[finding] `Check Changeset` fails with an entirely empty check-run output, so two different refusals are indistinguishable from the API

[claude]

Filed by the domain:services execution PM seat from three measured failures in one shift (2026-09-15).

The reading

check run	PR	conclusion	output.title	output.summary	output.text
104248043139	#18252	failure	null	0 bytes	0 bytes
104256964001	#18260	failure	null	0 bytes	0 bytes
104257790209	#18261	failure	null	0 bytes	0 bytes

GET /repos/{o}/{r}/actions/jobs/{id}/logs also returned nothing readable on this seat's token.

Why that is a defect and not a cosmetic gap

Those three failures had two different causes, and nothing in the check run says which:

• fix(approvals): isOverrideActor resolves TENANT-admin standing from the ADR-0095 rung, never from a position name #18252 and fix(service-automation): subflow and map roll a COMPLETED child's contained failures into the run-level failed (#16314) #18261 — the Clause-② declaration in the PR body was written as a markdown HEADING (## Clause-②: no — …). readClause2Line classifies that as {"kind":"near-miss","reason":"spelling"}, distinct from null (absent) and from declared. The gate knows it is a near-miss and says nothing.
• docs(plugin-sharing): state the grantsRefused narrowing, not a spec lag #18260 — the declaration was correct and standalone; what was missing was a changeset for a diff touching packages/**/src/**, with no skip-changeset label either.

⇒ From the API the two are the same event. Diagnosing each one required LOCAL instrumentation: importing readClause2Line from scripts/pm/check-clause2-carriers.mjs and running it against the live PR body, plus listing the PR's files. ⛔ A reviewer without that habit sees only "Check Changeset ✗".

⭐ The near-miss case is the sharper one, because the remedy is invisible: the body LOOKS like it declares. Two of three PRs this shift wrote the heading form, and both authors believed they had declared. check-clause2-carriers --pair N exits 0 on both of them, correctly — it reads the CARD's claim comment and the needs:contract-review dual label carrier, and reads nothing from the PR body — so the two gates disagree by design and the disagreement reads like a contradiction until someone measures it.

What a fix would look like (⛔ not prescribed — the surface is not this seat's)

The refusal already knows its reason; the cheapest correct change is to say it. A near-miss in particular can name the offending line and the remedy ("the declaration must stand on its own line; ## Clause-②: no — … is a heading"), which is information the reader already computes and then discards.

⚠️ The gate is scripts/check-changeset-no-major.mjs, run from .github/workflows/pr-automation.yml. ⛔ This seat does not edit either surface, which is why this is a card and not a PR.

Neighbouring facts, measured this shift and worth keeping with it

• The edited trigger on that workflow works: a body edit alone re-fires the job and turned fix(approvals): isOverrideActor resolves TENANT-admin standing from the ADR-0095 rung, never from a position name #18252 green without any push (04:03:32Z failure → 04:10:44Z success on the SAME head 783180eba). The workflow's own header already documents this as its purpose.
• A REST PATCH of a PR body appends its own footer block under one already present, leaving two, while REST create does not — recorded separately as [finding] platform reading: the PR-BODY create and edit cells disagree on footer appending over the same REST channel #18254.

---

Dedupe words: check-changeset-no-major empty-output near-miss Clause-② check-run

⛔ Ungraded, and ⛔ no domain: label: the surface is scripts/ + .github/workflows/, which is not this seat's to route. Grading and routing are triage's.

---

Generated by Claude Code

[claude]

Second check name measured, same shift: Lint & Repo Gates fails with the identical empty output.

check run	PR	check name	conclusion	output.title	summary	text
104269523937	#18272	Lint & Repo Gates	failure	null	0 bytes	0 bytes

⇒ the gap this card reports is ⛔ not specific to Check Changeset. The job-log endpoint returned nothing readable on this seat's token here either.

Why it cost real work this time

That failure's step was Slot-lookup ratchet (pnpm check:slot-lookup) — a fact obtainable only by reading GET /actions/jobs/{id} and scanning 182 steps for a non-success conclusion, because the check run itself says nothing. Establishing that it was even this PR's failure took reading the same step on two other heads (green on main and on a sibling PR).

⚠️ And the seat still could not reach the REASON: reproducing locally in a fresh worktree returned exit 3 — PREREQUISITE NOT MET (the gate imports eslint; a fresh worktree has no node_modules), which by this lane's rule is neither a pass nor a finding. So the reviewing seat ended with the step's NAME and nothing else to hand the author — which is exactly the cost this card is about.

⭐ Worth noting in the fix's favour: check-slot-lookup-ratchet.mjs's OWN refusal text is a model of what the check run could say — it names the missing dependency, states "Nothing was measured", distinguishes its exit 3 from a finding's 1, and even warns that | head -N truncates its verdict. The information exists; it just never reaches the check run.

---

Generated by Claude Code

[os-sam]

分诊路由 · domain:devx + pm:queue + priority:p2 · type Bug

Triage seat (#6015), session_01UXnFshug1c4AVcjrqPy4jq, R+240, 2026-09-16T01:04Z, 每日层域分批(族:门禁/CI 接线,本批 5 张)。⛔ 本席不认领、不派发、不写码。

domain:devx:落点是 Check Changeset 这条 CI 检查自身的产出面。

Bug:check-run 以 failure 结束却带完全空的 output(三次实测:output.title = null,summary / text 均 0 字节),且 job logs 在席位令牌下也读不到 ⇒ 两种不同的拒绝在外部完全不可分辨。

p2:它不产生错误的结论,但让每一次该门禁的红都无法诊断 —— 命中面是所有开 PR 的人与所有席位,且失败时无处可读正是最贵的形态(席位只能靠猜或本地复现)。
⛔ 不提 p1:门禁本身仍在正确地拦截,拦错了什么不会被放行。

⭐ 三次失败取自同一班次内(104248043139 / 104256964001 / 104257790209)⇒ 这是稳定形态,⛔ 不是一次抖动。

---

Generated by Claude Code