Epic: AI Workflows — GitHub Actions automation for the issue/PR lifecycle

[mekarpeles]

Summary

Track the migration of PAM's issue/PR automation from ad-hoc polling scripts (pam.py, run from ~/Projects/openlibrary-pam and ~/Projects/pm) to GitHub Actions triggered directly on repo events, using a Claude subscription token — the pattern first established for i18n (#13061). This is also the vehicle for replacing the code-review coverage lost when GitHub discontinued free Copilot credits for open-source maintainers.

Sub-initiatives

• Issue Enricher feat(agentic): Richy issue enrichment via claude-code-action #13075
• PR Auto-Responder — first-touch welcome comment on new contributor PRs, wait-time estimate, PR description completeness check. Logic already exists as a polling-based workflow (see pr-prereview.md in the pm PAM repo), currently run via pam.py prs; needs porting to a GH Action the same way issue enrichment was. feat(agentic): PR auto-responder via claude-code-action #13164
• Code Review Action — an @openlibrary-bot-driven code review, triggered when staff request it as a PR reviewer or @-mention it directly in a PR comment (staff-only trigger, for security). Should post inline suggestion-style comments on specific code blocks/lines, similar to Copilot's review UX. On re-trigger, should review only the diff since its last pass, not the whole PR again. Needs research into how Copilot structures its inline review comments before design starts.
• Issue Follower — fires whenever an issue receives a new comment from a non-openlibrary-bot actor. Fine to ship as a no-op initially; the eventual goal is correct re-labeling (e.g. clearing Needs: Response once a lead replies).

Related / prior art

• Migrate i18n translation pipeline to internetarchive/openlibrary-i18n #13061 — i18n pipeline migration to openlibrary-i18n; established the Claude-token GitHub Action pattern this epic reuses.
• feat(agentic): Richy issue enrichment via claude-code-action #13075 — Issue Enrichment via claude-code-action (already shipped: .github/workflows/issue_enrichment.yml) — first working example of this pattern for an OL-native (non-i18n) workflow.
• openlibrary-bot comments trigger "Needs: Response" labeling #13138 — openlibrary-bot's own comments incorrectly triggering Needs: Response — an instance of the general "ignore our own bot's actions" problem every automation under this epic needs to avoid repeating.

Cross-cutting rule

Every action under this epic must explicitly ignore actions taken by openlibrary-bot itself (its own comments/edits) to avoid feedback loops.

[openlibrary-bot]

⚠️ Contributors, this issue will be ready to work on once:

• Triage — maintainers will add Priority: * and Lead: @*
• Needs: Investigation — the Code Review Action sub-initiative explicitly requires research into how Copilot structures its inline review comments before design can start
• Needs: Breakdown — two of the three sub-initiatives (Code Review Action, Issue Follower) have no standalone tracking issue yet, and PR Auto-Responder's is explicitly noted as unfiled

---

Context

• The epic's baseline assumption — that Issue Enrichment (#13075) is "already shipped" — only became fully true today. issue_enrichment.yml rejected every issue opened by a non-maintainer from 2026-07-07 onward due to an actor-permission gate in claude-code-action; the fix (#13154) merged 2026-07-15, the same day this epic was opened.
• The Copilot/gh-aw-based predecessor this epic's pattern replaced is still present in the tree: issue_refinement.md and its compiled issue_refinement.lock.yml (1144 lines, per #13075's own description). The corresponding GitHub Actions workflow ("Issue Refinement Assistant") is disabled_manually, but the files were never removed — candidate cleanup under this epic's "Theme: Bots" scope.
• #13138 (openlibrary-bot's own comments incorrectly triggering Needs: Response) — cited by this epic's cross-cutting rule — is still open and unresolved (Needs: Response, Needs: Staff Decision). Every sub-initiative that follows the "ignore our own bot" rule will need to either depend on that fix or reimplement the same guard independently.
• Existing, already-shipped PR-lifecycle automation that the PR Auto-Responder and Issue Follower sub-initiatives should coordinate with rather than duplicate: new_pr_labeler.mjs (labels/assigns new PRs from their linked issue), pr_changes_requested.yml (labels Needs: Submitter Input on changes-requested), and pm_stale_pr_messenger.yml (nags stale PRs waiting on submitter input).

---

Issue Assessment

Open questions

• Should Code Review Action's staff-only trigger reuse the allowed_non_write_users actor-permission pattern just fixed in #13154, or does a code-review action — which would presumably need broader tool access to read/comment on PR diffs — warrant a stricter actor gate given the larger blast radius versus the issue-only tool scope issue_enrichment.yml uses?
• Should the three sub-initiatives block on #13138 landing first (shared "ignore self" utility), or ship independently and retrofit once it's resolved?

Action items

• Confirm whether PR Auto-Responder has been filed as its own tracking issue yet (Answer: no — searched open and closed issues for matching titles/keywords, found none).
• File the standalone tracking issue for PR Auto-Responder, porting the pam.py prs / pr-prereview.md logic referenced in the epic body.
• File the standalone tracking issue for Code Review Action, gated on the Copilot inline-review-comment research called out in the epic body.
• File the standalone tracking issue for Issue Follower (a no-op first pass is acceptable per the epic body).
• Decide whether to remove the superseded issue_refinement.md / issue_refinement.lock.yml now that the disabled workflow they define has no active successor role left to play.

Suggested breakdown

• File tracking issue: PR Auto-Responder
• File tracking issue: Code Review Action (blocked on Copilot inline-review research)
• File tracking issue: Issue Follower
• Remove/retire issue_refinement.md + issue_refinement.lock.yml
• Land #13138 fix as a shared "ignore openlibrary-bot" utility usable by all three sub-initiatives

None of the above are Good First Issue candidates — each requires GitHub Actions/automation context and coordination with the external pam/pm repos referenced in the epic body.

---

🔔 Stakeholders

@jimchamp — owns the existing PR-lifecycle automation (new_pr_labeler.mjs/.yml) that PR Auto-Responder and Issue Follower would sit alongside; worth a look given file-ownership overlap.

---

Full triage checklist

• Triage — Needs: Lead, Needs: Triage, Needs: Breakdown, Needs: Investigation applied this pass; Priority:/Lead: still pending staff
• Problem / opportunity — problem, audience (maintainers/contributors relying on issue/PR automation), and rationale are clear
• Scope — bundling three sub-initiatives is expected for an Epic; each is independently well-defined
• Justification — motivation stated (replace polling scripts, replace lost Copilot credits) but no measurable success metric for the epic as a whole
• Success & testing criteria — no epic-level "done" definition; each sub-initiative needs its own
• Proposal & breakdown — two of three sub-initiatives lack a filed tracking issue
• If bug: environment & repro steps — not applicable, this is an Epic, not a bug
• Risks, concerns, open questions — surfaced above
• Richy context — codebase, git history, and related issues/PRs reviewed; no duplicate epic found
• References — related issues (#13061, #13075, #13138) already linked in the epic body

---

Note

This comment was automatically generated by Richy, Open Library's issue enrichment assistant, on behalf of @mekarpeles. This is NOT a sign-off. This issue needs lead review before work begins.

[mekarpeles]

Filed #13161 — the issue-enrichment write-permission bypass (#13154) is not yet confirmed working for real non-write actors; likely a GitHub Actions workflow-resolution lag for issues-triggered events. See that issue for full evidence.

[mekarpeles]

Filed #13162 — PR auto-responder port, first sub-initiative tracking issue.

[mekarpeles]

Filed #13163 — Code Review Action (Copilot replacement), second sub-initiative tracking issue.