I don’t think you truly get the “best” of both worlds, because the rate of accidentally omitting a broken test and letting something slip into master is now non

I don’t think you truly get the “best” of both worlds, because the rate of accidentally omitting a broken test and letting something slip into master is now non-zero (flaky tests aside). This is still a tradeoff. But maybe it’s a good one! I do wonder if this is as feasible at scale, where breaking master can be extremely costly (although at least it’s not running all tests for all commits, so a broken test won’t break all CI runs). Maybe it could be paired with, say, running all E2E tests post-merge and reporting breakages ASAP.