@another-rex @G-Rath how do you feel about renaming this workflow?

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 68.09%. Comparing base (6c9494e) to head (0fc29bd).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2650      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   68.03%   68.09%   +0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         173      173              
  Lines       13405    13412       +7     
==========================================
+ Hits         9120     9133      +13     
+ Misses       3577     3573       -4     
+ Partials      708      706       -2     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

I assume you mean it's not obvious when looking at the workflows in the actions tab?

When naming workflows and jobs I'm conscious that they get joined together when being displayed in relevant contexts (i.e. checks / lint), but in hindsight for these workflows it's probably better to name the workflow (and file, so that they are ordered together) something like update-<thing> and the job something likerun

(By "they" I mean the scalibr, snapshots, and cassette workflows)