Release v1.22.0: Add skill-reviewer and github-contributor

- Add skill-reviewer v1.0.0 for reviewing Claude Code skills against best practices
  - Self-review mode: validate your own skills before publishing
  - External review mode: evaluate others' skill repositories
  - Auto-PR mode: fork, improve, submit PRs with additive-only changes
  - Auto-install dependencies: automatically installs skill-creator if missing

- Add github-contributor v1.0.0 for strategic open-source contribution
  - Four contribution types: Documentation, Code Quality, Bug Fixes, Features
  - Project selection criteria and red flags
  - PR excellence workflow and reputation building ladder
  - GitHub CLI commands and conventional commit format

- Update marketplace to v1.22.0 with 30 skills
- Update documentation (README, README.zh-CN, CLAUDE.md, CHANGELOG)

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
daymade
2026-01-15 23:02:40 +08:00
parent 484255aa73
commit 8363750c13
15 changed files with 1588 additions and 13 deletions

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,228 @@
# Communication Templates
Templates for effective open-source communication.
## Claiming an Issue
### First-Time Contributor
```markdown
Hi! I'm interested in working on this issue.
I'm new to the project but I've read the contributing guidelines and set up the development environment. I think I understand the scope of the change needed.
My approach would be to:
1. [Step 1]
2. [Step 2]
3. [Step 3]
Does this sound reasonable? Any guidance would be appreciated!
```
### Experienced Contributor
```markdown
I'd like to take this on.
Proposed approach:
- [Technical approach]
- [Testing strategy]
ETA: [timeframe]
Let me know if there are any concerns or if someone else is already working on this.
```
## Asking for Clarification
```markdown
Thanks for filing this issue!
I'd like to work on this but need some clarification:
1. [Question 1]
2. [Question 2]
Once I understand these points, I can start on a fix.
```
## PR Description
### Bug Fix
```markdown
## Summary
Fixes #[issue number]
This PR resolves the [bug description] by [solution approach].
## Root Cause
The issue was caused by [explanation].
## Solution
[Detailed explanation of the fix]
## Testing
- [x] Added regression test
- [x] Verified fix locally
- [x] All existing tests pass
## Screenshots (if applicable)
Before:
[image]
After:
[image]
```
### Feature Addition
```markdown
## Summary
Implements #[issue number]
Adds [feature description] to enable [use case].
## Changes
- Added `feature.py` with [functionality]
- Updated `config.py` to support [new option]
- Added tests in `test_feature.py`
## Usage
```python
# Example usage
from project import new_feature
result = new_feature(...)
```
## Testing
- [x] Unit tests added
- [x] Integration tests pass
- [x] Documentation updated
## Migration Guide (if breaking)
[Instructions for users to migrate]
```
### Documentation Update
```markdown
## Summary
Improves documentation for [area].
## Changes
- Fixed typos in [file]
- Added examples for [feature]
- Updated outdated [section]
- Clarified [confusing part]
## Preview
[Screenshot or link to rendered docs]
```
## Responding to Reviews
### Accepting Feedback
```markdown
Good catch! I've updated the code to [change].
See commit [hash].
```
### Explaining a Decision
```markdown
Thanks for the review!
I chose this approach because:
1. [Reason 1]
2. [Reason 2]
However, I'm open to changing it if you think [alternative] would be better. What do you think?
```
### Requesting Clarification
```markdown
Thanks for the feedback!
Could you clarify what you mean by [quote]? I want to make sure I address your concern correctly.
```
### Disagreeing Respectfully
```markdown
I see your point about [concern].
I went with the current approach because [reasoning]. However, I understand the tradeoff you're highlighting.
Would a middle ground like [alternative] address your concern while keeping [benefit]?
```
## After Merge
```markdown
Thanks for the review and merge! 🎉
I learned [something] from the feedback - I'll apply that in future contributions.
Looking forward to contributing more to the project!
```
## Abandoning a PR
```markdown
Hi, I won't be able to complete this PR due to [reason].
I've pushed my current progress in case someone else wants to continue from here. The remaining work is:
- [ ] [Task 1]
- [ ] [Task 2]
Sorry for any inconvenience, and thanks for the opportunity to contribute!
```
## Tone Guidelines
### Always
- Be grateful
- Be specific
- Be patient
- Be humble
### Never
- Be defensive
- Be dismissive
- Be demanding
- Be passive-aggressive
### Word Choice
```
❌ "You should..."
✅ "It might help to..."
❌ "This is wrong"
✅ "I think there might be an issue with..."
❌ "Obviously..."
✅ "One approach could be..."
❌ "Why didn't you..."
✅ "Could you help me understand..."
```

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,155 @@
# PR Quality Checklist
Complete checklist for creating high-quality pull requests.
## Before Starting
- [ ] Read CONTRIBUTING.md thoroughly
- [ ] Check for existing PRs addressing same issue
- [ ] Comment on issue to express interest
- [ ] Wait for maintainer acknowledgment (if required)
- [ ] Understand project's code style
## Environment Setup
- [ ] Fork repository
- [ ] Clone to local machine
- [ ] Set up development environment
- [ ] Run existing tests (ensure they pass)
- [ ] Create feature branch with descriptive name
```bash
# Branch naming conventions
feature/add-yaml-support
fix/resolve-connection-timeout
docs/update-installation-guide
refactor/extract-validation-logic
```
## During Development
- [ ] Make small, focused commits
- [ ] Follow project's commit message format
- [ ] Add tests for new functionality
- [ ] Update documentation if needed
- [ ] Run linter/formatter before committing
## Before Submitting
### Code Quality
- [ ] All tests pass
- [ ] No linter warnings
- [ ] Code follows project style
- [ ] No unnecessary changes (whitespace, imports)
- [ ] Comments explain "why", not "what"
### Documentation
- [ ] README updated (if applicable)
- [ ] API docs updated (if applicable)
- [ ] Inline comments added for complex logic
- [ ] CHANGELOG updated (if required)
### PR Description
- [ ] Clear, descriptive title
- [ ] Summary of changes
- [ ] Motivation/context
- [ ] Testing approach
- [ ] Screenshots (for UI changes)
- [ ] Related issues linked
## PR Title Format
```
<type>(<scope>): <description>
Examples:
feat(api): add support for batch requests
fix(auth): resolve token refresh race condition
docs(readme): add troubleshooting section
refactor(utils): simplify date parsing logic
test(api): add integration tests for search endpoint
chore(deps): update lodash to 4.17.21
```
## PR Description Template
```markdown
## Summary
Brief description of what this PR does.
## Motivation
Why is this change needed? Link to issue if applicable.
Closes #123
## Changes
- Change 1
- Change 2
- Change 3
## Testing
How did you test this change?
- [ ] Unit tests added/updated
- [ ] Manual testing performed
- [ ] Integration tests pass
## Screenshots (if applicable)
| Before | After |
|--------|-------|
| image | image |
## Checklist
- [ ] Tests pass
- [ ] Documentation updated
- [ ] Code follows project style
```
## After Submitting
- [ ] Monitor for CI results
- [ ] Respond to review comments promptly
- [ ] Make requested changes quickly
- [ ] Thank reviewers for their time
- [ ] Don't force push after review starts (unless asked)
## Review Response Etiquette
### Good Responses
```
"Good point! I've updated the implementation to..."
"Thanks for catching that. Fixed in commit abc123."
"I see what you mean. I chose this approach because...
Would you prefer if I changed it to...?"
```
### Avoid
```
"That's just your opinion."
"It works on my machine."
"This is how I always do it."
```
## Common Rejection Reasons
1. **Too large** - Break into smaller PRs
2. **Unrelated changes** - Remove scope creep
3. **Missing tests** - Add test coverage
4. **Style violations** - Run formatter
5. **No issue link** - Create or link issue first
6. **Conflicts** - Rebase on latest main

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,149 @@
# Project Evaluation Guide
How to evaluate open-source projects before contributing.
## Quick Health Check
```bash
# Check recent activity
gh repo view owner/repo --json updatedAt,stargazersCount,openIssues
# Check PR response time
gh pr list --repo owner/repo --state merged --limit 10
# Check issue activity
gh issue list --repo owner/repo --limit 20
```
## Evaluation Criteria
### 1. Activity Level
| Signal | Good | Bad |
|--------|------|-----|
| Last commit | < 1 month | > 6 months |
| Open PRs | Being reviewed | Ignored |
| Issue responses | Within days | Never |
| Release frequency | Regular | Years ago |
### 2. Community Health
| Signal | Good | Bad |
|--------|------|-----|
| CONTRIBUTING.md | Exists, detailed | Missing |
| Code of Conduct | Present | Missing |
| Issue templates | Well-structured | None |
| Discussion tone | Friendly, helpful | Hostile |
### 3. Maintainer Engagement
| Signal | Good | Bad |
|--------|------|-----|
| Review comments | Constructive | Dismissive |
| Response time | Days | Months |
| Merge rate | Regular merges | Stale PRs |
| New contributor PRs | Welcomed | Ignored |
### 4. Documentation Quality
| Signal | Good | Bad |
|--------|------|-----|
| README | Clear, comprehensive | Minimal |
| Getting started | Easy to follow | Missing |
| API docs | Complete | Outdated |
| Examples | Working, relevant | Broken |
## Scoring System
Rate each category 1-5:
```
Activity Level: _/5
Community Health: _/5
Maintainer Engage: _/5
Documentation: _/5
----------------------------
Total: _/20
```
**Interpretation:**
- 16-20: Excellent choice
- 12-15: Good, proceed with caution
- 8-11: Consider carefully
- < 8: Avoid or expect delays
## Red Flags
### Immediate Disqualifiers
- No commits in 1+ year
- Maintainer explicitly stepped away
- Project archived
- License issues
### Warning Signs
- Many open PRs without review
- Hostile responses to contributors
- No clear contribution path
- Overly complex setup
## Green Flags
### Strong Indicators
- "good first issue" labels maintained
- Active Discord/Slack community
- Regular release schedule
- Responsive maintainers
- Clear roadmap
### Bonus Points
- Funded/sponsored project
- Multiple active maintainers
- Good test coverage
- CI/CD pipeline
## Research Checklist
```
Project Evaluation:
- [ ] Check GitHub Insights
- [ ] Read recent issues
- [ ] Review merged PRs
- [ ] Check contributor guide
- [ ] Look for "good first issue"
- [ ] Assess community tone
- [ ] Verify active maintenance
- [ ] Confirm compatible license
```
## Finding Projects
### By Interest
```bash
# Find by topic
gh search repos "topic:cli" --sort=stars
# Find by language
gh search repos "language:python" --sort=stars
# Find with good first issues
gh search issues "good first issue" --language=rust
```
### By Need
- Tools you use daily
- Libraries in your projects
- Frameworks you're learning
- Problems you've encountered
### Curated Lists
- awesome-for-beginners
- first-timers-only
- up-for-grabs.net
- goodfirstissue.dev