[warp-agent-staging]

What this feature does

Configure incident investigation in an existing factory. Authenticated production events go to the foreman for read-only diagnosis, and a person decides whether to request a reviewed code fix. Paging, incident command, production changes, deployment, and merging remain under the team's existing controls.

Summary

Replaces the production-incident scaffold with an investigation-first recipe and a signed Sentry issue-webhook example.

Review status: Revisions committed and pushed at 3fba6b5eb5af0912a95fd534c0087e21186b4b3f. Validation below covers the revised article; live-provider checks remain unverified as listed below.

Changes

src/content/docs/factories/use-cases/production-incident-resolution.mdx

• Uses existing-factory framing, concise prerequisites, and task-based headings.
• Separates intake selection, automation reuse, read-only diagnostics, runbook preparation, webhook application, sender configuration, and disabled automation setup.
• Scopes the Sentry example to new fatal issues in a production-only project. Distinguishes issue / created / data.issue from event_alert / triggered / data.event. Does not imply a project filter separates mixed environments.
• Explains the Client Secret versus API-token distinction and the two-phase webhook UID setup. Secret values never go into definition files.
• Stops initial automation after investigation. Code fixes need an explicit human request, regression tests, repository checks, and independent review.
• Tests matching and nonmatching deliveries before enabling the automation, then checks authentication failures, duplicate deliveries, investigation-only behavior, and missing evidence.
• Clarifies that webhook intake has no reply channel, different events about one incident are not automatically combined, and prompt restrictions do not enforce credential boundaries.
• Removes repetitive best-practice and product-boundary sections by placing safeguards beside the relevant actions.

Content design plan

Audience and JTBD: An incident owner or service maintainer who wants agents to gather production evidence and prepare a code fix without granting production mutation authority.

Problem: Webhook and integration references describe configuration primitives but not the decisions and validation needed for an incident workflow.

Goals: Route a signed, scoped production event to an existing factory; investigate using read-only diagnostics; return evidence and uncertainty; require a separate human decision before a code fix.

Purpose and value: Connect webhook configuration, agent roles, and credential controls into a task-oriented recipe without duplicating the full reference documentation.

Content type: Procedural recipe with a configuration summary and a bounded example workflow.

Skill and template: draft_procedural / .agents/templates/procedural.md; reviewed against repository style and documentation-quality guidance.

High-impact scenarios: Covers Sentry issue-created events from a production-only project, investigation reports, filter tests, and human-requested fixes. Excludes paging, incident command, production mutation, deployment, rollback automation, and a universal payload format for every alert provider.

Source files consulted

• warpdotdev/warp-server at 084e0e425af93139c6e95a78e2981dce55557c31: router/handlers/external/webhook_signature_schemes.go, router/handlers/external/warp_webhook.go, logic/factory_webhooks.go, logic/ai/ambient_agents/automations/provider_webhook.go, model/types/triggers/pattern.go, logic/factoryfile/resolution/webhook.go, and logic/factoryfile/projector/webhook.go. Checked signing-secret verification, acceptance versus dispatch, deduplication, dry-run matching, nested payload filters, managed-secret references, and generated UID application.
• Default foreman and triage instructions in warpdotdev/warp-factory-examples at 84e7c952f1506c4bd2784d96fd40a6f4d6398cad. The default foreman can continue to implementation, so this automation explicitly requests investigation only.
• Sentry webhook authentication, issue webhook payload, and issue-alert payload checked October 22, 2026.
• Canonical factory webhook, automation, agent, definition, and infrastructure/security documentation.

Validation and rollout evidence

• Factory MCP parser validation and the production app.warp.dev factory-files validation endpoint both accept the example tree with no diagnostics. A placeholder webhook UID was replaced with a sample UUID for syntax validation. State-dependent apply checks were not run.
• Production schemas retrieved October 22, 2026: webhook.schema.json SHA256 b108204a53bf55c3b5e9d55ce55ed7761e54d6e59592327a6b740152f5169428; automation.schema.json SHA256 61c15fe6e32dd9e3f918739499b2f2720488609e510cd7d455a7016fd0427fce. Schema/parser acceptance is not end-to-end delivery evidence.
• Targeted rollout inspection at the server revision above found all three custom-webhook admission gates enabled in checked-in production configuration. This is configuration evidence, not proof of deployment or live delivery. Unrelated broad-search matches were excluded from the verdict. No private flag names or raw rollout output are published.
• Typecheck: 0 errors. Heading-variable tests: 5/5. Build, heading-TOC validation, homepage JSON-LD, compression contract, and whitespace checks pass. Style lint reports one glossary warning for the shipped Webhook UI label.
• Rendered structure checked: eight setup steps, five test steps, and two code-fix steps. All 17 internal links and anchors resolve.
• Six local fixture checks exercise the example's documented nested-equality conditions: matching production fatal issue, wrong project, lower severity, missing project, different action, and issue-alert payload shape. These are local example checks, not execution of Warp's Go matcher or a live provider flow.
• The original October 7 stable-release assertion was removed: no release-date evidence was established for this recipe.

Unverified claims

• No live Sentry integration was configured and no signed delivery was sent. Verify Client Secret setup, sender subscription, ingress URL, signature acceptance/rejection, stored-delivery filter testing, retry deduplication, and activation in a connected test factory.
• No live diagnostic credentials or permission scopes were exercised. Confirm read-only access and inherited credential boundaries with the team's observability provider.
• No full investigation, external notification, human-requested implementation, or independent-review handoff was exercised. Verify those with synthetic evidence before connecting production events.
• The example depends on a production-only Sentry project. A mixed-environment setup needs a payload and explicit environment filter verified against that sender.

Documentation risk

Risk: engineering-review-required
Rationale: Documents signed webhook intake, payload filtering, production credential boundaries, and a multi-agent workflow.
Docs override: none

PR stack

• #895 — Navigation and structure
• #896 — Issue triage
• #897 — Code review
• #898 — Issue implementation
• #899 — Production incident resolution
• #900 — Computer Use verification
• #901 — End-to-end SDLC automation

Dependency: #895 targets main. This PR targets factory/factory-use-cases-structure; remaining recipe PRs are reviewed independently.

Human review focus

• Confirm the production-only Sentry project scope and the issue-webhook versus issue-alert distinction.
• Review the disabled-first setup and separate human request for implementation.
• Validate live provider authentication and diagnostic permissions before publication.

Agent review conversation

Co-Authored-By: Oz oz-agent@warp.dev
Co-Authored-By: Warp agent@warp.dev

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated
docs	Ready	Preview	Oct 22, 2026 10:09pm UTC

[warp-agent-staging]

This PR was generated with Warp.

Comment @warp-staging-factory on this PR to send it follow-up work.

  

[warp-for-oss]

@rachaelrenk

I'm starting a first review of this pull request.

You can view the conversation on Warp.

I completed the review and no human review was requested for this pull request.

Comment /warp-agent-review on this pull request to retrigger a review (up to 3 times on the same pull request).

Powered by Oz

[github-actions]

Review summary

The independent agent completed its review for this commit.

Findings

• src/content/docs/factories/use-cases/production-incident-resolution.mdx:93 — [SUGGESTION] The instruction to send signed synthetic deliveries provides no runnable sender for the matching and nonmatching payloads, and the linked Sentry authentication reference demonstrates verification rather than sending. Requested resolution: add or directly link a runnable signing-and-POST example that reads the Client Secret from an environment variable without printing it, sends the four fixtures, and preserves the disabled-first filter checks and subsequent enabled-run check.

Verdict

Approve with nits

[warp-for-oss]

Overview

This PR replaces the incident-resolution scaffold with a procedure for signed Sentry webhook intake, read-only triage, validation, and human-gated code fixes. The overall direction matches the stated investigation-first scope, and the security-sensitive prompt and credential boundaries are called out. One changed link sends factory readers to the legacy standalone secrets workflow, so that should be fixed before merge.

Concerns

• src/content/docs/factories/use-cases/production-incident-resolution.mdx:39 links factory credential setup to /platform/secrets/, whose page tells Warp Factories users to follow /factories/secrets/ instead.
• src/content/docs/factories/use-cases/production-incident-resolution.mdx:2 still frames the page as resolving production incidents, while the article now focuses on investigation and keeps production mitigation/deployment separate.

Verdict

Found: 0 critical, 1 important, 1 suggestions

Request changes

Comment /warp-agent-review on this pull request to retrigger a review (up to 3 times on the same pull request).

Powered by Oz