- Add 10-point high-quality PR formula based on real-world success cases - Add investigation phase workflow (post to issue before PR) - Add git history tracing techniques (git log, git blame) - Add evidence-loop pattern (reproduce → trace → link → post) - Add high-quality PR case study reference - Update PR checklist with investigation steps - Emphasize separation of concerns (detailed analysis in issue, fix summary in PR) Key principles: - Deep investigation before coding - Minimal, surgical fixes - Professional communication - No internal/irrelevant details in PR Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
289 lines
6.8 KiB
Markdown
289 lines
6.8 KiB
Markdown
# PR Quality Checklist
|
|
|
|
Complete checklist for creating high-quality pull requests.
|
|
|
|
# PR Quality Checklist
|
|
|
|
Complete checklist for creating high-quality pull requests based on successful contributions to major open-source projects.
|
|
|
|
## Investigation Phase (Before Coding)
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Read CONTRIBUTING.md thoroughly
|
|
- [ ] Check for existing PRs addressing same issue
|
|
- [ ] Comment on issue to express interest
|
|
- [ ] Reproduce bug with original version
|
|
- [ ] Trace git history for context (`git log --all --grep="keyword"`)
|
|
- [ ] Identify root cause with code references
|
|
- [ ] Post detailed investigation to issue (not PR)
|
|
- [ ] Link all related issues/PRs
|
|
|
|
### Investigation Template (Post to Issue)
|
|
|
|
```markdown
|
|
## Investigation
|
|
|
|
I traced this through the codebase history:
|
|
|
|
1. [Date]: #[PR] introduced [feature]
|
|
2. [Date]: #[PR] added [workaround] because [reason]
|
|
3. [Date]: #[PR] changed [parameter]
|
|
4. Now: Safe to [fix] because [explanation]
|
|
|
|
[Detailed evidence with code references]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Before Starting
|
|
|
|
## 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 minimal, focused changes (only what's necessary)
|
|
- [ ] Add regression test to prevent future breakage
|
|
- [ ] Update CHANGELOG if project uses it
|
|
- [ ] Follow project's commit message format
|
|
- [ ] Run linter/formatter before committing
|
|
- [ ] Don't refactor unrelated code
|
|
- [ ] Don't add "improvements" beyond the fix
|
|
|
|
### What to Change
|
|
|
|
✅ **Do change**:
|
|
- Code directly related to the fix
|
|
- Tests for the fix
|
|
- CHANGELOG entry
|
|
- Relevant documentation
|
|
|
|
❌ **Don't change**:
|
|
- Surrounding code (refactoring)
|
|
- Unrelated files
|
|
- Code style of existing code
|
|
- Add features beyond the fix
|
|
|
|
## Before Submitting
|
|
|
|
### Code Quality
|
|
|
|
- [ ] All tests pass
|
|
- [ ] No linter warnings
|
|
- [ ] Code follows project style
|
|
- [ ] No unnecessary changes (whitespace, imports)
|
|
- [ ] Comments explain "why", not "what"
|
|
|
|
### Evidence Loop
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Test with original version and capture failure output
|
|
- [ ] Apply the fix
|
|
- [ ] Test with fixed version and capture success output
|
|
- [ ] Document both tests with timestamps, exit codes, PIDs
|
|
- [ ] Compare baseline vs fixed behavior
|
|
|
|
### Testing Commands
|
|
|
|
```bash
|
|
# Test 1: Reproduce bug with original version
|
|
npm install -g package@original-version
|
|
[command that triggers bug]
|
|
# Capture: error messages, exit codes, timestamps
|
|
|
|
# Test 2: Validate fix with patched version
|
|
npm install -g package@fixed-version
|
|
[same command]
|
|
# Capture: success output, normal exit codes
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Redaction Gate
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Remove local absolute paths (for example, `/Users/...`) from logs and screenshots
|
|
- [ ] Remove secrets/tokens/API keys from logs and screenshots
|
|
- [ ] Remove internal URLs/hostnames from logs and screenshots
|
|
- [ ] Recheck every pasted block before submitting
|
|
|
|
### 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 (conventional commit format)
|
|
- [ ] Focused description (~50 lines, not >100)
|
|
- [ ] Summary (1-2 sentences)
|
|
- [ ] Root cause (technical, with code refs)
|
|
- [ ] Changes (bullet list)
|
|
- [ ] Why it's safe
|
|
- [ ] Testing validation
|
|
- [ ] Related issues linked
|
|
- [ ] No detailed timeline (move to issue)
|
|
- [ ] No internal tooling mentions
|
|
- [ ] No speculation or uncertainty
|
|
|
|
### PR Description Length Guide
|
|
|
|
✅ **Good**: ~50 lines
|
|
- Summary: 2 lines
|
|
- Root cause: 5 lines
|
|
- Changes: 5 lines
|
|
- Why safe: 5 lines
|
|
- Testing: 20 lines
|
|
- Related: 3 lines
|
|
|
|
❌ **Too long**: >100 lines
|
|
- Move detailed investigation to issue
|
|
- Move timeline analysis to issue
|
|
- Keep PR focused on the fix
|
|
|
|
## 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
|
|
|
|
[1-2 sentences: what this fixes and why]
|
|
|
|
## Root Cause
|
|
|
|
[Technical explanation with code references]
|
|
|
|
## Changes
|
|
|
|
- [Actual code changes]
|
|
- [Tests added]
|
|
- [Docs updated]
|
|
|
|
## Why This Is Safe
|
|
|
|
[Explain why it won't break anything]
|
|
|
|
## Testing
|
|
|
|
### Test 1: Reproduce Bug (Original Version)
|
|
Command: `[command]`
|
|
Result:
|
|
```text
|
|
[failure output with timestamps, exit codes]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Test 2: Validate Fix (Patched Version)
|
|
Command: `[same command]`
|
|
Result:
|
|
```text
|
|
[success output with timestamps, exit codes]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Related
|
|
|
|
- Fixes #[issue]
|
|
- Related: #[other issues/PRs]
|
|
````
|
|
|
|
**What NOT to include**:
|
|
- ❌ Detailed timeline analysis (put in issue)
|
|
- ❌ Historical context (put in issue)
|
|
- ❌ Internal tooling mentions
|
|
- ❌ Speculation or uncertainty
|
|
- ❌ Walls of text (>100 lines)
|
|
|
|
## Comparison Table Template
|
|
|
|
```markdown
|
|
| Case | Command / Scenario | Result | Evidence |
|
|
|------|--------------------|--------|----------|
|
|
| Baseline | `[same command]` | Fail | [raw output block] |
|
|
| Fixed | `[same command]` | Pass | [raw output block] |
|
|
| Reference | [spec, issue, or main behavior] | Expected | [link or note] |
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## After Submitting
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Monitor for CI results
|
|
- [ ] Respond to review comments within 24 hours
|
|
- [ ] Make requested changes quickly
|
|
- [ ] Thank reviewers for their time
|
|
- [ ] Don't force push after review starts (unless asked)
|
|
- [ ] Add new commits during review (don't amend)
|
|
- [ ] Explain what changed in follow-up comments
|
|
- [ ] Re-request review when ready
|
|
|
|
## Separation of Concerns
|
|
|
|
### Issue Comments (Detailed Investigation)
|
|
- Timeline analysis
|
|
- Historical context
|
|
- Related PRs/issues
|
|
- Root cause deep dive
|
|
- 100-300 lines OK
|
|
|
|
### PR Description (Focused on Fix)
|
|
- Summary (1-2 sentences)
|
|
- Root cause (technical)
|
|
- Changes (bullet list)
|
|
- Testing validation
|
|
- ~50 lines total
|
|
|
|
### Separate Test Comment (End-to-End Validation)
|
|
- Test with original version
|
|
- Test with fixed version
|
|
- Full logs with timestamps
|
|
|
|
## 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
|