MarkItDown MCP Server

# CI/CD Review Checklist ## 🔧 CI/CD Maintenance Review Guide This checklist ensures safe and thorough review of CI/CD workflow changes before manual merge. ### Pre-Review Requirements - [ ] CI/CD maintenance workflow validation has passed - [ ] Security scan completed without critical issues - [ ] YAML syntax validation passed - [ ] All automated checks completed ### Security Review #### Workflow Security - [ ] No shell injection vulnerabilities (user input in `run:` commands) - [ ] `pull_request_target` usage is safe (if present) - [ ] Secrets are handled securely (no echo of secrets) - [ ] No dangerous commands with user-controlled variables - [ ] Permissions follow principle of least privilege #### Access Control - [ ] Workflow triggers are appropriate for the changes - [ ] No unauthorized access to sensitive resources - [ ] Branch protection rules are maintained - [ ] No bypass of required checks ### Technical Review #### Workflow Structure - [ ] YAML syntax is correct and valid - [ ] Required fields (`name`, `on`, `jobs`) are present - [ ] Job dependencies are properly defined - [ ] Steps are logically ordered #### Resource Management - [ ] Reasonable resource limits (timeouts, memory) - [ ] Appropriate concurrency controls - [ ] Cleanup steps for temporary resources - [ ] Efficient use of GitHub Actions minutes #### Error Handling - [ ] Proper error handling and recovery - [ ] Clear failure messages - [ ] Appropriate use of `continue-on-error` - [ ] Rollback procedures documented ### Impact Assessment #### Change Analysis - [ ] Understand what workflows are being modified - [ ] Identify affected CI/CD processes - [ ] Review dependencies between workflows - [ ] Check for circular dependencies #### Risk Evaluation - [ ] Low risk: Documentation, comments, minor fixes - [ ] Medium risk: New steps, changed logic, permission updates - [ ] High risk: New workflows, security changes, trigger modifications #### Rollback Planning - [ ] Rollback procedure is documented - [ ] Rollback can be executed quickly if needed - [ ] Alternative workflows exist if primary fails - [ ] Monitoring plan for post-merge validation ### Quality Assurance #### Testing Considerations - [ ] Changes have been tested in isolation where possible - [ ] Integration points have been considered - [ ] Performance impact has been evaluated - [ ] Backwards compatibility maintained #### Documentation - [ ] Changes are clearly documented - [ ] Commit messages follow conventional format - [ ] Breaking changes are highlighted - [ ] Update relevant documentation (if needed) ### Compliance & Best Practices #### GitHub Actions Best Practices - [ ] Uses pinned action versions (avoid `@main` or `@master`) - [ ] Follows GitHub's security hardening guidelines - [ ] Uses official actions where possible - [ ] Implements proper caching strategies #### Organization Standards - [ ] Follows established naming conventions - [ ] Consistent with existing workflow patterns - [ ] Meets security policy requirements - [ ] Aligns with development workflow ### Final Checks #### Pre-Merge Validation - [ ] All review items above are satisfied - [ ] Changes are necessary and justified - [ ] No alternative solutions would be safer - [ ] Team consensus on the changes (if major) #### Post-Merge Monitoring Plan - [ ] Plan to monitor CI/CD health after merge - [ ] Identify key metrics to watch - [ ] Timeline for validation (first few PRs) - [ ] Escalation plan if issues arise ## 🚨 Red Flags - Do Not Merge **Security Red Flags:** - Unvalidated user input in shell commands - Secrets exposed in logs or outputs - Overly permissive access controls - Suspicious external action usage **Technical Red Flags:** - Circular workflow dependencies - Missing error handling - Unclear or complex logic - Resource exhaustion risks **Process Red Flags:** - Rushed changes without proper review - Lack of rollback plan - Missing documentation - Changes made under pressure ## ✅ Merge Approval Criteria **Must have ALL of the following:** 1. Security review completed with no critical issues 2. Technical review shows sound implementation 3. Impact assessment shows acceptable risk 4. Rollback plan is documented and tested 5. Post-merge monitoring plan is in place ## 📋 Review Templates ### Security Review Sign-off ``` ✅ Security Review Completed Reviewer: [Name] Date: [Date] Findings: [None/Low/Medium/High risk issues found] Recommendations: [Any security improvements] Approval: [Approved/Needs Changes/Rejected] ``` ### Technical Review Sign-off ``` ✅ Technical Review Completed Reviewer: [Name] Date: [Date] Technical Quality: [Excellent/Good/Needs Improvement] Risk Level: [Low/Medium/High] Rollback Tested: [Yes/No] Approval: [Approved/Needs Changes/Rejected] ``` ### Final Merge Approval ``` 🚀 CI/CD Changes Approved for Merge Security: ✅ Approved by [Name] Technical: ✅ Approved by [Name] Risk Level: [Low/Medium/High] Rollback Plan: ✅ Documented and tested Monitoring: ✅ Plan in place Approved by: [Final Approver Name] Date: [Date] Merge Authorization: APPROVED ``` --- ## 📚 Additional Resources - [CI/CD Maintenance Workflow](../../.github/workflows/ci-cd-maintenance.yml) - [AGENTS.md CI/CD Section](../../AGENTS.md#-cicd-maintenance-process) - [Security Best Practices](../guides/security.md) - [GitHub Actions Security Hardening](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/security-guides/security-hardening-for-github-actions) --- *This checklist should be used for all CI/CD workflow changes to ensure security, reliability, and maintainability of the continuous integration infrastructure.*