Skip to content

feat: expose Step Functions executions to automation - #368

Merged
YoungJinJung merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
feature/issue-360-step-functions-agent-surface
Sep 29, 2026
Merged

YoungJinJung merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
feature/issue-360-step-functions-agent-surface

Conversation

@YoungJinJung

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

  • Add unic resources step-function-executions --state-machine <arn> --json using the existing failure-first execution ordering.
  • Expose the same read-only contract as list_step_function_executions over MCP with strict arguments and states:ListExecutions metadata.
  • Return stable UTC timestamps and explicitly report the 200-execution cap through pagination metadata and warnings.

Related Issues

Refs #360

Validation

  • go test ./internal/cli ./internal/mcp ./internal/services/aws -run "TestStepFunction|TestCatalogFeaturesHaveAgentSurfaceDecision|TestReadOnlyOperation|TestMCPCapabilities" -count=1
  • make test
  • make build
  • git diff --check
  • ./unic schema resources step-function-executions --json

Checklist

  • Scope is focused
  • Branch name follows docs/branch-naming-harness.md
  • Documentation harness reviewed (docs/documentation-harness.md)
  • README updated if user-facing behavior changed
  • Relevant docs/ pages updated if architecture, auth, config, or workflow changed
  • Tests/validation included
  • Breaking changes documented (none)

- Add a read-only failure-first execution JSON command and MCP tool.
- Report the 200-execution cap and document the stable contract.
@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Sep 15, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Warning

Review limit reached

Next included review available in 8 minutes.

Check out review usage here.

View limit details

Limit details: You’ve used the included review currently available.

You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository.

Learn how review limits work.

Review configuration:

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Repository: DevopsArtFactory/unic/.coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Advanced

Run ID: fbbffc90-178c-43ed-be64-d986a707c34c

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between a655fb1 and 7bc3b5d.

📒 Files selected for processing (9)
  • README.md
  • docs/development.md
  • internal/cli/resources.go
  • internal/cli/resources_operations.go
  • internal/cli/resources_operations_test.go
  • internal/mcp/agent_surface_test.go
  • internal/mcp/server.go
  • internal/mcp/server_test.go
  • skills/unic-aws/SKILL.md

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

@amazon-q-developer amazon-q-developer Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This PR successfully exposes Step Functions executions through the CLI and MCP interface with consistent patterns and comprehensive test coverage. The implementation follows existing conventions for resource queries, properly handles error cases, and includes appropriate pagination warnings. The failure-first triage ordering and 200-execution limit are clearly documented and tested.


You can now have the agent implement changes and create commits directly on your pull request's source branch. Simply comment with /q followed by your request in natural language to ask the agent to make changes.

Comment thread internal/cli/resources_operations.go

@YoungJinJung YoungJinJung left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reviewed head f79d9cb. I read the complete nine-file diff, tests, issue context, CI, prior reviews, comments, and inline discussion. The bounded 200-execution query, stable failure-first ordering, conservative cap signal, UTC serialization, CLI/MCP wiring, permissions, and documentation are aligned; no actionable concerns remain. Local validation passed: make test, make build, schema inspection, and git diff --check. Approval and merge remain for an independent reviewer because this GitHub identity authored the PR.

@youngjinjung-linq youngjinjung-linq left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reviewed head f79d9cb. I read the complete nine-file diff, tests, CI, issue context, prior reviews, comments, and inline discussion. The bounded Step Functions query, stable failure-first contract, conservative cap signal, UTC serialization, CLI/MCP wiring, permissions, and documentation are aligned; no actionable concerns remain. Local validation passed: targeted tests, make test, make build, schema inspection, and git diff --check.

# Conflicts:
#	README.md
#	docs/development.md
#	internal/cli/resources.go
#	internal/cli/resources_operations.go
#	internal/cli/resources_operations_test.go
#	internal/mcp/agent_surface_test.go
#	internal/mcp/server.go
#	internal/mcp/server_test.go
#	skills/unic-aws/SKILL.md
@YoungJinJung
YoungJinJung merged commit c38984b into main Sep 29, 2026
@YoungJinJung
YoungJinJung deleted the feature/issue-360-step-functions-agent-surface branch September 29, 2026 02:01
YoungJinJung added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 29, 2026
…ph (#378)

Put Install Script before Homebrew under Installation. The Homebrew path
needs three commands and a trust decision since Homebrew 6.0.0 (#369);
the script is one line with no trust step, so it is the lower-friction
entry point for a first-time reader. Both remain documented.

This does not close #376 — that asks for one-command `brew install
unic`, which is gated on homebrew-core notability — but it is the part
available today.

Also collapses the "The server provides the read-only resource
operations listed above ..." paragraph, which appeared three times in a
row with three different example-prompt lists. That was a regression
from merging the #360 fills serially: #364, #367 and #368 each edited
the sentence to name their own tool, and the conflict resolutions for
#367 and #368 kept both sides rather than merging them. The surviving
sentence names no example tool, since doing so is what made the line
conflict on every fill and the command list above already enumerates
them. The six distinct prompts are preserved.

Closes #377

Co-authored-by: YoungJinJung <18644538+YoungJinJung@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants