cast/CONTRIBUTING.md
dan-claude-bot 2578a570ca feat: CI refuses a release PR with no drill record
CONTRIBUTING has always asked for the full real-hardware drill on a
release. Nothing asserted it, so it was performed exactly as often as a
reviewer remembered to ask — which is never, across every release in the
family, until a reviewer bot finally blocked on it. The gate moves out of
memory and into the tree.

drill/RUNS.md is cast's own run log, starting empty: no fabricated
history, and an honest note that cast has no drill harness script yet —
its legs are run by the documented procedure. The file is the record, not
the instrument.

.github/scripts/drill-recorded.sh reads package.json and asserts that a
bare version has a non-empty '## Release drill — X.Y.Z' section. A -dev
tree has no ship claim and passes trivially. The version is matched
WHOLE via awk field equality, release-notes.sh's fix for the same trap:
0.2.0 is not satisfied by 0.2.0-rc1, or the reverse.

It requires a RECORD, not a PASS. A maintainer waiver is legal and is
itself a section in drill/RUNS.md, so skipping the drill stays possible
and stays a deliberate, reviewable commit rather than an oversight.

The drill itself is ONE orchestrated run over the whole stack: rig
bootstraps a bare host and installs box, box new mints a seed, the seed
calls rig back to converge, and cast's legs run on the result. rig sits
below box and above it, so the repos are mutually recursive rather than
linearly ordered and their releases are not published in a fixed
sequence. The run pins candidate refs (RIG_REPO/RIG_REF at mint time),
so no repo must ship before another can be drilled, and drilling the
candidate is drilling the release — a release diff is the version file
and CHANGELOG.md, nothing executable.

Each repo records its own legs from that run, citing the shared run ID
and the other repos' SHAs. cast never reads box's or rig's drill log to
decide whether cast may ship: a cross-repo lookup degrades to "pass" the
moment it fails to resolve — the unreadable-rollup class.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-21 15:24:08 +00:00

229 lines
14 KiB
Markdown

# Contributing
How change lands in this repo. The short version: PRs are born as drafts,
three reviewer bots take the first rounds, a human takes the last word — and
labels tell you where everything is without opening anything.
## The PR loop
1. **Fork and branch.** Contributors work from forks; upstream branches are
for maintainers. Title the PR conventionally (`feat:`, `fix:`, `docs:`).
2. **Open as a draft** while you build. Drafts are invisible to the reviewer
bots on purpose.
3. **When it's ready**: mark ready-for-review and request all three bots —
`claude-bot-andresmgsl`, `codex-bot-andresmgsl`, `grok-bot-andresmgsl`.
They poll roughly every 15 minutes.
4. **Rounds are answered whole.** Wait until all three have reviewed, then
answer the entire round in a **single reply**, push the fixes, and
re-request the bots that didn't approve. Prefer verification over
argument: a test settles what a comment thread can't.
5. **Reviews end in a verdict.** A reviewer — bot or human — either
**approves** or **requests changes**, never a bare comment. A
comment-only review is a non-verdict: it doesn't say whether the round
passed, and the state machine (and anyone scanning the board) has to
guess. The verdict carries *blockingness only*, the body carries the
feedback: non-blocking nits ride an **approval** and the author addresses
them at their discretion; anything blocking — including a question that
gates the verdict — is **request changes**, saying what unblocks it. The
reconciler treats a comment-only review as not-approved, so commenting
without a verdict only stalls the PR. The machine never reads review
bodies: when a comment-only reviewer's line is really an agreement, that
judgment belongs to the **author** — escalate by requesting the
maintainer's review (step 6), and the reconciler flips the label on that
request, because an explicit request is a fact it can trust.
6. **When the round passes, the author hands the PR to the maintainer** in
three acts, in this order: post the tagged round summary, request the
maintainer's review, then set `state:needs-human` yourself — removing the
state label it replaces. The review request is what *earns* the label,
provided the PR carries **no `blocker:*` label**. A blocker means the work
is still yours whatever the round said, so on a conflicted or red PR
neither the request nor your own label write will stick — the sweep takes
it straight back off. With three formal head-current approvals the labels
workflow requests the maintainer automatically; when part of the panel is
comment-only, reading their agreement is the author's judgment, so the
author makes the request.
Writing the label by hand is an **optimistic write, not a transfer of
ownership**. The machine stays the authority — but because the workflow
wakes on `labeled`, the author's own write fires the sweep that validates
it, and a handoff that had not earned the label is corrected seconds later.
Forgetting the write is not a failure either; it only means the label waits
for the cron, which is the lag this replaced.
7. **Checks must be green**: `npm run check`, `npm run build`, and
`npm test` locally mirror what CI runs.
8. **Feature PRs land their changelog entry as part of the PR** (box's
convention): add it under `CHANGELOG.md`'s `## Unreleased` heading —
that section becomes the release notes verbatim when a release is cut.
## Changelog entries
Every PR that changes behaviour adds one line to `## Unreleased`. One line is
the whole rule — if it wraps more than twice in your editor, cut it down.
- **Say what changed, and stop.** Why it was wrong, how it was found, what it
cost, what it implies — that belongs in the PR body and the commit message,
which is where anyone chasing the reasoning already goes. This file answers
one question: what is different in this version.
- **Any word that can be removed, is removed.**
- **Lead with the surface, not the mechanism.** "`state:needs-human` is set at
handoff" beats "the labels workflow now also wakes on `labeled`".
- **Cite the issue or PR** — `(#131)` — and let the reader follow it for the
rest.
- **Mark a breaking change** with a leading `BREAKING:`.
- Group under `### Added` / `### Changed` / `### Fixed` / `### Removed`.
- No bold run-in headings, no sub-paragraphs, no code blocks, no prose essays.
Good:
- `state:needs-human` is set at handoff, not by the cron (#131)
- An unreadable check rollup no longer reads as "nothing is failing" (#128)
- BREAKING: `scripts/register-github-app.sh` is gone; use `cast github-app` (#7)
Not an entry — that is a PR body:
- **`state:needs-human` no longer waits on the cron to become true** (#131) —
the labels workflow now also wakes on `pull_request_target: labeled` and
`unlabeled`, and the author sets it themselves when handing a PR over. A
review landing was never a trigger. There is no `pull_request_review_target`,
and on fork PRs — which is all of them here — ...
## Releasing
A release is a PR, and merging it IS the release
([#111](https://github.com/heavy-duty/cast/issues/111); box#96's design,
on box#83's shape):
1. A small PR — `release: X.Y.Z`, labeled `release` — bumps `package.json`'s
`version` (and `package-lock.json`; `npm install --package-lock-only`
keeps them in step) and stamps `CHANGELOG.md`'s Unreleased section as
`## X.Y.Z — YYYY-MM-DD`. **Then re-arm: add a fresh, empty
`## Unreleased` immediately above the section you just stamped.** The
same PR, the same diff — stamping without re-arming leaves main with no
`## Unreleased`, and the next PR that was authored before the release
and merged after has its entry land *inside the shipped section*, which
git does cleanly, with no conflict to warn anyone
(heavy-duty/rig#66 — it happened there). `test/release.test.ts` keys
this to the version, and checks both halves of the stamp:
- while `package.json` is bare, the top section may be the stamp or the
re-armed `## Unreleased`, but a `## X.Y.Z` section for the version you
are shipping **must exist and extract non-empty** — a bump without a
stamp is red here rather than after the merge, in release.yml;
- the moment step 4's `-dev` bump lands, the top section must be
`## Unreleased` or CI is red.
The empty `## Unreleased` this step adds is deliberately tolerated: what
must extract non-empty is the section that SHIPS, not the top one. CI
green on it, same loop as any PR.
2. **Drill, and record it.** Before the PR can be handed over, run the full
real-hardware drill — two live Coolify instances, the whole A→B promotion:
team, apply, an idempotent diff, smoke, inventory, emit-draft, fleet,
destroy, and the read-only guard — and record it in
[drill/RUNS.md](drill/RUNS.md) under a heading naming the version:
## Release drill — X.Y.Z — YYYY-MM-DD
[.github/scripts/drill-recorded.sh](.github/scripts/drill-recorded.sh)
enforces this on every release PR (a `-dev` tree has no ship claim and
passes trivially). It is **not a thing a reviewer has to remember** — that
is precisely how every release in this family shipped without one until a
bot blocked on it.
So the release flow is: **draft → ready → bot round → drill →
`state:needs-human` → maintainer merge (which IS the release).**
**The drill is ONE orchestrated run over the whole stack**, not three
independent exercises. In order:
1. `rig bootstrap … --host yes` on a bare Debian host — this installs box
and runs box's `setup-host`;
2. `box new` mints a creds-free seed;
3. the seed converges on first boot: its cloud-init curls rig's installer
and runs `rig bootstrap <tenant>-box`;
4. cast's legs on top of the converged result — two live Coolify
instances and the full A→B promotion.
Note that rig appears **twice**, below box and above it. box and rig are
mutually recursive, not linearly ordered: rig builds the host that runs
box, and box's seed calls rig back to converge the guest. cast sits on top
of whatever that produces. So there is no "previous repo" for a repo to
drill against, and **no fixed order in which the three releases must be
published.**
The run drills **candidate refs, not released artifacts**. `RIG_REPO` and
`RIG_REF` are mint-time environment variables (default
`heavy-duty/rig@main`), so a run pins the exact commits under test. That
dissolves the chicken-and-egg the mutual recursion would otherwise create:
no repo has to be released before another can be drilled.
Drilling the candidate **is** drilling the release. A release PR's diff is
the version file and `CHANGELOG.md` — nothing executable differs between
the tree that was drilled and the tree that ships, so the evidence carries
across the ceremony commit.
One run emits one shared **run ID**. Each repo records ITS OWN legs under
its own `## Release drill — X.Y.Z — DATE`, citing that run ID and the
other two repos' commit SHAs — which is what lets three separate records
be reassembled into the single run they came from. The guard still reads
only this repo's file: cast never queries box's or rig's drill log to
decide whether cast may ship, because a cross-repo lookup degrades to
"pass" the moment it fails to resolve — the unreadable-rollup bug wearing
a different hat.
A maintainer **waiver** is possible — but it must be RECORDED in
`drill/RUNS.md` for that version, saying who waived it and what is
untested. The guard requires a *record*, not a passing result, so skipping
the drill stays possible and stays visible and deliberate.
3. **Merge. That's the ship decision — nothing else to do.**
[release.yml](.github/workflows/release.yml) fires on the merged,
`release`-labeled PR and asserts, in order, each fail-loud and creating
nothing: the merged version is non-`-dev`; the version *changed in this
PR* (the `-dev` transition is the interlock — a mislabeled ordinary PR
fails here); that version's changelog section extracts non-empty
([.github/scripts/release-notes.sh](.github/scripts/release-notes.sh));
and no tag or release exists for it yet. Then, in the same job, it tags
the merge commit bare `X.Y.Z` (no `v` prefix — box's tag scheme), builds
the package once (`npm ci && npm run build && npm prune --omit=dev`), and
publishes the release with the runnable tree — `bin/`, `dist/`,
production `node_modules/`, `package.json` — attached as
`cast-X.Y.Z.tgz`. That asset is what the installer's release channels
download: the build happens once, in CI, never on an operator's machine.
*Manual fallback and backfill:* push a bare `X.Y.Z` tag on the merge
commit yourself — the same workflow runs the same asserts, build, and
publish from the tag.
4. **The release re-arms main itself**: the same workflow run bumps
`package.json` (and `package-lock.json`) to `X.Y.(Z+1)-dev` and pushes
the commit straight to main — no follow-up PR (it opens one only if
branch protection refuses the direct push, and says so loudly).
Installs are versioned by the tree's `package.json` version, so a
`CAST_REF=main` install between releases must land as
`versions/X.Y.(Z+1)-dev`, never as `versions/X.Y.Z` — main's tree must
not impersonate the release it merely descends from. On the *manual*
tag path the bump stays yours: open the one-line PR after publishing.
This step re-arms the **version** only — the `## Unreleased` heading is
step 1's, in the ceremony PR's own diff, because no workflow ever writes
`CHANGELOG.md`. The two halves meet in `test/release.test.ts`: once this
bump makes the version `-dev`, a missing `## Unreleased` is CI-red.
## Labels — who sets what
The full taxonomy lives in [LABELS.md](LABELS.md). What matters day to day is
who sets each kind — most of it is machinery, and hand-moving a
machine-owned label just gets corrected on the next pass:
| Labels | Set by |
|---|---|
| `state:*` | the labels workflow ([.github/workflows/labels.yml](.github/workflows/labels.yml)) — recomputed from GitHub's own facts on PR events (label changes included) and every 15 minutes. Machine-owned, with one exception: the author sets `state:needs-human` at handoff (step 6) and the workflow reconciles it. Otherwise never by hand. Exactly one per PR: *whose ball is it.* |
| `blocker:*` | the same workflow, from the same facts — *what is in the way.* Any number per PR, or none. Never by hand: applying one does not stop a merge, and removing one does not unblock anything. Fix the thing and the next sweep drops the label. |
| `stale` | the same workflow — 48h without commits, comments, or reviews. `blocked` PRs are exempt: they are quiet legitimately. |
| `scope:*` on PRs | actions/labeler, from the changed paths ([.github/labeler.yml](.github/labeler.yml)). Additive — you may add more, the machine won't remove them. |
| `scope:*` on issues | you, when opening or triaging — issues have no paths to derive from. |
| `blocked`, `release` | you — automation never guesses intent. |
| `merge-next` | you or the agent owning the queue. Which PR lands first is a judgement about how they conflict, so the workflow never sets it — it only **clears** it, the moment the PR stops being something a human could merge. |
| `bug` / `enhancement` / `documentation` | you, on issues only — a PR's type already lives in its title. |
## Issues
Give issues the same care as PR titles: say the surface in the title, apply a
`scope:` label and a type label (`bug` / `enhancement` / `documentation`) when
you open one, and `blocked` when it waits on something — that is what keeps
the board navigable as the issue count grows.