Behavior change: Job Summaries

Job Summaries

Job Summaries are an alternative to comments

Currently, check-spelling writes its reports using comments which have a 64k size limit. Some repositories hit this limit (although typically only during the initial onboarding).
Creating a comment requires write permissions to either PRs to repositories (which is a security concern).
People rightfully complain about check-spelling polluting PR discussions. The latest version of check-spelling will automatically collapse these reports which should partially alleviate this.
Because of the size issues, and security concerns, a second stage is necessary, and an artifact is used to pass data between stages.
Comments don't inherently know their own url, but when one creates one, the result includes the url, and one can rewrite the comment to embed the url.
Artifact urls aren't known until after a workflow completes, which is a real problem, but the download-artifact feature is able to find them anyway...

Job Summaries can be considerably larger (1mb?).
Job Summaries don't require write permissions.
Job Summaries are tied to the ✅ / ❌ / Details link for a Job and thus mostly disappear when they cease to be current.
Job Summaries wouldn't need artifacts since all the data could be included in the summary itself.
It's unclear how to determine the url of a Job Summary, and it's unlikely that one could rewrite a Job Summary later.

I haven't figured out how to integrate this feature into my workflow.