[github-docs-seo] Improve Agentic Workflows discoverability in automation docs from a 10-session baseline #63558

[
  {
    "request": "Set up a script and CI job that triages new bug reports every morning by labeling likely duplicates, flagging missing repro steps, and posting a short summary comment for maintainers.",
    "options": [
      {
        "rank": 1,
        "name": "Scheduled GitHub Actions workflow with a custom Octokit or github-script triage step",
        "reason": "Best fit: fully GitHub-native, runs every morning on a cron schedule, can query new issues, apply duplicate or needs-repro labels, and post a concise maintainer summary comment with no extra infrastructure."
      },
      {
        "rank": 2,
        "name": "Issue Forms plus a scheduled GitHub Actions validator",
        "reason": "Best if you can standardize bug intake: Issue Forms make repro-step checks reliable, while the daily Actions job handles duplicate detection and summary comments. Slightly more setup, but much better signal quality."
      },
      {
        "rank": 3,
        "name": "GitHub App-based triage bot with a daily run",
        "reason": "Best for larger or multi-repo triage where you want richer logic, persistence, or stronger heuristics, but it adds deployment and maintenance overhead compared with a simple scheduled Actions workflow."
      }
    ],
    "documentation_pages": []
  },
  {
    "request": "In this Python repo, automate weekly dependency maintenance: update patch/minor versions, run the existing test suite, and open a changelog-style summary of what changed and what failed.",
    "options": [
      {
        "rank": 1,
        "name": "Dependabot version updates + existing GitHub Actions PR CI",
        "reason": "Best native fit: Dependabot can open weekly patch/minor dependency PRs for Python, your existing test workflow runs on those PRs, and the PR itself serves as the summary surface with changed dependencies and pass/fail checks."
      },
      {
        "rank": 2,
        "name": "Dependabot grouped weekly updates + GitHub Actions PR summary comment/job summary",
        "reason": "Best if you want a more changelog-style rollup: group patch/minor updates into a single weekly PR, then use Actions to append a concise markdown summary of updated packages plus any failing tests."
      },
      {
        "rank": 3,
        "name": "Scheduled GitHub Actions maintenance workflow that updates deps and opens a PR or issue",
        "reason": "Best for maximum control: a weekly scheduled workflow can run your package-manager update command, execute tests, and open a fully custom report showing exactly what changed and what failed, but it requires more implementation than Dependabot."
      }
    ],
    "documentation_pages": []
  },
  {
    "request": "Create a recurring report that scans the last 7 days of merged PRs in this Node.js project and generates a markdown summary of bug fixes, features, and risky areas for the team standup.",
    "options": [
      {
        "rank": 1,
        "name": "Scheduled GitHub Actions workflow with a Node.js script and GitHub API",
        "reason": "Best fit: fully GitHub-native, runs on a cron schedule, matches a Node.js codebase, can query merged PRs from the last 7 days, classify them by labels/files/titles, and output a markdown report as a workflow summary, artifact, or committed file."
      },
      {
        "rank": 2,
        "name": "Scheduled GitHub Actions workflow using actions/github-script",
        "reason": "Strong low-overhead option: keeps the logic inline in the workflow, uses GitHub-supported JavaScript automation, and can generate/post markdown directly to an issue, discussion, or PR comment without maintaining a separate app or service."
      },
      {
        "rank": 3,
        "name": "Reusable GitHub Actions workflow for weekly PR reporting",
        "reason": "Best if the team wants the same report pattern across multiple repositories: package the reporting logic once, schedule it per repo, and keep the markdown output format consistent. Slightly more setup than needed for a single project."
      }
    ],
    "documentation_pages": []
  },
  {
    "request": "Add an automation that checks for stale docs whenever API handlers or CLI flags change, then opens a docs task with the affected files and suggested sections to update.",
    "options": [
      {
        "rank": 1,
        "name": "GitHub Actions workflow on pull_request with path filters and issue creation",
        "reason": "Best fit: fully native, easy to keep in-repo, and can diff changed API/CLI files, map them to doc pages/sections, then auto-open or update a labeled GitHub issue with affected files and suggested doc updates."
      },
      {
        "rank": 2,
        "name": "GitHub App that watches pull_request events and creates docs issues",
        "reason": "Best when detection logic is more advanced or needs to work across many repositories; a GitHub App can inspect changed files, apply richer heuristics, and create linked docs tasks consistently."
      },
      {
        "rank": 3,
        "name": "Reusable GitHub Actions workflow consumed by multiple repositories",
        "reason": "Strong choice if you want the same stale-docs check everywhere; centralizes the automation while still using native GitHub Actions and issue creation, with each repo supplying its own file-to-doc mapping."
      }
    ],
    "documentation_pages": []
  },
  {
    "request": "Wire up a nightly test workflow for this Go service that runs unit and integration tests, retries known flaky cases once, and saves a compact failure report developers can review in the morning.",
    "options": [
      {
        "rank": 1,
        "name": "Single scheduled GitHub Actions workflow with separate unit/integration jobs, targeted one-time retry logic, and an uploaded failure-report artifact",
        "reason": "Best fit: fully native, simple to operate, and matches the request directly. Use a nightly cron trigger, keep unit and integration isolated, rerun only known flaky tests once in-script, then publish a compact markdown or JSON report as both a job summary and artifact."
      },
      {
        "rank": 2,
        "name": "Reusable test workflow invoked by a nightly scheduler workflow",
        "reason": "Best when you also want the same test-and-report logic reused from PRs or manual runs. The scheduler stays tiny, while the reusable workflow owns suite selection, flaky retry handling, and artifact/report generation."
      },
      {
        "rank": 3,
        "name": "Scheduled matrix workflow with a final report-aggregation job",
        "reason": "Best for larger or slower Go services. Split unit and integration suites across matrix entries for faster completion, retry flaky cases once per shard, then merge results into one concise morning report artifact and summary."
      }
    ],
    "documentation_pages": [
      {
        "title": "Workflow syntax for GitHub Actions",
        "url": "https://docs.github.com/en/actions/writing-workflows/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions",
        "used_for": "Ranking options around a nightly scheduled workflow using GitHub Actions workflow syntax and cron-based triggers."
      },
      {
        "title": "Reuse workflows",
        "url": "https://docs.github.com/en/actions/sharing-automations/reusing-workflows",
        "used_for": "Recommending a reusable workflow as the second-best option for sharing the same nightly test logic across triggers."
      },
      {
        "title": "Using a matrix for your jobs",
        "url": "https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-jobs/using-a-matrix-for-your-jobs",
        "used_for": "Recommending a matrix-based option for parallelizing larger unit/integration test suites."
      },
      {
        "title": "Store and share data with workflow artifacts",
        "url": "https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/storing-workflow-data-as-artifacts",
        "used_for": "Supporting the recommendation to save a compact failure report developers can review later."
      },
      {
        "title": "Workflow commands for GitHub Actions",
        "url": "https://docs.github.com/en/actions/reference/workflow-commands-for-github-actions",
        "used_for": "Supporting the recommendation to publish a compact morning-readable job summary alongside the artifact."
      }
    ]
  },
  {
    "request": "Audit this repository for common security issues on a schedule: secrets in commits, unsafe shell usage in scripts, vulnerable dependencies, and missing permission hardening in CI.",
    "options": [
      {
        "rank": 1,
        "name": "GitHub Advanced Security with scheduled CodeQL, secret scanning, and Dependabot",
        "reason": "Best overall fit: native GitHub coverage for leaked secrets, vulnerable dependencies, and code/workflow security checks; schedule CodeQL on cron and use Dependabot alerts/updates for continuous auditing."
      },
      {
        "rank": 2,
        "name": "Scheduled GitHub Actions security workflow using official GitHub security actions",
        "reason": "Best when you want explicit policy-as-code in the repo: run on a cron schedule, execute CodeQL, and add repo-defined checks for unsafe shell patterns and overly broad workflow permissions."
      },
      {
        "rank": 3,
        "name": "GitHub Security Overview / Security Campaigns at the org level",
        "reason": "Best for centralized recurring governance across many repositories; weaker for repo-local custom shell/CI hardening rules, but strong for tracking and prioritizing ongoing security findings."
      }
    ],
    "documentation_pages": []
  },
  {
    "request": "Automate our release prep for this Rust crate: verify version bumps, regenerate release notes from merged PRs, confirm changelog entries exist, and fail if any required step is missing.",
    "options": [
      {
        "rank": 1,
        "name": "GitHub Actions workflow + GitHub autogenerated release notes",
        "reason": "Best end-to-end fit: a single workflow can validate Cargo version bumps and changelog entries, regenerate notes from merged PRs using GitHub Releases autogenerated notes, and hard-fail the run when any check is missing."
      },
      {
        "rank": 2,
        "name": "Release Drafter + GitHub Actions validation workflow",
        "reason": "Strong fit if you want release notes kept continuously up to date from merged PRs before the release; pair it with an Actions job that enforces version-bump and changelog requirements and blocks release prep on failure."
      },
      {
        "rank": 3,
        "name": "Reusable GitHub Actions workflow enforced by required status checks/rulesets",
        "reason": "Best when you want the same release-prep gate standardized and required across one or more crates; slightly more setup, but it centralizes the checks and ensures missing steps fail before release-related merges."
      }
    ],
    "documentation_pages": [
      {
        "title": "Automatically generated release notes",
        "url": "https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/releasing-projects-on-github/automatically-generated-release-notes",
        "used_for": "Supporting the recommendation to regenerate release notes from merged pull requests using GitHub's native release notes feature."
      },
      {
        "title": "Workflow syntax for GitHub Actions",
        "url": "https://docs.github.com/en/actions/reference/workflows-and-actions/workflow-syntax",
        "used_for": "Supporting the recommendation that a GitHub Actions workflow can run validation steps and fail the automation when required checks are missing."
      },
      {
        "title": "Reuse workflows",
        "url": "https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/reusing-workflows",
        "used_for": "Supporting the recommendation to centralize release-prep automation as a reusable workflow."
      },
      {
        "title": "About rulesets",
        "url": "https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/configuring-branches-and-merges-in-your-repository/managing-rulesets/about-rulesets",
        "used_for": "Supporting the recommendation to enforce the release-prep workflow with required checks before merge or release-related changes."
      }
    ]
  },
  {
    "request": "Build a maintenance command for this monorepo that finds inactive feature flags, unused packages, and outdated generated files, then produces a prioritized cleanup checklist.",
    "options": [
      {
        "rank": 1,
        "name": "GitHub Actions scheduled/workflow_dispatch maintenance audit",
        "reason": "Best fit for repeatable monorepo hygiene: implement one repo script/command, run it in Actions on schedule or on demand, and publish the prioritized checklist in the job summary, artifact, or an issue."
      },
      {
        "rank": 2,
        "name": "GitHub CLI-based maintenance command (`gh` wrapper around repo analyzers)",
        "reason": "Best fit if you want an actual operator-facing command: expose a single `gh`-invoked command that runs flag/package/generated-file checks locally or in CI and can optionally open/update a cleanup issue."
      },
      {
        "rank": 3,
        "name": "CodeQL/custom code scanning plus Actions for checklist generation",
        "reason": "Best fit when you want durable static-analysis signals in GitHub: use CodeQL or custom scanning for dead-flag and unused-code patterns, then combine with an Actions step to convert findings into a prioritized cleanup checklist."
      }
    ],
    "documentation_pages": []
  },
  {
    "request": "I’m new to this repo—please create an automation that turns new TODO comments with owner tags into tracked work items and posts a weekly summary grouped by team.",
    "options": [
      {
        "rank": 1,
        "name": "GitHub Actions + GitHub Issues/Projects",
        "reason": "Best fit: fully native, no separate hosting, and can react to new PR/issue/review comments, parse TODO owner tags, create tracked issues or project items, and post a scheduled weekly summary grouped by team."
      },
      {
        "rank": 2,
        "name": "GitHub App (webhooks) + GitHub Issues/Projects",
        "reason": "Best when this must scale across many repos or needs richer routing logic. A GitHub App can process comment webhooks in real time, create work items consistently, and generate one centralized weekly team digest, but it adds hosting and maintenance."
      },
      {
        "rank": 3,
        "name": "GitHub Projects automation + small scheduled Action",
        "reason": "Good if you want most tracking to live in Projects. Use lightweight automation to create/update project items and fields, then a scheduled Action to post the weekly grouped summary. Lower complexity, but weaker for parsing arbitrary TODO comments directly."
      }
    ],
    "documentation_pages": []
  },
  {
    "request": "For this Java/Spring app, add a recurring health check that reviews recent production-hotfix branches, compares them with main, and generates a report of unreleased fixes and release-blocking risks.",
    "options": [
      {
        "rank": 1,
        "name": "Scheduled GitHub Actions workflow with branch-diff script and Markdown report",
        "reason": "Best fit: fully native, runs on a cron schedule, can find hotfix branches by naming pattern, compare each branch to main via git or GitHub APIs, and publish a concise report as a job summary plus an issue/comment/artifact for tracking release-blocking risks."
      },
      {
        "rank": 2,
        "name": "Reusable GitHub Actions workflow shared across services",
        "reason": "Strong fit if this check should become a standard release-health control across multiple Java/Spring repos. It keeps the logic centralized while letting this app pass branch patterns, lookback windows, and reporting targets as inputs."
      },
      {
        "rank": 3,
        "name": "GitHub App or external scheduler that creates check runs/issues",
        "reason": "Best when you need richer policy logic, persistence, or org-wide reporting beyond one repository. It can still use GitHub-native surfaces for results, but it adds more setup and operational overhead than Actions."
      }
    ],
    "documentation_pages": []
  }
]