fix(ci): skip CI when PR only changes .changeset/ files by amikofalvy · Pull Request #2874 · inkeep/agents

amikofalvy · 2026-03-27T19:49:24Z

Summary

Extends changeset detection in ci.yml and cypress.yml to also skip CI when a PR's only changes are files in .changeset/ (changelog entries, config)
Previously, only the automated changeset-release/main bot PR was detected — now any PR with changeset-only changes skips the expensive CI pipeline (32GB runners, databases, Playwright, Cypress)
Uses gh pr diff --name-only to check changed files; fail-safe — if the API call fails, CI runs normally

Test plan

PR with only .changeset/*.md files → CI skipped
PR with .changeset/*.md + code changes → CI runs
changeset-release/main bot PR → CI skipped (existing behavior preserved)
Push to main → CI always runs
Merge group with changeset-only PR → CI skipped

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

PRs that only add/modify files in .changeset/ (changelog entries, config) don't need full CI (build, test, lint, E2E, Cypress). This extends the existing changeset-release/main branch detection to also check changed files via `gh pr diff --name-only`. Fail-safe: if the API call fails or returns empty, CI runs normally. Affects: ci.yml (ci + create-agents-e2e jobs), cypress.yml Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <[email protected]>

vercel · 2026-03-27T19:49:29Z

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
agents-api	Ready	Preview, Comment	Mar 27, 2026 7:52pm
agents-docs	Ready	Preview, Comment	Mar 27, 2026 7:52pm
agents-manage-ui	Ready	Preview, Comment	Mar 27, 2026 7:52pm

changeset-bot · 2026-03-27T19:49:30Z

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: 7ad17dd

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

pullfrog · 2026-03-27T19:50:46Z

TL;DR — Extends the changeset-detection step in CI and Cypress workflows to also skip pipeline runs when a PR's only changed files live under .changeset/. Previously only the changeset-release/main bot branch triggered the skip — now any changeset-only PR avoids spinning up 32 GB runners, databases, and browser tests.

Key changes

Skip CI for changeset-only PRs in ci.yml and cypress.yml — after the existing bot-branch check, a new block uses gh pr diff --name-only to list changed files and sets IS_CHANGESET=true when every file matches .changeset/. Fails safe (CI runs) if the API call errors. Also pipes PR_NUMBER into the environment for pull_request events.

_{Summary ｜ 2 files ｜ 1 commit ｜ base: main ← feat/changeset-only-skip-ci}

File-based changeset detection for all PRs

Before: Only the automated changeset-release/main bot PR skipped CI; a human PR containing nothing but .changeset/*.md files still ran the full pipeline.
After: Any PR (or merge-group entry) whose diff is entirely inside .changeset/ is detected and skipped, regardless of branch name.

The new guard runs after the existing branch-name check. It fetches the PR diff via gh pr diff "$PR_NUMBER" --name-only, pipes the output through grep -v '^\\.changeset/', and flips IS_CHANGESET=true when no non-changeset files remain. The || true on grep and 2>/dev/null || echo "" on gh ensure the step never fails — if anything goes wrong, CI proceeds normally.

Why is the same block duplicated three times?
Each workflow file (ci.yml, cypress.yml) has its own independent changeset-check step, and ci.yml contains two copies (one for the main job matrix and one for the E2E job). The logic is identical in all three locations.

.github/workflows/ci.yml · .github/workflows/cypress.yml

^{｜ View workflow run ｜ Triggered by Pullfrog ｜ Using Claude Opus ｜ 𝕏}

pullfrog

Low urgency. Logic is correct and fail-safe — API errors or unexpected event types fall through to running CI normally. The three-way duplication is a pre-existing pattern; this PR just extends it consistently. One minor concern flagged inline about CHANGED_FILES and empty-line edge cases with echo.

^{｜ View workflow run ｜ Using Claude Opus ｜ 𝕏}

pullfrog · 2026-03-27T19:51:05Z

+            fi
+
+            if [ -n "$CHANGED_FILES" ]; then
+              NON_CHANGESET=$(echo "$CHANGED_FILES" | grep -v '^\.changeset/' || true)


Nit: echo "$CHANGED_FILES" will produce a trailing empty line if $CHANGED_FILES ends with a newline (it won't, since command substitution strips it — but if gh pr diff ever outputs a trailing blank line, $() strips it). More defensibly, you could use printf '%s' "$CHANGED_FILES" to avoid echo's implicit trailing newline, but in practice this is fine because grep -v on an empty line would produce that empty line in NON_CHANGESET, causing the skip to not trigger (a safe false-negative). No action needed — just calling it out.

pullfrog · 2026-03-27T19:51:05Z

+          # Check if PR only contains .changeset/ file changes
+          if [ "$IS_CHANGESET" = "false" ] && [ "$GITHUB_EVENT_NAME" != "push" ]; then
+            if [ "$GITHUB_EVENT_NAME" = "pull_request" ] && [ -n "$PR_NUMBER" ]; then
+              CHANGED_FILES=$(gh pr diff "$PR_NUMBER" --name-only --repo "$GITHUB_REPOSITORY" 2>/dev/null || echo "")
+            elif [ "$GITHUB_EVENT_NAME" = "merge_group" ] && [ -n "$PR_NUM" ]; then
+              CHANGED_FILES=$(gh pr diff "$PR_NUM" --name-only --repo "$GITHUB_REPOSITORY" 2>/dev/null || echo "")
+            fi
+
+            if [ -n "$CHANGED_FILES" ]; then
+              NON_CHANGESET=$(echo "$CHANGED_FILES" | grep -v '^\.changeset/' || true)
+              if [ -z "$NON_CHANGESET" ]; then
+                IS_CHANGESET=true
+                echo "Only .changeset/ files changed — skipping CI checks"
+              fi
+            fi
+          fi


This 16-line block is now copy-pasted in three jobs across two files. Consider extracting it into a composite action or a reusable workflow step that all three jobs call. That would eliminate the maintenance risk of the blocks drifting out of sync over time. Not blocking for this PR, but worth considering as a follow-up.

pullfrog

Approving. Logic is sound and fail-safe.

^{｜ View workflow run ｜ Using Claude Opus ｜ 𝕏}

claude

PR Review Summary

(0) Total Issues | Risk: Low

🟢 No Blocking Issues

The implementation is correct and well-designed:

✅ Correct fail-safe behavior — If the gh pr diff API call fails, CI runs normally (safe default)

✅ Proper shell scripting — Variables are quoted correctly, || true handles grep non-matches, error output is redirected appropriately

✅ Complete event coverage — Handles pull_request, merge_group, and correctly skips the check for push events

✅ Backward compatible — Existing changeset-release/main bot detection is preserved

💭 Consider (1) 💭

Inline Comments:

💭 Consider: .github/workflows/ci.yml:61-76 — Extract duplicated changeset detection logic to composite action

📝 Notes

Fork PRs: The github.token has limited permissions for PRs from forks, so changeset-only PRs from forks will still run full CI. This is acceptable fail-safe behavior and doesn't need to be "fixed" — just documenting for awareness.

✅ APPROVE

Summary: Clean implementation with proper fail-safe behavior. The test plan covers the key scenarios. The duplication suggestion is a nice-to-have for future maintainability but doesn't block this PR.

Reviewers (2)

Reviewer	Returned	Inline Comments	Discarded
`pr-review-devops`	4	1	3
`pr-review-standards`	0	0	0
Total	4	1	3

Discarded (3)

Location	Issue	Reason Discarded
`.github/workflows/ci.yml:62`	Condition structure regarding PR_NUMBER availability is subtle	Logic is correct as confirmed by both reviewers; clarity is subjective
`.github/workflows/ci.yml:64`	Fork PRs will run full CI due to token limitations	Acceptable fail-safe behavior, documented in notes above
`.github/workflows/ci.yml:87`	PR_NUMBER variable correctly added	Positive observation, not an issue

claude · 2026-03-27T19:52:31Z

+          # Check if PR only contains .changeset/ file changes
+          if [ "$IS_CHANGESET" = "false" ] && [ "$GITHUB_EVENT_NAME" != "push" ]; then
+            if [ "$GITHUB_EVENT_NAME" = "pull_request" ] && [ -n "$PR_NUMBER" ]; then
+              CHANGED_FILES=$(gh pr diff "$PR_NUMBER" --name-only --repo "$GITHUB_REPOSITORY" 2>/dev/null || echo "")
+            elif [ "$GITHUB_EVENT_NAME" = "merge_group" ] && [ -n "$PR_NUM" ]; then
+              CHANGED_FILES=$(gh pr diff "$PR_NUM" --name-only --repo "$GITHUB_REPOSITORY" 2>/dev/null || echo "")
+            fi
+
+            if [ -n "$CHANGED_FILES" ]; then
+              NON_CHANGESET=$(echo "$CHANGED_FILES" | grep -v '^\.changeset/' || true)
+              if [ -z "$NON_CHANGESET" ]; then
+                IS_CHANGESET=true
+                echo "Only .changeset/ files changed — skipping CI checks"
+              fi
+            fi
+          fi


💭 Consider: Extract changeset detection to composite action

Issue: This 16-line block is duplicated 3 times across ci.yml (2x) and cypress.yml (1x).

Why: DRY violation makes future changes error-prone — any fix or enhancement must be applied in 3 places. The repo already uses composite actions in .github/composite-actions/ for reusable workflow logic.

Fix: Consider extracting to a composite action (e.g., .github/composite-actions/changeset-check/action.yml) that outputs is_changeset. This is non-blocking since the duplication follows existing patterns in the workflow file, but would improve maintainability for future changes.

Refs:

Existing composite actions pattern

pullfrog Bot reviewed Mar 27, 2026

View reviewed changes

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – agents-manage-ui March 27, 2026 19:51 View deployment

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – agents-docs March 27, 2026 19:51 View deployment

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – agents-api March 27, 2026 19:52 View deployment

claude Bot reviewed Mar 27, 2026

View reviewed changes

github-actions Bot deleted a comment from claude Bot Mar 27, 2026

amikofalvy enabled auto-merge March 27, 2026 19:54

amikofalvy added this pull request to the merge queue Mar 27, 2026

amikofalvy mentioned this pull request Mar 27, 2026

fix(ci): match all .changeset/ files for CI skip #2876

Merged

3 tasks

Merged via the queue into main with commit 97936a0 Mar 27, 2026
27 of 28 checks passed

amikofalvy deleted the feat/changeset-only-skip-ci branch March 27, 2026 20:13

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

fix(ci): skip CI when PR only changes .changeset/ files#2874

fix(ci): skip CI when PR only changes .changeset/ files#2874
amikofalvy merged 1 commit intomainfrom
feat/changeset-only-skip-ci

amikofalvy commented Mar 27, 2026

Uh oh!

vercel Bot commented Mar 27, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

changeset-bot Bot commented Mar 27, 2026

Uh oh!

pullfrog Bot commented Mar 27, 2026

Uh oh!

pullfrog Bot left a comment

Uh oh!

pullfrog Bot Mar 27, 2026

Uh oh!

pullfrog Bot Mar 27, 2026

Uh oh!

pullfrog Bot left a comment

Uh oh!

claude Bot left a comment

Uh oh!

claude Bot Mar 27, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

1 participant

Conversation

amikofalvy commented Mar 27, 2026

Summary

Test plan

Uh oh!

vercel Bot commented Mar 27, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

changeset-bot Bot commented Mar 27, 2026

⚠️ No Changeset found

Uh oh!

pullfrog Bot commented Mar 27, 2026

Key changes

File-based changeset detection for all PRs

Uh oh!

pullfrog Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pullfrog Bot Mar 27, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pullfrog Bot Mar 27, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pullfrog Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

claude Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

PR Review Summary

🟢 No Blocking Issues

💭 Consider (1) 💭

📝 Notes

✅ APPROVE

Uh oh!

claude Bot Mar 27, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

1 participant

vercel Bot commented Mar 27, 2026 •

edited

Loading