claude-bot's round-4 blockers: (1) a declared permissions: block zeroes every unspecified scope, so the decide step's label read (commits/<sha>/pulls) and the bump fallback's gh pr create could only 403 — every genuine ceremony would end red at the label check, the exact failure shape this feature exists to kill, one layer down. labels.yml already carries the precedent; pull-requests: write added with the two consumers named. (2) CONTRIBUTING still prescribed the follow-up bump PR the workflow now performs itself, and the changelog entry described the old PR-base interlock — both now tell the shipped story (event.before interlock, self-re-arm, manual-path bump stays the operator's). Nits taken: fetch-depth 2 for the all-zeros fallback's first parent, re-runs refuse-loudly wording, the bump-window arithmetic comment. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
6.1 KiB
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
- Fork and branch. Contributors work from forks; upstream branches are
for maintainers. Title the PR conventionally (
feat:,fix:,docs:). - Open as a draft while you build. Drafts are invisible to the reviewer bots on purpose.
- 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. - 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.
- 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.
- When the round passes, the author hands the PR to the maintainer by
requesting their review — that request is what flips
state:needs-human. With three formal head-current approvals the labels workflow requests it automatically; when part of the panel is comment-only, reading their agreement is the author's judgment, so the author makes the request. - Checks must be green:
npm run check,npm run build, andnpm testlocally mirror what CI runs. - Feature PRs land their changelog entry as part of the PR (box's
convention): add it under
CHANGELOG.md's## Unreleasedheading — that section becomes the release notes verbatim when a release is cut.
Releasing
A release is a PR, and merging it IS the release (#111; box#96's design, on box#83's shape):
- A small PR —
release: X.Y.Z, labeledrelease— bumpspackage.json'sversion(andpackage-lock.json;npm install --package-lock-onlykeeps them in step) and stampsCHANGELOG.md's Unreleased section as## X.Y.Z — YYYY-MM-DD. CI green on it, same loop as any PR. - Merge. That's the ship decision — nothing else to do.
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-devtransition is the interlock — a mislabeled ordinary PR fails here); that version's changelog section extracts non-empty (.github/scripts/release-notes.sh); and no tag or release exists for it yet. Then, in the same job, it tags the merge commit bareX.Y.Z(novprefix — 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/, productionnode_modules/,package.json— attached ascast-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 bareX.Y.Ztag on the merge commit yourself — the same workflow runs the same asserts, build, and publish from the tag. - The release re-arms main itself: the same workflow run bumps
package.json(andpackage-lock.json) toX.Y.(Z+1)-devand 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'spackage.jsonversion, so aCAST_REF=maininstall between releases must land asversions/X.Y.(Z+1)-dev, never asversions/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.
Labels — who sets what
The full taxonomy lives in 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) — recomputed from GitHub's own facts every 15 minutes and on PR events. Never by hand. |
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). 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. |
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.