feat: support runtime/dynamic reviewers, team-reviewers, and assignees in create-pull-request

[Copilot]

reviewers, team-reviewers, and assignees on create-pull-request only accepted static lists, making it impossible to route a created PR to the triggering actor or any value resolved at runtime. Additionally, assignees was only applied to fallback issues, not the created PR itself.

Changes

Go — registry & config

• safe_outputs_handler_registry.go: AddStringSlice → AddTemplatableStringSlice for reviewers, team_reviewers, assignees — enables ${{ }} expression passthrough
• create_pull_request.go: updated field doc comments
• tool_description_enhancer.go: surface assignees constraint in tool description

JS handler

• create_pull_request.cjs: adds github.rest.issues.addAssignees call on the created PR after the existing reviewer logic (PRs use the Issues API for assignment); assignees now applies to both the PR and any fallback issue
• Log message updated from "for fallback issues" → "for pull request and fallback issues"

Tests

• Go: 8 new cases in TestParsePullRequestsConfigExpressionFields / TestHandlerConfigExpressionFields covering expression-valued reviewers, team-reviewers, and assignees
• JS: 4 new it() tests for PR-level assignee addition, no-op, failure handling, and copilot-stripped paths

Docs

• Updated field comments and added a new subsection documenting expression support with a cross-repo example

Example

safe-outputs:
  create-pull-request:
    reviewers: ${{ github.event.pull_request.user.login }}
    team-reviewers: ${{ inputs.review-team }}
    assignees: ${{ github.event.pull_request.user.login }}

[github-actions]

🧠 Matt Pocock Skills Reviewer has completed the skills-based review. ✅

[github-actions]

✅ Design Decision Gate 🏗️ completed the design decision gate check.

No ADR enforcement needed: PR does not have the 'implementation' label and has ≤100 new lines of code in business logic directories (default_business_additions=0).

[github-actions]

✅ PR Code Quality Reviewer completed the code quality review.

[github-actions]

✅ Test Quality Sentinel completed test quality analysis.

No test files were added or modified in this PR. Test Quality Sentinel skipped.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This pull request updates the generated Agentic Maintenance workflow, adjusting the actions/checkout configuration for steps that sparse-checkout the actions/ directory.

Changes:

• Add clean: false to all “Checkout actions folder” steps that use sparse-checkout: actions in the maintenance workflow.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
.github/workflows/agentics-maintenance.yml	Updates checkout step inputs for sparse actions/ checkouts by setting clean: false.

Review details

Tip

Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

• Files reviewed: 1/1 changed files
• Comments generated: 1
• Review effort level: Low

[github-actions]

Skills-Based Review 🧠

Applied /codebase-design — requesting changes primarily due to a critical mismatch between the PR title/description and the actual diff.

📋 Key Themes & Findings

🚨 Critical: PR Description Does Not Match the Diff

The PR title is "feat: support runtime/dynamic reviewers, team-reviewers, and assignees in create-pull-request" and the body describes extensive Go, JS, test, and documentation changes. However, the actual diff contains only one changed file — .github/workflows/agentics-maintenance.yml — with 8 identical additions of clean: false to sparse-checkout steps.

The described feature changes (Go registry updates, JS handler additions, new tests, docs) are not present in this PR. Possible explanations:

• The feature implementation was never pushed to this branch.
• This PR was opened on the wrong branch.
• The PR description was generated from a different task and copy-pasted here.

Action needed: Either (a) push the actual feature implementation to this branch, or (b) update the PR title/description to accurately reflect the clean: false workflow maintenance that was actually committed.

Actual Change: clean: false in Sparse Checkouts

The eight clean: false additions are a legitimate workflow maintenance pattern — they prevent git from removing files outside the sparse-checkout scope so that downstream steps can still access them. However, the motivation is undocumented, making it hard to verify correctness for all 8 jobs (see inline comment).

Positive Highlights

• ✅ The change itself is applied consistently across all affected jobs.
• ✅ Pairing clean: false with persist-credentials: false is a good hygiene combination.

🧠 Reviewed using Matt Pocock's skills by Matt Pocock Skills Reviewer · 34.2 AIC · ⌖ 10.1 AIC · ⊞ 6.6K
_{Comment /matt to run again}

[github-actions]

🔎 Code quality review by PR Code Quality Reviewer · 47.1 AIC · ⌖ 10.7 AIC · ⊞ 1.6K
_{Comment /review to run again}

[pelikhan]

@copilot run pr-finisher skill

[Copilot]

@copilot run pr-finisher skill

Handled in 3b565e7. I ran the PR finisher pass, restored the accidental workflow-only diff, pushed the intended create-pull-request changes, and validated locally; CI on this head still needs a maintainer to re-trigger.

[pelikhan]

@copilot add integration workflow tests in pkg/cli/workflows

[Copilot]

@copilot add integration workflow tests in pkg/cli/workflows

Addressed in 1dd6047. I added a canonical runtime-routing workflow fixture in pkg/cli/workflows plus a CLI integration test that compiles it and verifies the runtime reviewers, team-reviewers, and assignees expressions are preserved in the compiled handler config.

done