Files
claude-code-skills-reference/github-contributor/references/pr_checklist.md
daymade 29f85d27c3 docs(github-contributor): add high-quality PR formula and investigation workflow
- 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>
2026-03-11 13:58:58 +08:00

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