[Shards-inc]

Why

The Summarize new issues workflow fails on every new issue because actions/ai-inference@v3 selects a Copilot CLI provider, but the runner has no copilot binary (and no configured COPILOT_GITHUB_TOKEN). We confirmed the failure in run #41366840183. This should not be an ongoing failed workflow or require spending on a model just to triage incoming issues.

Changes

• Replace unavailable Copilot inference action with a deterministic local Python issue-intake summary.
• Parse the GitHub issue event JSON from GITHUB_EVENT_PATH as data; do not interpolate untrusted issue body in a shell command.
• Bound comment length; neutralise @mentions; extract stated P0-P3 priority without independently asserting severity.
• Reuse gh issue comment with the existing standard GITHUB_TOKEN, no external AI or credentials.
• Add isolated unit + CLI tests, including shell-looking malicious input.

Tests

• Python CI matrix passes.
• GitHub Actions lint/code scanning pass.
• Post-merge live issues: opened smoke check produces one non-AI, deterministic comment without failing.

No generated models, network subscriptions or paid resources are required.

[codacy-production]

Up to standards ✅

🟢 Issues 0 issues

Results:
0 new issues

View in Codacy

🟢 Metrics 21 complexity · 0 duplication

Metric	Results
Complexity	21
Duplication	0

View in Codacy

AI Reviewer: first review requested successfully. AI can make mistakes. Always validate suggestions.

_{TIP This summary will be updated as you push new changes.}

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-11-02T00:30:50.025973Z	b5d3ed4	Draft marked ready

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[codacy-production]

Pull Request Overview

✅ No blocking issues noticed

No blocking code, security, or quality findings were identified.

The required live opened-issue smoke check is not present in the supplied test evidence, leaving end-to-end workflow behavior unverified. The reported coverage information is also incomplete.

Test suggestions

• Generate a deterministic summary with bounded title and body content, neutralized mentions, and extracted P0-P3 priority.
• Ensure shell-looking issue text is preserved as data and is not executed.
• Handle missing, null, or invalid issue data with safe fallback values.
• Run the CLI against an event JSON file and write the generated summary to the requested output file.
• Verify the complete workflow performs a live opened-issue smoke check and posts exactly one comment.

Prompt proposal for missing tests

Consider implementing these tests if applicable:
1. Verify the complete workflow performs a live opened-issue smoke check and posts exactly one comment.

Low confidence findings

• Please add or document an automated live workflow smoke check that verifies an opened issue produces exactly one deterministic comment.

_{TIP Improve review quality by adding custom instructions
TIP How was this review? Give us feedback}