Analyze Security Alert Burndown Campaign Spec completeness

[Copilot]

Analysis of the Security Alert Burndown campaign spec to verify completeness against schema requirements.

Analysis Results

The campaign spec was found to be valid and functional with all required fields present:

• ✅ All 3 required fields (id, name, project-url)
• ✅ Objective with clear success criteria
• ✅ 2 well-defined KPIs (1 primary, 1 supporting)
• ✅ Comprehensive governance policies
• ✅ Discovery configuration (discovery-repos, tracker-label)
• ✅ 2 worker workflows (code-scanning-fixer, security-fix-pr)
• ✅ Memory paths, metrics, and cursor configuration
• ✅ Risk level, owners, and tags

Validation

✅ Schema validation: PASS (no problems found)
✅ Worker workflows: EXIST (both .md and .lock.yml files present)
✅ Orchestrator: COMPILED (campaign orchestrator generated successfully)

The campaign spec follows a simple, label-based approach for worker discovery and orchestration, keeping workflow_dispatch inputs straightforward.

Original prompt

Analyze the Security Alert Burndown Campaign Spec. Is it complete? Have all the requirements been met?

---

💡 You can make Copilot smarter by setting up custom instructions, customizing its development environment and configuring Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers. Learn more Copilot coding agent tips in the docs.

[mnkiefer]

@copilot workflow_dispatch should not require complex inputs such as capabilities, payload-schema, output labeling, idempotency-strategy. Remove these and keep campaigns/dispatching simple and label based, etc.

[Copilot]

@copilot workflow_dispatch should not require complex inputs such as capabilities, payload-schema, output labeling, idempotency-strategy. Remove these and keep campaigns/dispatching simple and label b...

Removed the complex workers metadata (capabilities, payload-schema, output-labeling, idempotency-strategy) and bootstrap configuration. The campaign spec is now back to its original simple, label-based approach. Fixed in f4d2625.