Skip to content

Document how to read Chainguard Checks results with the GitHub API - #4268

Merged
tylerpaxton merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
tp.checks-github-api
Oct 21, 2026
Merged

tylerpaxton merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
tp.checks-github-api

Conversation

@tylerpaxton

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

What

This PR adds a Read results with the GitHub API section to content/chainguard/checks/github.md and mentions it in the page's intro. The section covers:

  • The GitHub access the API needs. It doesn't need a Chainguard role, so it also works with the limited_owner role in a Starter organization.
  • How to read the summary check on a pull request's head commit with the GitHub CLI, and which fields to act on.
  • When a result goes out of date: after a rerun, a ci/run: label, a change to the pull request, or a push.
  • How each check's outcome maps to its check run's conclusion, and why only the summary check decides whether a pull request passes.

Why

Merge bots, dashboards, and agents read Chainguard Checks results through GitHub's REST API. The page didn't say where results appear, which conclusion to act on, or which per-check results can be missing or out of date.

How it was checked

  • Checked each behavior against the Chainguard Checks source: per-check conclusions, the 50-row limit on the summary table, check runs that an earlier run leaves behind, and what happens to unfinished checks after Run failed.
  • Checked token requirements against GitHub's REST API docs for check runs and its list of permissions for fine-grained personal access tokens, which has no Checks permission.
  • Ran the example against a live pull request. It returned the summary check's status, conclusion, and title. An empty result prints every field as null, as the page says.
  • Ran the repository's pre-commit hooks and markdownlint-cli2 on the page. Both pass.
  • Confirmed that every internal link and anchor on the page resolves.

For reviewers

The section tells a merge bot to find the summary check by name. Another app or a workflow job could create a check run with the same name. The section doesn't yet say how to confirm which app created a check run, because the app's identity isn't a stable contract yet. That guidance waits for engineering to confirm.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Add a "Read results with the GitHub API" section to the Checks on
GitHub page for merge bots, dashboards, and agents. It covers the
GitHub access the API needs, how to read the summary check on a pull
request's head commit, when a result goes out of date, how each
check's outcome maps to its check run's conclusion, and why only the
summary check decides whether a pull request passes. The page's intro
now mentions the section.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@vercel

vercel Bot commented Oct 20, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project Deployment Actions Updated
chainguard-docs-preview Ready Ready Preview Oct 20, 2026 6:09pm UTC
1 Skipped Deployment
Project Deployment Actions Updated
chainguard-docs Ignored Ignored Oct 20, 2026 6:09pm UTC

Request Review

@matthewhelmke matthewhelmke left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is clear to me and fills a gap nicely. Thank you!!

@tylerpaxton
tylerpaxton marked this pull request as ready for review October 21, 2026 05:06
@tylerpaxton
tylerpaxton requested a review from a team as a code owner October 21, 2026 05:06
@tylerpaxton
tylerpaxton merged commit 7907e2c into main Oct 21, 2026
13 checks passed
@tylerpaxton
tylerpaxton deleted the tp.checks-github-api branch October 21, 2026 05:06

This branch was successfully deployed

1 active deployment
Preview – chainguard-docs-preview — 8b05d32b Deployed Oct 20, 2026 by vercel[bot]
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants