replace github.com/Masterminds/semver/v3 => github.com/Masterminds/semver/v3 v3.4.0
There is just so much going wrong here.
I stopped using GH actions when I ran into this issue: https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/151956#discuss...
That was almost a year ago and to this date I still get updates of people falling into the same issue.
The solution seems simple. Buy their product.
That's why it's an issue.
I literally do not use it, and no my account isn’t compromised. Trying to trick people into paying? Seems cartoonishly stupid but…
Especially on the angle of automatic/continuos improvement (https://github.github.io/gh-aw/blog/2026-01-13-meet-the-work...)
Often code is seen as an artifact, that it is valuable by itself. This was an incomplete view before, and it is now a completely wrong view.
What is valuable is how code encode the knowledge of the organization building it.
But what it is even more valuable, is that knowledge itself. Embedded into the people of the organization.
Which is why continuos and automatic improvement of a codebase is so important. We all know that code rot with time/features requests.
But at the same time, abruptly change the whole codebase architecture destroys the mental model of the people in the organization.
What I believe will work, is a slow stream of small improvements - stream that can be digested by the people in the organization.
In this context I find more useful to mix and control deterministic execution with a sprinkle of intelligence on top. So a deterministic system that figure out what is wrong - with whatever definition of wrong that makes sense. And then LLMs to actually fix the problem, when necessary.
This is on GitHub's official account. For some reason GitHub is deploying this on GitHub pages without a different domain?
So this being from github.github.io implies it's published by the "github" account on github.
I would say that GitHub is particularly bad about this as they also use `github.blog` for announcements. I'm not sure if they have any others, but then that's the problem, you can't expect people to magically know which of your different domains are and aren't real if you use more than one. They even announced the github.com SSH key change on github.blog.
We recently moved this out of the githubnext org to the github org, but short of dedicating some route in github.com/whatever, github.github.io is the domain for pages from the github org.
It’s not like someone else can or could own this link, could they?
I tried out `gh aw init` and hit Y at the wrong prompt. It created a COPILOT_GITHUB_TOKEN on the github repo I happened to be in presumably with a token from my account. That's something that really should have an extra confirmation.
Given GitHub’s already lackluster reputation around security in GHA, I think I’d like to see them address some of GHA’s fundamental weaknesses before layering additional abstractions atop it.
But the implementation is comically awful.
Sure, you can "just write natural language" instructions and hope for the best.
But they couldn't fully get away from their old demons and you still have to pay the YAML tax to set the necessary guardrails.
I can't help but laugh at their example: https://github.com/github/gh-aw?tab=readme-ov-file#how-it-wo...
They wrote 16 words in Markdown and... 19 in YAML.
Because you can't trust the agent, you still have to write tons on gibberish YAML.
I'm trying to understand it, but first you give permissions, here they only provide read permissions.
And then give output permissions, which are actually write permissions on a smaller scope than the previous ones.
Obviously they also absolve themselves from anything wrong that could happen by telling users to be careful.
And they also suggest to setup an egress firewall to avoid the agents being too loose: https://github.com/github/gh-aw-firewall
Why setting-up an actual workflow engine on an infra managed by IT with actual security tooling when you can just stick together a few bits of YAML and Markdown on Github, right?
because helping you isn't the goal
the goal is to generate revenue by consuming tokens
and a never ending swarm of "AI" "agents" is a fantastic way to do that
If I had a nice CI/CD workflow that was built into GitHub rather than rolling my own that I have running locally, that might just make it a little more automatic and a little easier.
The sensible case for this is for delivering human-facing project documentation, not actual code. (E.g. ask the AI agent to write its own "code review" report after looking at recent commits.) It's implemented using CI/CD solutions under the hood, but not real CI/CD.
This is early research out of GitHub Next building on our continuous AI [1] theme, so we'd love for you to kick the tires and share your thoughts. We'd be happy to answer questions, give support, whatever you need. One of the key goals of this project is to figure out how to put guardrails around agents running in GitHub actions. You can read more about our security architecture [1], but at a high level we do the following:
- We run the agent in a sandbox, with minimal to no access to secrets - We run the agent in a firewall, so it can only access the sites you specify - We have created a system called "*safe outputs*" that limits what write operations the agent can perform to only the ones you specify. For example, if you create an Agentic Workflow that should only comment on an issue, it will not be able to open a new issue, propose a PR, etc. - We run MCPs inside their own sandboxes, so an attacker can’t leverage a compromised server to break out or affect other components
We find that there's something very compelling about the shape of this — delegating chores to agents in the same way that we delegate CI to actions. It's certainly not perfect yet, but we're finding new applications for this every day and teams at GitHub are already creating agentic workflows for their own purposes, whether it's engineering or issue management or PR hygiene.
> Why is it on github.github.io and not github.com?
GitHub Pages domains are always ORGNAME.github.io. Now that we've moved the repo over to the `github` org, that's the domain. When this graduates from being a technology preview to a full-on product, we imagine it'll get a spot on github.com/somewhere.
> Why is GitHub Next exploring this?
Our job at GitHub is to build applications that leverage the latest technology. There are a lot of applications of _asynchronous_ AI which we suspect might become way bigger than _synchronous_ AI. Agentic Workflows can do things that are not possible without an LLM. For example, there's no linter in existence that can tell me if my documentation and my code has diverged. That's just one new capability. We think there's a huge category of these things here and the only way to make it good is to … make it!
> Where can I go to talk with folks about this and see what others are cooking with it?
https://gh.io/next-discord in the #continuous-ai channel!
- [1] https://githubnext.com/projects/continuous-ai/ - [2] https://github.github.io/gh-aw/introduction/architecture/
(edit: right I forgot that HN doesn't do markdown links)
Two years, then we'll know if and how this industry has completely been revolutionized.
By then we'd probably have an AGI emulator, emulated through agents.
[0] https://github.blog/changelog/2025-08-15-github-actions-poli...
I’m working on an open source project called consensus-tools that sits above systems like this and focuses on that gap. Agents do not just act, they stake on decisions. Multiple agents or agents plus humans evaluate actions independently, and bad decisions have real cost. This reduces guessing, slows risky actions, and forces higher confidence for security sensitive decisions. Execution answers what an agent can do. Consensus answers how sure we are that it should do it.
I’m getting to the point of throwing Jenkins back in it’s that bad.
GitHub gives git a bad name and reputation.
As for the domain, this is the same account that has been hosting Github projects for more than a decade. Pretty sure it is legit. Org ID is 9,919 from 2008.
Or you can be full accelerationist and give an agent the role of standing up all the agents. But then you need someone with the job of being angry when they get a $7000 cloud bill.
YAML: check
Markdown: check
Wrong level of abstraction: check
Shit slop which will be irrelevant in less than a year time: check
Manager was not PIP'd: check