[workflow-style] Normalize report formatting for non-compliant workflows #65333

Workflow Style Normalization Report - 2026-10-03

Period: Last 24 hours
Scope: Active reporting-oriented workflows detected from local run logs in /tmp/gh-aw/aw-mcp/logs/
Goal: Align report prompts with consistent formatting guidance for clarity, trust, and usability.

Summary

• Reviewed active workflows from recent run metadata and summaries.
• Detected a set of workflow prompts that do not fully specify report style expectations.
• Consolidated all actionable gaps into this single tracking issue.

Non-Compliant Workflows

Progressive Disclosure Example

### Compliance Status

- ✅ **Compliant**: 12 workflows
- ⚠️ **Needs Improvement**: 5 workflows

<details>
<summary><b>View Detailed Findings</b></summary>

#### Non-Compliant Workflows

1. **workflow-a**: Missing h3+ header guidance
2. **workflow-b**: No `<details>` guidance for long output

#### Recommended Fixes

- Add explicit `###`/`####` header rules
- Collapse verbose sections with `<details>` blocks
- Standardize summary → findings → recommendations → next steps

</details>

Good References

• .github/workflows/daily-repo-chronicle.md (if present in current branch)
• .github/workflows/audit-workflows.md

Acceptance Criteria

• All listed workflows include explicit header-level guidance (### and below).
• All listed workflows document when/how to use <details>/<summary> with bold summaries.
• All listed workflows define a consistent report structure template.
• Subsequent runs produce outputs with visible high-signal summaries and collapsible detail sections.

Generated by 🔧 Workflow Normalizer · codex · gpt53codex · 12.7 AIC · ⌖ 3.21 AIC · ⊞ 24.1K · ◷

• expires on Oct 4, 2026, 6:40 AM UTC-08:00