GitHub basics
Debug pushing straight to main in the evaluation pull request
Page 5 reproduces and repairs the characteristic failure of the pull request from `improve-evaluation` into main: pushing straight to main, or opening a PR with failing checks ignored.
1Learn the idea
Read
Reproduce before you repair
Do not start with a speculative fix for the evaluation pull request. Force the failure on purpose, save the before output, then change one cause at a time. Retries are allowed only for transient conditions—not for bad input that will fail forever on github-basics.
Read
Force the failure
gh pr checks || true
Read
do not merge while required checks fail; push a fix commit instead
Expected evidence: **failing check list or empty success**. If you cannot reproduce on demand, you do not yet control the failure mode for `github-basics`.
Read
Repair with a reviewable diff
After repair, rerun the exact reproduction command. Keep the failing fixture as a regression seed for the observability page. For the pull request from improve-evaluation into main, remember the claim you are restoring: remote branch and PR exist; CI status is visible before merge.
Read
Lab notebook: reproduce on command
Store a one-command reproduction for: pushing straight to main, or opening a PR with failing checks ignored. The command should use feature branch improve-evaluation with one commit or a minimal mutant of it. Paste the failing output into notes/failure-before.txt (or your shell scrollback as copied text). After the fix, paste notes/failure-after.txt and keep both.
Retries belong only on transient faults. If the failure is bad input, a bad allowlist, or a logic bug in the evaluation pull request, retrying will amplify cost without repairing trust around propose a reviewed evaluation change for merge only after checks pass.
Read
Worked judgment
Classify the failure as prevent, detect, contain, or recover—using this lab’s language, not a generic poster. For github-basics, the first fix should usually be detect+prevent at the boundary, because pushing straight to main, or opening a PR with failing checks ignored is cheaper to stop early than to explain in production prose.
Read
Why this stage matters for the evaluation pull request
At the debugging stage for github-basics, the job is narrower than finishing a product demo. You are creating one progressive evidence piece about feature branch improve-evaluation with one commit that later pages inherit without redefining success. Keep that fixture small enough to inspect by hand, keep outputs copy-pasteable as text, and refuse to narrate this baseline as if it were a production SLA: branch protection / required checks listed before opening the PR.
For this page specifically, success looks like before/after evidence for the characteristic failure while still centering the user decision to propose a reviewed evaluation change for merge only after checks pass. If you cannot point to a file, command, or assertion that proves that for the evaluation pull request, stay on this page instead of advancing.
Go deeper
Before you start
Why this matters
Describe the smallest fixture that triggers pushing straight to main. Predict the first visible symptom (exception, wrong label, silent empty success). You will compare that prediction with the reproduction below.
In the wild
See how this idea shows up as a product and a company — then come back to the lesson. Skills transfer across vendors.
Related lessons
Check your understanding
Page assessment
Answer from memory. Completion is saved from this evidence, not from opening the next page.
All responses are required.