🔍 Agentic Workflow Audit Report - 2025-10-28 #2651
Replies: 2 comments 2 replies
-
|
/q read this issue #2651 and answer why does the reference links got redacted e.g. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Agentic Q triggered by this discussion comment. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Answer: Why Reference Links Get RedactedThe URLs are being redacted because of security sanitization that's applied to all content from issues, PRs, and comments before it's passed to AI agents. What's Happening
The Security Feature Working as DesignedFrom the codebase analysis, the sanitization system:
Why This MattersIf you're looking at a discussion or issue that contains workflow run URLs (like the cost analysis in #2651), those URLs are treated as potentially untrusted content from the issue body. The system sanitizes them to prevent malicious actors from embedding harmful links in issues that could:
The Correct Way To Access Workflow Run URLsWhen working with workflow data directly (not reading from issue content), you should access the URL from the workflow run metadata itself, not from sanitized text: // ✅ CORRECT: Get URL from workflow run data
const workflowRunURL = runData.url; // Direct from API
// ❌ WRONG: Parse URL from sanitized issue content
const url = extractURLFrom(needs.activation.outputs.text); // Will be redactedFor The Q WorkflowIf Q needs to work with workflow run URLs mentioned in issues/discussions, it should:
This is a security-by-design feature, not a bug. The redaction protects against malicious content while still allowing workflow IDs (numbers) to pass through safely. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
This discussion was automatically closed because it was created by an agentic workflow more than 1 month ago. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
🔍 Agentic Workflow Audit Report - 2025-10-28
Repository: githubnext/gh-aw
Audit Period: Last 24 hours (2025-10-27 to 2025-10-28)
Audit Run: §18860097838
Audit Summary
I analyzed 127 workflow runs from the last 24 hours to assess the health, performance, and reliability of agentic workflows in this repository.
Overall Health Status: GOOD ✅
Key Highlights
✅ Strengths:
Full Report Details
Workflow Run Statistics
Success vs Failure Distribution
Workflows Active in Last 24 Hours
The following workflows had executions during the audit period:
Most Active Workflows:
Missing Tools Analysis
Total Missing Tool Reports: 1
Analysis
The daily-firewall-report workflow reported needing direct GitHub Actions API access for downloading and analyzing firewall logs. The agent identified that the gh-aw MCP server already provides the necessary functionality through the
logscommand, suggesting this is a case of the agent not being aware of the available MCP tools rather than a genuine missing tool.Recommendation: Update the workflow prompt to explicitly mention the gh-aw MCP server's
logstool for downloading and analyzing workflow artifacts.Priority: Medium - Workaround exists via MCP server
Failed Workflows Analysis
Total Failed Workflows: 12 distinct workflows with 21 total failures
Workflows by Failure Count
High Priority Failures
1. Changeset Generator (5 failures) 🚨
Impact: Critical - Prevents automated PR generation from agent output
Pattern: Multiple failures indicate systematic issue rather than transient problem
Recommended Actions:
2. Scout Workflow (5 failures) 🚨
Impact: High - Research and investigation workflow frequently failing
Pattern: 5 failures suggest persistent issue with workflow configuration or agent behavior
Recommended Actions:
Medium Priority Failures
CLI Version Checker (2 failures)⚠️
Impact: Medium - Version tracking may have gaps
Recommended Actions:
MCP Server Health
Status: ✅ EXCELLENT
Total MCP Server Failures: 0
All MCP servers configured in workflows operated without failures during the audit period. This indicates:
MCP Servers in Use:
Performance Analysis
Cost and Token Usage
Top 5 High-Cost Runs:
Analysis
High-value workflows: The highest-cost runs are delivering significant value:
Cost is justified given the scope and impact of these workflows.
Token Usage Patterns
Error Analysis
Total Errors Logged: 1,677 across 127 runs
Average Errors per Run: ~13 errors
Note: Many logged "errors" in the agent-stdio.log are actually normal JSON-formatted messages from the agent's conversation flow, not true failures. The error detection pattern may be overly sensitive to JSON objects containing the word "error" in tool results.
Error Categories (High-Level)
Based on sampling of error logs:
Recommendation: Refine error detection patterns to distinguish between actual errors and normal operational logs.
Firewall Analysis
Note: Firewall logs were not included in the audit data retrieved. The gh-aw logs MCP tool returned workflow run data but did not include aggregated firewall statistics.
Recommendation: For future audits, explicitly request firewall log analysis or fetch firewall artifacts separately.
Recommendations
Critical Priority (Immediate Action Required)
Investigate Changeset Generator failures 🚨
Investigate Scout workflow failures 🚨
High Priority (Short-term improvements)
Improve overall success rate from 75.6% to 90%+⚠️
Update daily-firewall-report workflow prompt⚠️
logstool in workflow promptMedium Priority (Process improvements)
Refine error detection patterns
Add retry logic to CLI Version Checker
Low Priority (Monitoring and observation)
Monitor single-failure workflows
Establish success rate baselines
Historical Context
This is the first comprehensive agentic workflow audit for this repository.
Baseline Metrics Established:
Future audits will compare against this baseline to track:
Next Steps
Immediate (This Week)
Short-term (Next 2 Weeks)
Long-term (Next Month)
Conclusion
The agentic workflow ecosystem is in good health overall, with excellent infrastructure stability (0 MCP failures) and a well-equipped tool ecosystem (only 1 missing tool). However, the success rate of 75.6% is below the optimal target of 90%+, driven primarily by systematic failures in Changeset Generator and Scout workflows.
Key Focus Areas:
Positive Indicators:
With focused effort on the top 2 failing workflows, the overall success rate could improve from 75.6% to 85-90% in the next 2 weeks.
Audit Date: 2025-10-28
Period: Last 24 hours
Total Runs Analyzed: 127
Audit Run: §18860097838
References:
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions