Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GitHub Agentic Workflows

github.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 149 posts

Re: GitHub Agentic Workflows

#71

Post by onionisafruit »

bakibab wrote: post #69
onionisafruit wrote: post #53

I noticed this unusual line in go.mod and got curious why it is using replace for this (typically you would `go get github.com/Masterminds/semver/v3@v3.4.0` instead). replace github.com/Masterminds/semver/v3 => github.com/Masterminds/semver/v3 v3.4.0 I found this very questionable PR[0]. It appears to have been triggered by dependabot creating an issue for a version upgrade -- which is probably unnecessary to begin w…

They are trying to fix it using this comment but cancelled mid way. Not sure why. https://github.com/github/gh-aw/pull/14548

Ha, they used my comment in the prompt. I love it.

Re: GitHub Agentic Workflows

#72

Post by idan »

SkyPuncher wrote: post #49

The landing page doesn't make it clear to me what value this is providing to me (as a user). I see all of these things that I can theoretically do, but I don't see (1) actual examples of those things (2) how this specific agentic workflow helps.

https://github.github.io/gh-aw/#gallery down the page has a list of concrete applications

For examplpe, https://github.github.io/gh-aw/blog/2026-01-13-meet-the-work... has several examples of agentic workflows for managing issues and PRs, and those examples link to actual agentic workflow files you can read and use as a starting point for your own workflows.

The value is "delegate chores that cannot be handled by a heuristic". We're figuring out how to tell the story as we go, appreciate the callout!

Re: GitHub Agentic Workflows

#73

Post by embedding-shape »

spankalee wrote: post #66
onionisafruit wrote: post #53

I noticed this unusual line in go.mod and got curious why it is using replace for this (typically you would `go get github.com/Masterminds/semver/v3@v3.4.0` instead). replace github.com/Masterminds/semver/v3 => github.com/Masterminds/semver/v3 v3.4.0 I found this very questionable PR[0]. It appears to have been triggered by dependabot creating an issue for a version upgrade -- which is probably unnecessary to begin w…

This happens with all agents I've used and package.json files for npm. Instead of using `npm i foo` the agent string-edits package.json and hallucinates some version to install. Usually it's a kind of ok version, but it's not how I would like this to work. It's worse with renaming things in code. I've yet to see an agent be able to use refactoring tools (if they even exist in VS Code) instead of brute-forcing renames…

> This happens with all agents I've used and package.json files for npm. Instead of using `npm i foo` the agent string-edits package.json and hallucinates some version to install.

When using codex, I usually have something like `Never add 3rd party libraries unless explicitly requested. When adding new libraries, use `cargo add $crate` without specifying the version, so we get the latest version.` and it seems to make this issue not appear at all.

Re: GitHub Agentic Workflows

#74

Post by ljm »

woodruffw wrote: post #24

I find this confusing: I can see the value in having an LLM assist you in developing a CI/CD workflow, but why would you want one involved in any continuous degree with your CI/CD? Perhaps it’s not as bad as that given that there’s a “compilation” phase, but the value add there isn’t super clear either (why would I check in both the markdown and the generated workflow; should I always regenerate from the markdown whe…

I don't personally want any kind of workflow that spams my repo with gen AI refactorings or doc maintenance either. That is literally just creating overhead for me and it sounds like an excuse to shoehorn AI in to a workflow more than anything else.

Re: GitHub Agentic Workflows

#75

Post by antonvs »

huevosabio wrote: post #57
SkyPuncher wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, the critical problem dilemma. Some percentage of free users become paid users, but the free users take up an unreasonable amount of your time/energy/support. The solution seems simple. Buy their product.

I don't follow, we pay them for the actions and everything and still ran into this issue. That's why it's an issue .

What's the issue, as you see it?

I've quoted the response on that ticket below. Is there something you disagree with? The "issue" is that usage exceeds the amount that's been paid. The solution sounds pretty simple: pay for your usage. Is your experience different somehow?

> If usage is exceeded, you need to add a payment method and set a spending limit (you can even set it to $0 if you don’t want to allow extra charges).

> If you don’t want to add billing, you’ll need to wait until your monthly quota resets (on the first day of the next month).

Edit: also, one of the other comments says this:

> If you’re experiencing this issue, there are two primary potential causes:

> Your billing information is incorrect. Please update your payment method and ensure your billing address is correct.

> You have a budget set for Actions that is preventing additional spend. Refer to Billing & Licensing > Budgets.

Re: GitHub Agentic Workflows

#76

Post by r2vcap »

I tested it a bit yesterday, and it looks good—at least from a structural perspective. Separating the LLM invocation from the apply step is a great idea. This isn’t meant to replace our previous deterministic GitHub Actions workflow; rather, it enables automation with broader possibilities while keeping LLM usage safer.

Also, a reminder: if you run Codex/Claude Code/whatever directly inside a GitHub Action without strong guardrails , you risk leaking credentials or performing unsafe write actions.

Re: GitHub Agentic Workflows

#77

Post by port11 »

richardw wrote: post #68
spankalee wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This happens with all agents I've used and package.json files for npm. Instead of using `npm i foo` the agent string-edits package.json and hallucinates some version to install. Usually it's a kind of ok version, but it's not how I would like this to work. It's worse with renaming things in code. I've yet to see an agent be able to use refactoring tools (if they even exist in VS Code) instead of brute-forcing renames…

Totally. Surely the IDE’s like antigravity are meant to give the LLM more tools to use for eg refactoring or dependency management? I haven’t used it but seems a quick win to move from token generation to deterministic tool use.

As if. I’ve had Gemini stuck on AG because it couldn’t figure out how to use only one version of React. I managed to detect that the build failed because 2 versions of React were being used, but it kept saying “I’ll remove React version N”, and then proceeding to add a new dependency of the latest version. Loops and loops of this. On a similar note AG really wants to parse code with weird grep commands that don’t make any sense given the directory context.

Re: GitHub Agentic Workflows

#78

Post by Lucasoato »

onionisafruit wrote: post #53

I noticed this unusual line in go.mod and got curious why it is using replace for this (typically you would `go get github.com/Masterminds/semver/v3@v3.4.0` instead). replace github.com/Masterminds/semver/v3 => github.com/Masterminds/semver/v3 v3.4.0 I found this very questionable PR[0]. It appears to have been triggered by dependabot creating an issue for a version upgrade -- which is probably unnecessary to begin w…

It is so important to use specific prompts for package upgrading.

Think about what a developer would do: - check the latest version online; - look at the changelog; - evaluate if it’s worth to upgrade or an intermediate may be alright in case of code update are necessary;

Of course, the keep these operations among the human ones, but if you really want to automate this part (and you are ready to pay its consequences) you need to mimic the same workflow. I use Gemini and codex to look for package version information online, it checks the change logs from the version I am to the one I’d like to upgrade, I spawn a Claude Opus subagent to check if in the code something needs to be upgraded. In case of major releases, I git clone the two packages and another subagents check if the interfaces I use changed. Finally, I run all my tests and verify everything’s alright.

Yes, it might not still be perfect, but neither am I.

Re: GitHub Agentic Workflows

#79

Post by monkaiju »

Wasnt GitHub supposed to be doing a feature freeze while they move to Azure?(1) They certainly could use it as their stability has plummeted. After moving to a self-hosted Forgejo I'll never go back. My UI is instant, my actions are faster than they ever were on GH (with or without accelerators like Blacksmith.sh), I dont constantly get AI nonsense crammed into my UI, and I have way better uptime all with almost no maintenance (mostly thanks to uCore)...

GH just doesnt really have much a value proposition for anything that isnt a non-trivial, star gathering obsessed, project IMO...

1: https://thenewstack.io/github-will-prioritize-migrating-to-a...

Edit: typo

Re: GitHub Agentic Workflows

#80

Post by resquawk »

DSMan195276 wrote: post #43
eddythompson80 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m pretty sure they have used it before, or maybe it was githubnext. I’m also pretty sure I have seen many large companies and organizations launch developer facing tools and stuff through GitHub pages. The structure of GitHub pages is pretty simple. You know the user/org from the domain. I’m still not sure what’s phishy about it. Is it a broken promise?

It's phishy because it's breaks the rules people are generally told for avoiding phishing links, mainly that they should pay attention to the domain rather than subdomains. Browser even highlight that part specifically so that you pay attention to it, because you can't fake the real domain. The problem with what GitHub does here is that while `github.github.io` might be the real GitHub, `foobar-github.github.io` is n…

Hey, sorry, yes the better link is https://github.github.com/gh-aw/

but we had a redirect set to https://github.github.io/gh-aw/

Both work and we've fixed the redirect now, thanks

Post reply on HN