refactor(skills): give each contributor lifecycle stage one owner - #8545
Open
laitingsheng wants to merge 8 commits into
Open
refactor(skills): give each contributor lifecycle stage one owner#8545laitingsheng wants to merge 8 commits into
laitingsheng wants to merge 8 commits into
Conversation
Publication keeps branch state, DCO, the trusted template, and review follow-up, and routes valid code-changing findings and test selection to the implementation workflow. Onboarding hands off instead of restating first-PR rules. Messaging channel guidance moves to the owning package. Assignment and labels become a decision the workflow makes before it assembles the create command, so a contributor without triage permission still opens the pull request. Signed-off-by: Tinson Lai <tinsonl@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Tinson Lai <tinsonl@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Tinson Lai <tinsonl@nvidia.com>
…lifecycle-routing
Contributor
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Enterprise Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (4)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (3)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe PR separates contributor workflow ownership across planning, implementation, publication, dependency migration, onboarding, and messaging guidance. It adds permission-aware PR triage, routes classified review repairs to implementation, removes the messaging-channel skill, and expands routing evaluations. ChangesContributor lifecycle and routing
Estimated code review effort: 3 (Moderate) | ~25 minutes Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant PRWorkflow
participant ReviewSystem
participant ImplementationWorkflow
PRWorkflow->>ReviewSystem: collect and classify review findings
PRWorkflow->>ImplementationWorkflow: route valid code-changing findings
ImplementationWorkflow-->>PRWorkflow: return repair and validation evidence
PRWorkflow->>ReviewSystem: complete final validation and review follow-up
Possibly related issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers: 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
Contributor
Code Coverage OverviewLanguages: TypeScript TypeScript / code-coverage/pluginThe overall coverage in commit bc0e9db in the TypeScript / code-coverage/cliThe overall coverage in commit bc0e9db in the Show a code coverage summary of the most impacted files.
Updated |
laitingsheng
added
refactor
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In @.agents/skills/nemoclaw-contributor-create-pr/evals/evals.json:
- Around line 35-43: The negative-review-repair evaluation currently requires
review collection and classification despite targeting the implementation
workflow. Update the question and expected_behavior in the
negative-review-repair entry so the finding is already classified by the
publication workflow, and require only code repair, validation, and returning to
nemoclaw-contributor-create-pr for the push gate.
In @.agents/skills/nemoclaw-contributor-create-pr/SKILL.md:
- Around line 254-261: Update the triage-flag instructions to remove the
current-user statement condition. Require running the gh repo view command
first, and add --assignee and --label only when viewerPermission is TRIAGE,
WRITE, MAINTAIN, or ADMIN.
In @.agents/skills/nemoclaw-contributor-implement-issue/evals/evals.json:
- Around line 99-106: Update the “positive-routed-review-repair” evaluation
wording so the classified finding bounds the repair to its root-cause group
within the pull request’s already accepted product scope, rather than defining
new product scope. Preserve the existing workflow, skill, and no-push
expectations.
In `@test/skills-frontmatter.test.ts`:
- Around line 303-305: Remove the duplicate trailing type assertions in
test/skills-frontmatter.test.ts at lines 303-305 and 472-477, keeping exactly
one closing JSON.parse(...) as Array<{ id: string; expected_skill: string | null
}> expression at each affected location.
🪄 Autofix
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Enterprise
Run ID: c953c55e-a8e1-46d6-859a-737d476318f7
📒 Files selected for processing (15)
.agents/skills/nemoclaw-contributor-create-pr/SKILL.md.agents/skills/nemoclaw-contributor-create-pr/agents/openai.yaml.agents/skills/nemoclaw-contributor-create-pr/evals/evals.json.agents/skills/nemoclaw-contributor-implement-issue/SKILL.md.agents/skills/nemoclaw-contributor-implement-issue/evals/evals.json.agents/skills/nemoclaw-contributor-onboard-messaging-channel/SKILL.md.agents/skills/nemoclaw-contributor-onboard/SKILL.md.agents/skills/nemoclaw-contributor-onboard/evals/evals.json.agents/skills/nemoclaw-contributor-update-dependencies/SKILL.md.agents/skills/nemoclaw-contributor-update-dependencies/evals/evals.json.agents/skills/nemoclaw-skills-guide/SKILL.md.agents/skills/nemoclaw-skills-guide/evals/evals.jsonAGENTS.mdsrc/lib/messaging/AGENTS.mdtest/skills-frontmatter.test.ts
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- .agents/skills/nemoclaw-contributor-onboard-messaging-channel/SKILL.md
Contributor
PR Review Advisor — No blocking findings reportedAdvisor assessment: No blocking advisor findings reported Model lanes
4 terminology differences from the second opinionAdvisory only. These are normalized differences from the primary terminology receipt.
Second-opinion terminology and E2E selections are advisory. Live E2E does not run automatically for pull requests. 3 semantic terminology decisionsTerminology decisions are advisory. They affect the assessment only when a separate finding identifies concrete semantic impact.
E2E guidanceAdvisory only. A maintainer can dispatch the default E2E suite against this exact revision. Recommended E2E: None This automated review informs maintainers. Warnings and suggestions do not require a response. A maintainer decides whether to merge. |
Signed-off-by: Apurv Kumaria <akumaria@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Apurv Kumaria <akumaria@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Apurv Kumaria <akumaria@nvidia.com>
Collaborator
Security reviewVerdict: PASS for branch revision bdfe7ff. This pull request changes agent guidance, routing evaluations, and contributor documentation; it changes no executable product path.
Files reviewed include the contributor lifecycle skills and evaluations, root and messaging package guidance, CONTRIBUTING.md, and test/skills-frontmatter.test.ts. No security finding remains. |
jyaunches
requested review from
apurvvkumaria and
jyaunches
and removed request for
apurvvkumaria
August 7, 2026 11:39
6 tasks
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
The contributor skills overlapped: PR creation owned review repair and test selection, onboarding restated first-PR rules, and a component-specific skill owned messaging guidance. Each lifecycle stage now has one owner. PR creation preserves the DCO and commit-verification gate, uses repository permission for self-assignment, and leaves label selection to repository triage.
Related Issue
Resolves #8364
Parent epic: #8240
Follow-up bug: #8555
Changes
nemoclaw-contributor-create-prcollects and classifies review feedback, groups valid code-changing findings by root cause, and routes repair and validation tonemoclaw-contributor-implement-issue. It keeps the push gate, including final documentation review of the candidate revision and resolved blocking feedback.gh repo view NVIDIA/NemoClaw --json viewerPermissionbefore deciding on--assignee. The workflow adds the flag only forTRIAGE,WRITE,MAINTAIN, orADMIN. Otherwise, it runs the base command without self-assignment. The repository triage workflow owns label selection and application.nemoclaw-contributor-implement-issueaccepts a routed repair inside the pull request's already accepted product scope, bounds it to the finding's root-cause group, validates it, and returns evidence without collecting review feedback or pushing.nemoclaw-contributor-onboardhands off to the planning, implementation, and publication owners instead of restating branch, commit, DCO, and template rules.nemoclaw-contributor-update-dependenciesstates that the implementation workflow loads it for a dependency upgrade and retains issue-scope and handoff ownership.nemoclaw-contributor-onboard-messaging-channel. Its durable channel-contract, credential, network-policy, reachability, security-review, and negative-test rules now live insrc/lib/messaging/AGENTS.md, the package that owns them.nemoclaw-skills-guide, rootAGENTS.md, andCONTRIBUTING.mddescribe the resulting lifecycle and route each stage to its owner.Type of Change
Quality Gates
Documentation Writer Review
docs-updated.agents/skills/nemoclaw-contributor-create-pr/SKILL.md,.agents/skills/nemoclaw-contributor-create-pr/evals/evals.json,test/skills-frontmatter.test.ts, andtest/maintainer-skills-policy.test.ts. The review confirmed that publication uses repository permission for self-assignment and leaves label selection to repository triage. No Fern or user-guide change is needed because no public CLI, configuration, runtime, policy schema, supported product behavior, or Markdown route for AI documentation clients changed.Verification
Signed-off-by:line and every commit appears asVerifiedin GitHubpre-commit,commit-msg, andpre-pushhooks passed, ornpm run validate:prpassed after refreshingorigin/mainwhen hooks were skipped or unavailablenpx vitest run --project integration test/skills-frontmatter.test.ts test/maintainer-skills-policy.test.ts— 58 passed. CLI build and type checking pass; the push's normal pre-push hooks pass.npm testfor broad runtime/test-harness changes;npm run checkfor repo-wide validation/coverage changes — command/result:npm run docsbuilds without warnings (doc changes only) — 0 errors and 2 pre-existing Fern warningsSigned-off-by: Tinson Lai tinsonl@nvidia.com
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Documentation
Tests