yuanyeex
/
openclaw
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

added more explicit instructions

main
Gustavo Madeira Santana 2026-02-07 15:27:24 -05:00
parent 6d1daf2ba5
commit cde29fef71
1 changed files with 29 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

30
.agents/skills/PR_WORKFLOW.md
View File

@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
# PR Review Instructions # PR Review Instructions
# Please read this in full and do not skip sections. Please read this in full and do not skip sections.
## Working rule ## Working rule
@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ Do not continue if you cannot verify the problem is real or test the fix.
- Do not trust PR code by default. - Do not trust PR code by default.
- Do not merge changes you cannot validate with a reproducible problem and a tested fix. - Do not merge changes you cannot validate with a reproducible problem and a tested fix.
- Keep types strict. Do not use `any` in implementation code. - Keep types strict. Do not use `any` in implementation code.
- Keep external-input boundaries typed and validated, including CLI input, environment variables, network payloads, and tool output.
- Keep implementations properly scoped. Fix root causes, not local symptoms. - Keep implementations properly scoped. Fix root causes, not local symptoms.
- Identify and reuse canonical sources of truth so behavior does not drift across the codebase. - Identify and reuse canonical sources of truth so behavior does not drift across the codebase.
- Harden changes. Always evaluate security impact and abuse paths. - Harden changes. Always evaluate security impact and abuse paths.
@ -32,6 +33,12 @@ Do not continue if you cannot verify the problem is real or test the fix.
## Unified workflow ## Unified workflow
Entry criteria:
- PR URL/number is known.
- Problem statement is clear enough to attempt reproduction.
- A realistic verification path exists (tests, integration checks, or explicit manual validation).
### 1) `review-pr` ### 1) `review-pr`
Purpose: Purpose:
@ -54,6 +61,12 @@ Can we fix up everything?
Do we have any questions? Do we have any questions?
``` ```
Stop and escalate instead of continuing if:
- The problem cannot be reproduced or confirmed.
- The proposed PR scope does not match the stated problem.
- The design introduces unresolved security or trust-boundary concerns.
### 2) `prepare-pr` ### 2) `prepare-pr`
Purpose: Purpose:
@ -78,8 +91,15 @@ Do we have enough tests?
Do not add performative tests, ensure tests are real and there are no regressions. Do not add performative tests, ensure tests are real and there are no regressions.
Take your time, fix it properly, refactor if necessary. Take your time, fix it properly, refactor if necessary.
Do you see any follow-up refactors we should do? Do you see any follow-up refactors we should do?
Did any changes introduce any potential security vulnerabilities?
``` ```
Stop and escalate instead of continuing if:
- You cannot verify behavior changes with meaningful tests or validation.
- Fixing findings requires broad architecture changes outside safe PR scope.
- Security hardening requirements remain unresolved.
### 3) `merge-pr` ### 3) `merge-pr`
Purpose: Purpose:
@ -87,6 +107,13 @@ Purpose:
- Merge only after review and prep artifacts are present and checks are green. - Merge only after review and prep artifacts are present and checks are green.
- Use squash merge flow and verify the PR ends in `MERGED` state. - Use squash merge flow and verify the PR ends in `MERGED` state.
Go or no-go checklist before merge:
- All BLOCKER and IMPORTANT findings are resolved.
- Verification is meaningful and regression risk is acceptably low.
- Docs and changelog are updated when required.
- Required CI checks are green and the branch is not behind `main`.
Expected output: Expected output:
- Successful merge commit and recorded merge SHA. - Successful merge commit and recorded merge SHA.
@ -94,4 +121,5 @@ Expected output:
Maintainer checkpoint after merge: Maintainer checkpoint after merge:
- Were any refactors intentionally deferred and now need follow-up issue(s)?
- Did this reveal broader architecture or test gaps we should address? - Did this reveal broader architecture or test gaps we should address?