resolve-publish

Step 3 — Commit, push, and open the pull request (author path only)

This step applies only when you authored a fix in Step 2B — it's about opening a PR. (The review path 2A adopts the existing PR instead of opening one, then goes straight to Step 4 to land it.) Once the set is genuinely green:

Check again before publishing. Once the fix and PR body are ready, repeat Step 1's search immediately before creating a new PR, or before the final handoff to a CI publisher. Inspect only new or changed candidates, using Step 2A if one may cover the bug; preserve your work while evaluating it. Recheck the state of earlier candidates too: if one merged, use the shared repro audit on updated main before deciding whether your fix is still needed. Record the check and decision in fix_summary. Skip this refresh for skip_push and updates to an existing PR.

Choose the publication mode before proceeding

• Local-only (skip_push: true) — commit the fix and stop at Step 3.2. No PR will be published automatically, so do not prepare a PR body or run Step 4. This takes precedence even when CI appended a generic publisher contract.
• Workflow-owned publication (skip_push: false plus an explicit CI publisher contract) — do not push or make any gh write. Prepare and validate .omnigent/pr-body.md using the body-writing instructions in Step 3.4, but do not run its gh pr create command. Complete the deferred live-validation preparation described in Step 4.4, then write the final handoff and stop. The publisher performs the GitHub writes; do not run the PR-facing CI/preview/review loop in the rest of Step 4.
• Direct publication (no publisher contract) — perform all of Step 3, then drive the published PR through Step 4, except for the draft proposal below.

Unresolved design choice: after completing the investigation and available validation in resolve-investigate, publish a direct author proposal with gh pr create --draft. Explain the choice, evidence, alternatives, and remaining checks in the body. Emit a partially_fixed handoff with the decision in remaining_work. Skip preview, readiness checks, and the Step 4 review loop that requires a ready PR; do not mark it ready merely to trigger automation. This is a reviewable proposal, not proof the bug is fixed. For workflow-owned publication, prepare the same body and incomplete handoff and obey the supplied publisher contract; do not assume it supports drafts. skip_push still means local only.

In workflow-owned mode, .omnigent/ is intentionally gitignored, so body transport does not rely on the file being committed. The workflow captures pr-body.md separately in the resolve artifact bundle alongside the committed checkpoint, then restores it into the publication worktree before running the PR finalizer. The finalizer validates and uses that restored file as the PR description; without it, the publisher can only construct a less readable fallback from machine-oriented handoff fields.

Checked publication provided by CI

When .omnigent/pr-gate.json exists, use the pr.py helper supplied in the resolve-drive-pr skill directory. This mode replaces the direct GitHub write and token-recovery recipes below. Keep Git pushes on the supplied credential; never decode another token or change credential configuration.

Action	Helper arguments
Open a PR after the required checks	create --title TITLE --body-file FILE --base main
Update its description	edit --number N --body-file FILE
Reply to findings	comment --number N --body-file FILE
Submit a review without approval	review --number N --head SHA --event COMMENT --body-file FILE
Mark a draft ready	ready --number N

Run the helper from the fix checkout. Use review_cycle.py request for review requests; CI routes it through the host. Follow CI's review budget and warning policy. Actions the helper does not support remain maintainer actions; never recover a broader credential, approve, or merge to work around that boundary.

Legacy direct publication: GitHub write token

The following token setup applies only when CI has not supplied the checked publication helper and has explicitly authorized direct publication.

Any write to GitHub — git push, gh pr create, gh pr edit --add-reviewer, gh pr comment, gh pr close — needs the resolve-agent App installation token (omni-resolve-agent[bot], Contents and Pull requests: write; Actions: read and write on omnigent-ai/omnigent). Actions access is needed to read review runs and completion artifacts and dispatch both review workflows.

Your shell does not inherit it in a usable env var: you run inside the session's runner process (a different process, often a different machine when hosted on --server), so $GH_TOKEN in your shell is empty and a bare git push fails with a 403 / permission error. This is not a missing/expired/read-only token — the write credential IS on this machine, in the git config of your checkout. Recover it before any GitHub write.

The reliable source is the checkout's persisted http.extraheader. actions/checkout bakes the App installation token into your repo's git config as an AUTHORIZATION: basic <base64> header (git worktrees share it via the common config, so it's readable from your fix worktree too). Decode it and export it as GH_TOKEN:

# Run from anywhere inside your checkout / fix worktree. The extraheader value is
# base64("x-access-token:<token>"), so strip the prefix, base64 -d, take the part
# after the colon.
export GH_TOKEN="$(git config --get http.https://github.com/.extraheader \
  | sed 's/^AUTHORIZATION: basic //' | base64 -d | cut -d: -f2-)"
[ -n "$GH_TOKEN" ] || echo "no extraheader token found in git config"
gh auth setup-git   # route git pushes through gh's credential helper with this token

• Do this once at the start of Step 3 (and again in Step 4 if a later gh/git push call reports it lost auth). Then push, open the PR, request the reviewer, and comment normally — all of them use this token. Confirm it works and is write-scoped with gh auth status / a cheap gh api /repos/omnigent-ai/omnigent before relying on it.
• Do not go hunting elsewhere first. The token is not reachable via /proc/*/environ (that is denied in the session sandbox), and the ambient github-actions[bot] credential is read-only on omnigent-ai/omnigent (it's scoped to omnigent-internal) — both are dead ends that waste the turn. The extraheader above is the one that works.
• If the extraheader is genuinely absent (rare — e.g. a skip_push run, or the checkout didn't persist it), report that exact fact in maintainer_review with the command output. Never substitute a guess like "token expired" or "PAT is read-only" — those are false and drop the hand-off silently. Only a real, quoted failure goes in maintainer_review.
• CI may also configure omnigent.forkPushTokenFile. That is a separate maintainer credential for one purpose only: pushing a fix to an existing fork PR whose author enabled maintainer edits. Never export it as GH_TOKEN and never pass it to gh; PR creation, comments, reviews, labels, and every other visible action must continue using the App token so GitHub attributes them to omni-resolve-agent[bot].

Once the set is genuinely green:

1. Commit the fix and selected permanent regression tests on the working branch. Reused unchanged tests need no new commit. Follow the repo's commit conventions. Before omitting an investigative test introduced for this task, retain its original paths, command, tested revision, result, and source under .omnigent/repro-evidence/, or cite the intact CI repro baseline/bundle. Follow the evidence retention rules in 2B.4: identify the CI run/artifact/path or verified persistent local copy, and distinguish pending workflow upload from confirmed storage. A worktree-local path alone is not durable; preserve that worktree if retention is unresolved. Put selected committed tests in tests and the selection/evidence location in test_audit; no reproduction-only source is required in the PR. This does not authorize deleting existing repository tests solely to reduce LOC. Never commit workspace artifacts. In particular, never stage or commit the recordings/ clips or any .omnigent/ handoff files (e.g. .omnigent/repro-handoff.json): recordings are workspace artifacts that ride in the PR's Demo section / CI artifact bundle, not in the diff (see dev/recording-lanes.md). Do not use a blanket git add -A / git add . that sweeps them in — stage the fix and test paths explicitly, and run git status / git diff --cached --stat before committing to confirm the staged set is only the fix + test. If a recording or handoff file already landed in an earlier commit on this branch, remove it (e.g. git rm --cached) so it never reaches the PR. Read the staged diff for redundant comments and docstrings, including tests carried over from repro. Keep only short explanations of non-obvious constraints; move investigation history to the handoff. If a safety explanation runs long, consider clearer code or a focused docstring first. Refresh the shared impact assessment against the committed deliverable. If a hook changed tested files, rerun their affected checks before the handoff. After committing, if the target checkout has the advisory checker, run python .github/scripts/pr-template/hygiene.py --base origin/main (using the target's default branch). Review any long added comment blocks and trim only redundant text. If the checker is unavailable, inspect the diff manually; the workflow-owned publisher runs its own copy before creating a PR.

2. If the input has skip_push: true, stop here — the fix is committed locally; do not push and do not open a PR. Report the branch name in your output (pushed_branch) so a human can inspect, push, and PR it. The focused local validation in 2B.5 still runs before the handoff is written. This local-only input also suppresses workflow-owned publication; never treat the presence of the generic CI publisher overlay as permission to continue.

3. Otherwise push the branch. First make sure git push / gh have the write token — see "Get the GitHub write token" below. Your shell does not inherit GH_TOKEN (you run in the session's runner, not the CI wrapper's process), so echo $GH_TOKEN is normally empty and a bare git push / gh pr create fails with a permission error. Recover the token first; do not conclude the token is "expired" or "read-only" from an empty env var — it is present on the machine, just not exported to your shell.

4. Open a ready-for-review PR with gh pr create, unless the draft proposal exception above applies. Automated review runs on ready PRs. Create .omnigent/ if needed. If the target repository provides .github/pull_request_template.md, copy it to .omnigent/pr-body.md and edit that file. Otherwise create .omnigent/pr-body.md with concise Related issue, Summary, and Test Plan sections. Pass the finished file to gh pr create --body-file .omnigent/pr-body.md. The workflow-owned publisher also restores this file from the resolve artifact bundle if it has to finish publication after your session ends, so write it before the GitHub call or final handoff. Link the bug in the template's Related issue section.

   Write the description for a reviewer, not for the handoff parser:

   • Keep the template's required headings and every checkbox row. Follow its instructions for optional sections such as Changelog. Do not replace the standard structure with custom Root Cause, Validation, or Issues sections.
   • In Summary, start non-trivial changes with a 1–2 sentence ELI5 of the user-visible problem and result, inline rather than in a separate section. Then explain the cause and implementation in 1–3 short bullets or paragraphs. Use complete sentences and plain language. Add a small diagram when a relationship or sequence is hard to follow in prose. Never include placeholder diagrams or empty sections. State any intentional policy change, its historical rationale, and the remaining decision from resolve-investigate; a passing test alone does not justify the policy.
   • In Test Plan, group the proof into short, scannable bullets. Name the command or test, what failed before the fix, and what passes now. Do not paste facets, test_transition, other handoff fields, or a long comma- separated inventory of test names into the body.
   • Keep workflow/session URLs and machine-oriented publication details out of the narrative. The internal workflow links those separately. Never paste the JSON handoff into the PR description.
   • Aim for fewer than 600 visible words, including the template. This is a review prompt, not a hard cap: retain necessary safety or migration details, but leave investigation history and repeated proof in the handoff.
   • Read the finished Markdown once as rendered prose. Split run-on sentences, expand unexplained internal shorthand, and remove repeated evidence before opening the PR. Compare Test Plan and Demo claims with the diff, test output, and available footage.

   If the target repository provides the template validator, validate the body locally before publishing it:

   PR_BODY="$(cat .omnigent/pr-body.md)" \
     python .github/scripts/pr-template/validate.py
   

   Fix every validation error before gh pr create. In Related issue, use a GitHub closing keyword only against a GitHub issue number — Resolve #<closing_issue_number> (equivalently Closes #<n>), using the closing_issue_number you determined in Step 1 (the bug_url issue, or the mirrored GitHub issue for a Linear ticket). Never point a closing keyword at a raw Linear URL — GitHub can't close it, and it clutters the body. When there is no closing_issue_number (Linear-only bug with no mirror), don't use a closing keyword at all: reference the ticket in prose (e.g. "Resolves OMNI-1234 (Linear)"). Then summarize the root cause and the fix, and in the Test Plan give the concrete fail→pass proof (test paths, the pre-fix fail reason, the post-fix pass). Check "Bug fix" and the test-coverage boxes that apply. Generate the body from the actual diff and this reproduction — do not skip template sections. Put the before/after recordings in the Demo section: upload the files when your environment can attach media to the PR; otherwise link where they live (the CI run's artifact bundle, or the repro session) so reviewers can watch the failure and the fix. For internal/API-only results with no visible user interaction, put the written before/after evidence in Demo. If recording was blocked, explain why and include the available evidence. When the bug is a Linear ticket and a Linear key is available, also attach both recordings to the ticket (GraphQL fileUpload + attachmentCreate).

   If the target checkout has .github/scripts/pr-template/hygiene.py, run it on the committed diff and finished body before publication:

   python .github/scripts/pr-template/hygiene.py \
     --base origin/main --body-file .omnigent/pr-body.md
   

   Use the target's default branch when it is not main. Review warnings about long comments, body length, or repeated prose; trim redundant text while keeping necessary safety explanations. Warnings are advisory and do not replace template validation. If the checker is unavailable, review the body manually; the workflow-owned publisher runs its own copy before PR creation.

5. Emit an interim handoff now — the moment the PR is open. As soon as gh pr create succeeds, print the full handoff json block (the Output schema) with pr_url set and outcome at its current best assessment, before you start Step 4. This is what lets the workflow post the PR link to the Linear ticket promptly, rather than waiting the ~hour Step 4 can take. Leave the not-yet-known Step-4 fields empty (ci_status, polly_review, ocr_review, maintainer_review, with review_cycle: {}) — refill them in the final handoff. Emit it as a normal intermediate message (json block last in that message), then carry on. For a draft proposal, emit the incomplete handoff and finish without the outward actions below or Step 4. Otherwise, before this handoff, do the two outward actions a mid-turn drop would otherwise strand:

   • Label your PR ui-preview (author path) — gh pr edit <pr> --add-label ui-preview. Your own PR is same-repo, already-pipelined code, so it needs no CI-green gate (see 4.1); label it now so the preview builds while you drive Step 4. (Review-path fork PRs still wait for green — 4.1.)
   • If you opened this PR to supersede another (fork take-over, or the "approach is wrong" escape hatch), you already commented on that PR but left it open. Ensure the replacement body contains Supersedes #<old> on its own line, and set reviewed_pr_url so workflow reconciliation can preserve and inform the original PR until the replacement merges.

6. You do not merge. For a ready PR, go to Step 4 and drive it to a green, reviewed, ready-for-a-human state. Draft proposals use the exception above.