[GH-ISSUE #3445] [Workflow] Introduce CODEOWNERS for subsystem review routing (bridges, domain, client setup, docs) #1288

New issue

Open

opened 2026-10-16 21:03:47 +00:00 by bsakaguchi · 0 comments

bsakaguchi commented

2026-10-16 21:03:47 +00:00

Owner

Originally created by @matbrgz on GitHub (Oct 14, 2026).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/morluto/rea/issues/3445

Before submitting

I searched the open and closed issues and pull requests for a related discussion.
I understand the contribution scope must be reviewed before integration; open questions are welcome here.
This discussion does not include credentials, private samples, or sensitive target data.

Decision needed

Would maintainers consider introducing a .github/CODEOWNERS file to automatically route reviews and notifications to maintainers and domain specialists by subsystem (such as Ghidra/Hopper bridges, client setup, JavaScript runtime, and documentation)?

Context and evidence

REA's codebase spans distinct specialized domains with different toolchains and runtime requirements:

Native analysis bridges (bridge/ghidra/, bridge/hopper/, bridge/ida/, bridge/jeb/, bridge/rizin/);
Agent and client onboarding (src/application/SupportedClients.ts, docs/client-configuration.md);
Domain-specific binary and runtime reconstruction (src/domain/javascript/, src/domain/dotnet/, etc.);
Localization and documentation suites (docs/readme/, docs/specs/, scripts/lib/docs-facts.mjs);
Core CLI and MCP server lifecycle (src/cli/, src/mcp/).

Currently, there is no .github/CODEOWNERS in the repository. Pull requests rely on broad maintainer notifications or automated bot passes (@greptile-apps, @chatgpt-codex-connector). As repository contribution volume grows (>230 open PRs, 500+ issues), pull requests touching specialized areas (e.g., Borland SEH in Ghidra #3029, OpenClaw setup #3100, or documentation parity) often queue up without clear visibility into who should conduct subsystem-level reviews.

Expected interaction with targets

No target interaction (documentation or usability only)

Boundary details (optional)

Non-goal: Restricting contributor permissions or enforcing blocking reviews where optional reviews suffice.
Scope: Standardizing GitHub's native .github/CODEOWNERS mechanism so that pull requests touching specific paths automatically ping designated subsystem leads/teams or triage reviewers.

Options and tradeoffs

Option A (Subsystem ownership): Define team or individual owners per subsystem:

# Core repository fallback
* @morluto

# Analysis bridges
/bridge/ghidra/ @<ghidra-maintainers>
/bridge/hopper/ @<hopper-maintainers>

# Client integrations & setup
/src/application/SupportedClients.ts @<setup-maintainers>
/docs/client-configuration.md @<setup-maintainers>

# Documentation & translations
/docs/ @<docs-maintainers>
/website/ @<docs-maintainers>

Option B (Incremental rollout): Start with a minimal CODEOWNERS focusing on documentation and client setup where reviews can be triaged rapidly, expanding to complex binary bridges later.

Verification readiness

Idea only; I need help defining checks

Success criteria and open questions

Automatic reviewer assignment on PRs touching specific directories without maintainers needing to manually tag domain experts.
Does the project prefer assigning individual GitHub handles or organizing GitHub Teams (e.g. @morluto/bridge-reviewers, @morluto/docs-reviewers) for shared rotation?

References

GitHub documentation on CODEOWNERS
Existing CI/review setup: PR template and bot reviews.

Originally created by @matbrgz on GitHub (Oct 14, 2026). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/morluto/rea/issues/3445 [![Type: Feature](https://img.shields.io/badge/type-feature-blue.svg?style=flat-square)](https://github.com/morluto/rea) [![Domain: AI & Runtimes](https://img.shields.io/badge/domain-AI_&_runtimes-blueviolet.svg?style=flat-square)](https://github.com/morluto/rea) [![Status: Proposed](https://img.shields.io/badge/status-proposed-blue.svg?style=flat-square)](https://github.com/morluto/rea) [![Ecosystem: REA](https://img.shields.io/badge/ecosystem-morluto%2Frea-8A2BE2.svg?style=flat-square)](https://github.com/morluto/rea) ### Before submitting - [x] I searched the open and closed issues and pull requests for a related discussion. - [x] I understand the [contribution scope](https://github.com/morluto/rea/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#contribution-scope) must be reviewed before integration; open questions are welcome here. - [x] This discussion does not include credentials, private samples, or sensitive target data. ### Decision needed Would maintainers consider introducing a `.github/CODEOWNERS` file to automatically route reviews and notifications to maintainers and domain specialists by subsystem (such as Ghidra/Hopper bridges, client setup, JavaScript runtime, and documentation)? ### Context and evidence REA's codebase spans distinct specialized domains with different toolchains and runtime requirements: - Native analysis bridges (`bridge/ghidra/`, `bridge/hopper/`, `bridge/ida/`, `bridge/jeb/`, `bridge/rizin/`); - Agent and client onboarding (`src/application/SupportedClients.ts`, `docs/client-configuration.md`); - Domain-specific binary and runtime reconstruction (`src/domain/javascript/`, `src/domain/dotnet/`, etc.); - Localization and documentation suites (`docs/readme/`, `docs/specs/`, `scripts/lib/docs-facts.mjs`); - Core CLI and MCP server lifecycle (`src/cli/`, `src/mcp/`). Currently, there is no `.github/CODEOWNERS` in the repository. Pull requests rely on broad maintainer notifications or automated bot passes (`@greptile-apps`, `@chatgpt-codex-connector`). As repository contribution volume grows (>230 open PRs, 500+ issues), pull requests touching specialized areas (e.g., Borland SEH in Ghidra #3029, OpenClaw setup #3100, or documentation parity) often queue up without clear visibility into who should conduct subsystem-level reviews. ### Expected interaction with targets - No target interaction (documentation or usability only) ### Boundary details (optional) - Non-goal: Restricting contributor permissions or enforcing blocking reviews where optional reviews suffice. - Scope: Standardizing GitHub's native `.github/CODEOWNERS` mechanism so that pull requests touching specific paths automatically ping designated subsystem leads/teams or triage reviewers. ### Options and tradeoffs - **Option A (Subsystem ownership)**: Define team or individual owners per subsystem: ```text # Core repository fallback * @morluto # Analysis bridges /bridge/ghidra/ @<ghidra-maintainers> /bridge/hopper/ @<hopper-maintainers> # Client integrations & setup /src/application/SupportedClients.ts @<setup-maintainers> /docs/client-configuration.md @<setup-maintainers> # Documentation & translations /docs/ @<docs-maintainers> /website/ @<docs-maintainers> ``` - **Option B (Incremental rollout)**: Start with a minimal CODEOWNERS focusing on documentation and client setup where reviews can be triaged rapidly, expanding to complex binary bridges later. ### Verification readiness - Idea only; I need help defining checks ### Success criteria and open questions - Automatic reviewer assignment on PRs touching specific directories without maintainers needing to manually tag domain experts. - Does the project prefer assigning individual GitHub handles or organizing GitHub Teams (e.g. `@morluto/bridge-reviewers`, `@morluto/docs-reviewers`) for shared rotation? ### References - GitHub documentation on [CODEOWNERS](https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/about-code-owners) - Existing CI/review setup: PR template and bot reviews.

bsakaguchi referenced this issue

2026-10-17 21:10:01 +00:00

[PR #1288] [MERGED] fix(mcp): measure tool errors against their text-only delivery #2768

bsakaguchi referenced this issue

2026-10-17 21:10:04 +00:00

[PR #1294] [MERGED] test(process): check malformed capture choices concurrently #2774