feat: move govulncheck workflow to use slack webhook

[hannahkm]

What does this PR do?

Removes GHA PRs due to lack of permissions. govulncheck now sends Slack notifications when an upgrade is needed.

Motivation

Security and test visibility.

Reviewer's Checklist

• Changed code has unit tests for its functionality at or near 100% coverage.
• System-Tests covering this feature have been added and enabled with the va.b.c-dev version tag.
• There is a benchmark for any new code, or changes to existing code.
• If this interacts with the agent in a new way, a system test has been added.
• New code is free of linting errors. You can check this by running make lint locally.
• New code doesn't break existing tests. You can check this by running make test locally.
• Add an appropriate team label so this PR gets put in the right place for the release notes.
• All generated files are up to date. You can check this by running make generate locally.
• Non-trivial go.mod changes, e.g. adding new modules, are reviewed by @DataDog/dd-trace-go-guild. Make sure all nested modules are up to date by running make fix-modules locally.

Unsure? Have a question? Request a review!

[datadog-prod-us1-4]

🎉 All green!

❄️ No new flaky tests detected
🧪 All tests passed

🎯 Code Coverage (details)
• Patch Coverage: 100.00%
• Overall Coverage: 60.87% (+4.14%)

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: a7b5040 | Docs | Datadog PR Page | Give us feedback!}

[pr-commenter]

Benchmarks

Benchmark execution time: 2026-04-20 19:47:50

Comparing candidate commit a7b5040 in PR branch hannahkm/fix-govulncheck-workflow with baseline commit 21bb70d in branch main.

Found 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 206 metrics, 9 unstable metrics.

Explanation

This is an A/B test comparing a candidate commit's performance against that of a baseline commit. Performance changes are noted in the tables below as:

• 🟩 = significantly better candidate vs. baseline
• 🟥 = significantly worse candidate vs. baseline

We compute a confidence interval (CI) over the relative difference of means between metrics from the candidate and baseline commits, considering the baseline as the reference.

If the CI is entirely outside the configured SIGNIFICANT_IMPACT_THRESHOLD (or the deprecated UNCONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD), the change is considered significant.

Feel free to reach out to #apm-benchmarking-platform on Slack if you have any questions.

More details about the CI and significant changes

You can imagine this CI as a range of values that is likely to contain the true difference of means between the candidate and baseline commits.

CIs of the difference of means are often centered around 0%, because often changes are not that big:

---------------------------------(------|---^--------)-------------------------------->
                              -0.6%    0%  0.3%     +1.2%
                                 |          |        |
         lower bound of the CI --'          |        |
sample mean (center of the CI) -------------'        |
         upper bound of the CI ----------------------'

As described above, a change is considered significant if the CI is entirely outside the configured SIGNIFICANT_IMPACT_THRESHOLD (or the deprecated UNCONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD).

For instance, for an execution time metric, this confidence interval indicates a significantly worse performance:

----------------------------------------|---------|---(---------^---------)---------->
                                       0%        1%  1.3%      2.2%      3.1%
                                                  |   |         |         |
       significant impact threshold --------------'   |         |         |
                      lower bound of CI --------------'         |         |
       sample mean (center of the CI) --------------------------'         |
                      upper bound of CI ----------------------------------'

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 61.56%. Comparing base (21bb70d) to head (6875fe3).

Additional details and impacted files

see 448 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[hannahkm]

/merge

[gh-worker-devflow-routing-ef8351]

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2026-04-20 17:56:19 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /merge

---

2026-04-20 17:56:26 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: waiting for PR to be ready

This pull request is not mergeable according to GitHub. Common reasons include pending required checks, missing approvals, or merge conflicts — but it could also be blocked by other repository rules or settings.
It will be added to the queue as soon as checks pass and/or get approvals. View in MergeQueue UI.
Note: if you pushed new commits since the last approval, you may need additional approval.
You can remove it from the waiting list with /remove command.

---

2026-04-20 19:11:47 UTC ⚠️ MergeQueue: This merge request was unqueued

hannahs.kim@datadoghq.com unqueued this merge request

[hannahkm]

/remove

[gh-worker-devflow-routing-ef8351]

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2026-04-20 19:11:40 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /remove

---

2026-04-20 19:11:43 UTC ℹ️ Devflow: /remove