fix: defer checks from read-only investigation

[loadinglucian]

Summary

• declare downstream check execution as an investigation non-goal
• prevent read-only investigation from rerunning writable exact-head validation
• add regression coverage for the phase boundary

Verification

• ./scripts/test.sh
• shellcheck scripts/*.sh
• cross-repository A00-A20 verifier

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation

  • Clarified that required checks are downstream merge gates and are not executed during the investigation phase.
  • Documented that pending required checks should not be treated as unresolved investigation issues.

• Maintenance

  • Updated workflow metadata to explicitly exclude required-check execution from investigation scope.

• Tests

  • Added coverage to verify the documented investigation behavior and workflow configuration.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@loadinglucian, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 55 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: f90b2fb9-7d01-43e7-abf2-154a37dbf10b

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 51d2d45 and 7763078.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• test/test_maintenance.py

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The investigation guidance and event contract now exclude required-check execution from the read-only phase, while a new test verifies the documented boundary.

Changes

Maintenance Investigation Contract

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Investigation contract and regression coverage .github/codex/maintenance/investigation.md, .github/workflows/maintenance-consumer.yml, test/test_maintenance.py	Investigation instructions defer requiredChecks to downstream exact-head gates, the workflow records required_check_execution as a non-goal, and a test verifies both declarations.

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~3 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• Bigpixelrocket/mise-php#8: Introduced the investigation guidance and maintenance consumer workflow extended here.
• Bigpixelrocket/mise-php#17: Adds workflow dispatch and recording for required check runs that this change defers to downstream jobs.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title matches the main change: deferring validation checks out of read-only investigation.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description includes the required Summary and Verification sections, though the Security section from the template is missing.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
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 💡

• Fix failing CI checks

📝 Generate docstrings

• Create stacked PR
• Commit on current branch

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch fix/investigation-check-boundary

---

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.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Inline comments:
In `@test/test_maintenance.py`:
- Around line 73-79: Strengthen
test_investigation_defers_required_checks_to_writable_jobs by asserting the
complete nonGoals declaration in maintenance-consumer.yml, including
"required_check_execution", and verify investigation.md states that required
checks are neither run nor treated as unresolved during read-only investigation.
Replace the standalone substring assertion with contract-level checks that
ensure the key remains inside nonGoals.

🪄 Autofix (Beta)

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

• Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
• Create a new PR with the fixes

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: e347d553-eddb-475e-873b-671eb64b6616

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 984a3de and 51d2d45.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)

• .github/codex/maintenance/investigation.md
• .github/workflows/maintenance-consumer.yml
• test/test_maintenance.py