[XuPeng-SH]

What type of PR is this?

• API-change
• BUG
• Improvement
• Documentation
• Feature
• Test and CI
• Code Refactoring

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Related to #25267.

What this PR does / why we need it:

PR and issue bodies submitted through CLI/API can miss repository template fields or use headings and line endings incompatible with description consumers. Add a shared GitHub delivery reference to mo-dev and mo-self-review that checks current templates and body encoding before publication, then verifies the stored body afterward.

The guidance requires a real, relevant issue reference, preserves author content and intentional code escapes, covers required issue-form fields, and distinguishes a rendering failure from an unverified CRLF hypothesis. Both skills link to the same contract and keep publication checks in the appropriate phase.

Validation:

• Both skills pass skill-creator validation; shared-reference links resolve.
• Executed the documented normalization example against BOM/mixed line endings, Unicode, literal code escapes, LF idempotence, empty input, and invalid UTF-8.
• Complete diff review and git diff --check pass.

This is agent guidance; the CRLF root-cause hypothesis for #30091 remains unverified.

[qodo-code-review]

Qodo reviews are paused for this user.

Troubleshooting steps vary by plan Learn more →

On a Teams plan?
Reviews resume once this user has a paid seat and their Git account is linked in Qodo.
Link Git account →

Using GitHub Enterprise Server, GitLab Self-Managed, or Bitbucket Data Center?
These require an Enterprise plan - Contact us
Contact us →

[XuPeng-SH]

mo-bot work · mo-bot-local · superseded

Commit: aaf143df78fa0382df5e0faac69ae35c488c6a75

PR input head changed

[XuPeng-SH]

mo-bot review · mo-bot-local · done

Commit: 217fd97e9c5e57df967a048d89929fa39b97bec8

Review completed. Read the assessment.

[XuPeng-SH]

mo-bot review · mo-bot-local · review

Commit: 217fd97e9c5e57df967a048d89929fa39b97bec8

Assessment: approve

Reviewed the complete three-file documentation change. Both skills reuse one coherent delivery contract with appropriate authorization boundaries and correctly separated publication checks. No actionable defects found; production behavior and SQL performance are unchanged.

Model: gpt-6-astra / xhigh

Session: 01a12d8f-7dea-77c2-a565-38d45b5564e4 · slot 0 · generation 0

Validation:

• Both skills passed validation; shared-reference links resolve. Frozen PR headings match the repository template and Mergify configuration.

• Executed the documented normalization example against BOM, mixed line endings, Unicode, literal escapes, empty input, idempotence and invalid UTF-8. All checks passed.

• Verified clean source, diff whitespace and the successful check receipt against the frozen head. Logs and evidence: /home/xupeng/.local/state/mo-bot/jobs/413cedafbbbd4fec937cbb37/attempt-1/review-evidence.json.

Limitations:

• No live publication or Mergify parser execution was performed. The guidance correctly leaves the original CRLF root-cause hypothesis unverified.

• Some CodeQL checks remained pending in the supplied snapshot and were not counted as passes. Product tests are not applicable to this documentation-only delta.