[worktrunk-bot]

Regenerates the tend-* workflows against tend 0.2.6 (from 0.2.5). The workflow files themselves only move the max-sixty/tend/claude@ pin and the generated-by header; the adopter-visible changes ride in the action and its bundled skills, plus one generated tend-mention condition.

The agent sandbox gets a writable TMPDIR. Root /tmp is read-only for the agent, and until now bundled scripts and skill recipes wrote there anyway — this repo carries a note in .claude/skills/running-tend/SKILL.md telling sessions to route scratch paths through ${TMPDIR:-/tmp} for exactly that reason (#4063). 0.2.6 exports a standard writable TMPDIR under the sandbox user's home and moves the bundled scripts onto it, so a recipe that reaches for a plain /tmp path no longer dies on Read-only file system (max-sixty/tend#1199).

A review the bot leaves on its own PR no longer summons a second session. tend-mention's dispatch filter now returns early when the review author is the bot, and tend-review applies its own findings on PRs with no human author instead — the same rule step 9 of the review skill already used for Dependabot and renovate PRs. Previously each self-review round cost a cold tend-mention boot that re-read the whole PR to apply fixes the reviewer had just written, then pushed and fired another review (max-sixty/tend#1203). This is the one change visible in the generated YAML — the tend-mention.yaml diff below.

The maintainer-tier check reads authorAssociation correctly. The shared skill block claimed gh pr view --json doesn't expose the field at all; it does, nested on the comment and review objects, and only the top-level key is rejected. Sessions deciding whether a requester may direct a destructive action were being pushed to the REST API unnecessarily (max-sixty/tend#1178).

Full comparison: max-sixty/tend@0.2.5...0.2.6.

Generated tend-mention.yaml condition change

The dispatch filter gains an early bail on a bot-authored review:

# A review the bot wrote hands work to nobody: the review session
# applies the findings it raised. The mention checks run first, so
# naming the bot in a review still summons a session.
if review_author == bot:
    return verdict(False)

replacing the prior participation branch, which dispatched when the PR author was also the bot and the review carried a body or fresh inline comments. The prompt for a genuine pull_request_review dispatch drops the clause that told the session to action a review it had authored itself.