feat(ci): add PR readiness check workflow

[Priyanshu-u07]

Add a GitHub Actions workflow that automatically checks PRs for common issues and posts an actionable comment.

• Missing DCO sign-off
• Empty commit messages
• Missing commit description
• Merge commits

The workflow uses pull_request_target to comment on fork PRs without checking out or executing PR code. It posts a single comment that updates on each push. It skips DCO/description checks on merge commits (fix is to remove them).

Groups issues by type to keep comments clean

Demo

Tested on my fork with different scenarios:

• Missing DCO
• All checks passed
• Grouped issues (empty msg & missing desc)
• Merge commit detected

Note:
In addition to the checks discussed in #1521 , I also added a check for missing commit description body, since all merged PRs in the repo follow this convention. Happy to remove if preferred.

Closes #1521

[gemini-code-assist]

Note

Gemini is unable to generate a review for this pull request due to the file types involved not being currently supported.

[slimreaper35]

Closing ?

[eskultety]

Closing ?

The idea is still sound - provide early feedback on new PRs on fundamentals. Review agents running in the repo context (i.e. installed on the repo as a GH app or in a runner) only see the overall changes against the merge base. That said, I'm not particularly pleased we'd need to maintain a JS script in a new GH workflow (which truth to be told was the expected outcome given the options we have).

I also considered what if we formulated this as some preflight-check agent skill locally - well, that just invites anyone to open a PR with a malicious intent to prompt inject local systems hoping folks would run the preflight-check blindly on any new PR.

[slimreaper35]

Okay 😄 But I think the idea of having a script for checking commit message body is wild. Hopefully, it won't discourage some human contributors.

[eskultety]

I think the idea of having a script for checking commit message body is wild.

It is. This surely is effort that is providing marginal improvement, we've known that since the beginning. There are various factors on why that is and why we're limited. I'm okay if we abandon this effort. It was needed when we got the wave of AI slop a few months back but the situation has stabilized for now.

[Priyanshu-u07]

Thanks for the discussion! I understand that the original problem has been resolved, so I'm happy to close this PR.