Upgrade claude-code-action to v1, add anti-pile-on controls

[cmungall]

Summary

• Migrates all workflows from anthropics/claude-code-action@beta to @v1 (fixes move off of claude-code-beta actions #18)
• Adds concurrency control and sticky comments to prevent review pile-ons (fixes stop the review pileons #19)
• Cleans up deprecated inputs (direct_prompt -> prompt, removes trigger_phrase, assignee_trigger, etc.)

What changed

Issue #18: Move off beta

• @beta -> @v1 in all 5 workflow files (3 template, 2 repo)
• direct_prompt -> prompt (v1 API change)
• Removed deprecated commented-out options (trigger_phrase, assignee_trigger, claude_env)

Issue #19: Stop review pile-ons

Based on lessons from dismech#150 and dismech PR #268:

• Concurrency control: cancel-in-progress: true on all review workflows — when a new commit arrives, the in-progress review is cancelled instead of piling on
• Sticky comments: use_sticky_comment: true — reviews update a single comment instead of posting new ones on each push
• Write permissions: pull-requests: write (was read) — required for sticky comments to work

Files changed

File	Changes
template/.github/workflows/claude-code-review.yml	beta->v1, concurrency, sticky comments, direct_prompt->prompt
template/.github/workflows/claude-ontology-review.yml	beta->v1, concurrency (sticky comments already enabled)
template/.github/workflows/claude.yml	beta->v1, cleanup deprecated options
.github/workflows/claude-code-review.yml	beta->v1, concurrency, sticky comments
.github/workflows/claude.yml	beta->v1, cleanup

Test plan

• Push multiple rapid commits to a PR and verify only the latest review run completes
• Verify review comments update in place rather than creating new ones
• Test @claude mention trigger still works with v1 action
• Apply template to a test repo and verify workflows function

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR upgrades all Claude Code workflows from the beta version to the stable v1 release and implements anti-pile-on controls to prevent multiple reviews from accumulating when developers push rapid commits to PRs. The changes address issues #18 (migrating off beta) and #19 (preventing review pile-ons) based on lessons learned from the dismech project.

Changes:

• Upgraded anthropics/claude-code-action from @beta to @v1 across all workflow files
• Added concurrency controls with cancel-in-progress: true to review workflows
• Enabled sticky comments (use_sticky_comment: true) to update reviews in place
• Updated API parameter from direct_prompt to prompt (v1 change)
• Upgraded permissions from pull-requests: read to pull-requests: write for sticky comment support
• Removed deprecated options (trigger_phrase, assignee_trigger, claude_env, additional_permissions)

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 5 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
template/.github/workflows/claude.yml	Upgraded to v1, cleaned up deprecated options and whitespace
template/.github/workflows/claude-ontology-review.yml	New file: ontology-specific review workflow with concurrency and sticky comments
template/.github/workflows/claude-code-review.yml	Upgraded to v1, added concurrency/sticky comments, updated API parameters, upgraded permissions
.github/workflows/claude.yml	Upgraded to v1, removed sequential-thinking MCP server and allowed_tools, added claude_args
.github/workflows/claude-code-review.yml	Upgraded to v1, added concurrency/sticky comments, customized prompt for template consistency checks

[Copilot]

The repo's claude.yml file has been modified differently from the template version. The repo version removes allowed_tools, removes the sequential-thinking MCP server, and adds claude_args: --permission-mode bypassPermissions, but the template version keeps allowed_tools and sequential-thinking. This inconsistency is not mentioned in the PR description and could lead to different behavior between the template and the repo's own workflows. Are these intentional differences or should the files be kept consistent?

[Copilot]

This file uses the model version claude-opus-4-1-20250805, which is inconsistent with the commented-out examples in other workflow files (claude.yml and claude-code-review.yml) that reference claude-opus-4-20250514. While the difference might be intentional (using a newer model for ontology review), this inconsistency could confuse users about which model version to use. Consider documenting why this specific model version is preferred for ontology reviews, or standardizing the model version references across all template files.

Suggested change

	# Use Opus for ontology review (needs deeper reasoning)
	# Use a newer Opus model for ontology review (needs deeper reasoning).
	# Note: Other workflow templates may reference an earlier model (e.g. "claude-opus-4-20250514");
	# this workflow intentionally uses a newer version, but you can change it to match your standard if preferred.

[Copilot]

The prompt in the repo's workflow file has been customized to include "Whether template files are consistent with the repo's own workflow files" which is specific to this repository's purpose (providing templates). However, this same prompt is removed from the template version (template/.github/workflows/claude-code-review.yml), which is appropriate. The template version has fewer review criteria (missing "Performance considerations" and "Security concerns"). Consider whether these criteria should be restored in the template to provide more comprehensive code review guidance to users adopting this template.

Suggested change

	- Potential bugs or issues
	- Potential bugs or issues
	- Performance considerations
	- Security concerns