjs"). Require that exact peer-skill helper to be a regular, non-symlink file. Missing or unsafe discovery blocks Source B; do not search another skills root.

• Invoke the deterministic selector with all three exact keys and redirect its JSON projection to a regular temporary data file; never interpolate finding text into a shell command:

  node "$artifact_helper" select \
    --project-root "$PWD" \
    --repository "$repository" \
    --release-version "$release_version" \
    --verified-sha "$verified_sha" >"$selection_file"
  

• Treat a nonzero selector result, a missing artifact, malformed frontmatter, a stale release, or a wrong SHA as a blocked Source B. Report the constant selector diagnostic and stop follow-up aggregation; never convert this state into zero findings and never fall back to an older artifact.

• If any canonical candidate's frontmatter JSON cannot be decoded, block the whole selector. Its metadata date and release correlation are unknowable, so mtime, filename time, regex recovery, and older-artifact fallback are all forbidden.

• Parse the validated JSON projection as data. Index the full findings.initial objects by stable id, then join findings.unresolved[].findingId to that index. Extract only unresolved findings whose original severity is MEDIUM or LOW. Do not treat initial, falsePositives, or fixed history as unfinished work.

• A successful exact selection with an empty filtered set is the only Source B state that means zero unresolved MEDIUM/LOW findings.

Compatibility artifact protocol

Sensitive-path compatibility note: when delegated work touches .claude/outputs/, .claude/**, or templates/.claude/**, keep .codex/** artifacts on the normal file-write path. On Claude Code v2.1.121+ with bypassPermissions, direct compatibility writes are allowed for .claude/skills/, .claude/agents/, and .claude/commands/; on v2.1.126+ broader protected paths are covered. Use /tmp/<skill>-<timestamp>.md only as a legacy fallback when the runtime is older or still prompts.

• Preserve each unresolved outcome's reason and safe evidence reference in deduplication; never copy raw artifact body text into issue-creation commands.

Source D — TODO markers in changed files:

• Run: git diff develop...HEAD --name-only to get changed files
• Search changed files for TODO, FIXME, HACK markers added in this release

Source E — PR review feedback:

• Run: gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr_number}/comments and gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{pr_number}/comments
• Parse omc_pr_analyzer bot comments (Senior Architect, Project Colleague, Professor Synthesis)
• Extract findings categorized as Critical, High, Medium
• Identify: required fixes, recommended improvements, structural concerns

2. Deduplicate and Categorize

Remove duplicates (same issue referenced from multiple sources or already present in the current milestone). Categorize:

Category	Criteria	Default Action
즉시 실행	P1/P2 잔여 이슈, MEDIUM+ 검증 발견사항, Critical/High PR 리뷰 발견사항	즉시 실행
이슈 등록	P3 이슈, LOW 검증 발견사항, 새 TODO, Medium PR 리뷰 발견사항	이슈로 등록
참고	이미 추적 중인 이슈, 외관 관련 메모	건너뛰기

Auto-Register Genuine Defects (no-ask)

Before presenting the summary to the user, auto-register every "이슈 등록" item that is a genuine defect or process gap. No user confirmation is required for these.

Auto-register if any condition applies:

• Genuine defect: bug, regression, broken behavior, or incorrect output observed during verification
• Process gap: workflow hole, missing guard, or coverage gap surfaced by deep-verify or triage
• Coverage gap: missing test, documentation, or automation for a known scenario

Do not auto-register pure cosmetic/style preferences or subjective notes. When ambiguous, lean toward registering; missing a genuine defect costs a future session.

Use gh issue create --repo baekenough/oh-my-customcodex --body-file <path> with professor plus a priority label. Default auto-registered items to P3; escalate to P2 for MEDIUM+ severity. Write the complete body to a local file first so shell quoting cannot corrupt evidence.

3. Present to User

Auto-register genuine defects first. Then display follow-up summary showing what was already registered and what still needs a decision:

[Follow-up] {n}개 후속 작업 발견

━━━ 자동 등록 완료 ({count}개) ━━━
  ✓ #{issue_number} — {description} (이미 등록됨)

━━━ 즉시 실행 추천 ({count}개) ━━━
  1. {description} — 출처: {source}
  2. {description} — 출처: {source}

━━━ 참고 사항 ({count}개) ━━━
  3. {description} — 이미 #{issue_number}로 추적 중

즉시 실행 항목 선택:
  [A] 추천대로 실행 (즉시 실행 항목 모두 실행)
  [B] 개별 선택 (항목별로 질문)
  [C] 건너뛰기

Use AskUserQuestion (or equivalent user prompt) only if there are "즉시 실행" items. If there are none, skip the prompt and complete automatically.

4. Process User Choice

Option A (추천대로):

• "Immediate" items → delegate to appropriate specialist agents for execution
• Trackable defect/process-gap items were already auto-registered
• "Informational" items → skip

Option B (개별 선택):

• For each immediate item, ask: [{n}] {description} — 실행(E) / 건너뛰기(S)?
• Process each per user choice

Option C (건너뛰기):

• Skip all follow-up actions
• Complete workflow

5. Report

[Follow-up Complete]
├── 즉시 실행: {n}개 완료
├── 이슈 등록: {n}개 (#{numbers})
├── 건너뛰기: {n}개
└── 총 처리: {total}개

Issue Creation Template

For auto-registered genuine defects / process gaps:

body_file=$(mktemp)
title_file=$(mktemp)
cleanup_issue_files() { rm -f "$body_file" "$title_file"; }
trap cleanup_issue_files EXIT
cat >"$body_file" <<'EOF'
## 출처

v{version} 릴리즈 워크플로우에서 자동 등록.

## 컨텍스트

{triage/verify에서의 상세 컨텍스트}

## 권장 조치

{권장 사항}
EOF

cat >"$title_file" <<'EOF'
{간결한 설명}
EOF
title=$(cat "$title_file")

issue_url=$(gh issue create \
  --repo baekenough/oh-my-customcodex \
  --title "$title" \
  --body-file "$body_file" \
  --label "professor" \
  --label "{P2|P3}")
issue_number=${issue_url##*/}
gh issue view "$issue_number" \
  --repo baekenough/oh-my-customcodex \
  --json number,title,body,labels
cleanup_issue_files
trap - EXIT

Add priority label (P1, P2, P3) based on categorization. Default for auto-registered items: P3; escalate to P2 for MEDIUM+ severity.

Notes

• This skill runs in the main conversation context (via workflow skill step)
• Genuine defect/process gap items are auto-registered as issues without user confirmation
• Only "즉시 실행" code-changing items require user confirmation
• All file modifications delegated to specialist subagents per R010
• Issue creation is an explicit mutation and must use the reviewed body file plus direct issue readback
• If no follow-up candidates found, report "No follow-up actions needed" and complete
• PR review feedback is available shortly after PR creation — the omc_pr_analyzer bot comments automatically