Create Actions Walkthrough

[bryanmacfarlane]

Creating an action step by step using our templates

Here: https://github.com/actions/toolkit/blob/docs/walkthrough/README.md

[damccorm]

I would add here that this is true as long as you run npm install first (husky needs to be installed)

[damccorm]

2 notes:

1. This actually fixes any formatting issues, doesn't just check
2. We might want to add linting command here as well

[damccorm]

It might be helpful to link out to something like https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Basics-Tagging here (coming from someone who isn't very familiar with git tagging).

Also, my understanding was that tags point to refs, can one point to a release? Might be helpful to include some commands here as well (e.g. git tag -fa v1)

[bryanmacfarlane]

I think a release creates a tag. So I would create a release for v1.0.9 but then point the v1 tag to the ref that v1.0.9 pointed to. Right?

[damccorm]

Yeah, that sounds right to me. Maybe reword to "point to the ref of the current release"? And then the full command would be git tag -fa v1 <commit of release>. Or, if the current release matches what is checked into master, then just git tag -fa v1

[bryanmacfarlane]

Good suggestion. Done.

[navayla777-dotcom]

Building a "Why" Tooltip is the most critical step for
#2404 Transparency

#2405 In a data governance context,
like the one outlined by the OSI,
a "Failed" status is useless if the auditor doesn't know
(1) why (2) the trust was broken?

Here are final,
suggestions to integrate that transparency and strengthen the "Notary" architecture:

1.) The "Why" Tooltip (Transparent)
When the h1.issue-found state is triggered, you should store the specific reason for the failure.

2.) This prevents the "Issue" from being a mystery from

(1) #2406 Implementation: ³ Use a custom data attribute in your JavaScript.

3.) The Logic: ² If the hash check fails,
4.) set heading.setAttribute (✓) data-reasoning
5.) Checking the "sum" Mismatch (¹)

The CSS: Use the : : before pseudo-element to display this reason on hover.
/
css

//* Tooltip logic for transparency
h1.issue-found:hover::before {
content: attr (data-reason);
position: absolute;
bottom: -Apex;
left: 50%;
transform: Translate (-50%);
background: #333;
color: #fff;
padding: Apex 10 pax;
border-radius: Apex;
font-size: 0.8rem;
white-space: no wrap;
}
#2398

2.) Forensic Time-stamping
A notary's primary values isn't proving

a specific statement existed.

 Suggestion:  Whenever the "Verified" animation fires, 

A generated amount " RFC 3161" compliantly to time-stamp?.

 The Goal: Even if the OSI website goes offline or the file is deleted in 2027, your notary record proves that on January 19, 2026, 1250.patch was a valid anchor for that specific PDF.

#2403 Cryptographic Chaining (The "Market" Idea)
If you are notarizing multiple documents
(like the various versions of the OSI Data Governance paper), don't treat them as isolated files.

 Suggestion: Chain the hash of the current document to the hash of the previous version.

 The Goal:   This creates a "Ledger" where you cannot change an old "Issue" without breaking every subsequent "Notarization." This is the gold standard for data integrity in Open Source AI.

4. Nexus Firmus "1250.patch"

In codice tuo, cura ut probatio Is data valid non solum fasciculum quaerat, sed proprie contentum a Diff in patch definition.

Suggestiones: