Reconcile `code-review.md`'s finding-ID convention with the ID schemes in use (CR-/DOC-/TECH-, F-P4-OPUS, F-P8-C)
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 3/5
- Estimated time
- 1-2 days
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Activity status
- Active
- Tech stack
- markdown
- Domain
- documentation
Research direction
Start with docs/standards/code-review.md, which defines the two canonical finding-ID forms, then compare it with the CR-/DOC-/TECH- IDs cited in CONTRIBUTING.md and the pull-request template, and the F-P4-OPUS-NN/F-P8-C-NN schemes in the tree. The row itself is at docs/roadmap/risks-and-decisions.md line 93. Done means the convention covers or scopes every ID form, a maintainer has decided on enforcement, the row is removed from the deferral table, and the CHANGELOG names F-PR29-A8-16. Check #712 first to avoid overlap.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Description
Deferred work ·
F-PR29-A8-16· severity Low · cost ~1-2 h · recorded indocs/roadmap/risks-and-decisions.md:93
Summary
docs/standards/code-review.md defines exactly two canonical finding-ID forms, but later review cycles introduced F-P4-OPUS-NN and F-P8-C-NN, and CONTRIBUTING.md, the pull-request template and code-review.md itself now tell contributors to quote the backlog's CR- / DOC- / TECH- IDs, which the convention never mentions. The row was recorded as a rolling enforcement target with no guard and no exit criterion.
Condition or budget
None recorded ("rolling").
State today (re-checked 2026-10-09)
The convention table lists two forms; the newer schemes appear in the tree and in the contributor documents.
Related
#712 (strip IDs from code comments) is related, not the same change.
Acceptance criteria
- The convention covers every ID form in use (or states each one's scope), decides whether enforcement is wanted, and the row gets an exit criterion or is closed.
- The row is removed from the deferral table and the CHANGELOG names its ID (the table's removal contract).
Recorded in docs/roadmap/risks-and-decisions.md (read at f94595f) and re-checked against the code on 2026-10-09. The row leaves that table only when the fix is on main, the CHANGELOG names its ID and any promised guard exists.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 9
- Forks
- 1
- Avg merge
- 8h 10m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 5
Getting set up
- Ships a Dockerfile or Docker Compose file
- Has a pull request template
- Read the contributing guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
More from HodeTech/ForgeLM
-
area: dev-tooling bug severity: low source: roadmap wave: 4
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 70/100
-
area: site bug good first issue severity: low source: review-2026-09 wave: 4
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 66/100
-
documentation good first issue severity: medium source: review-2026-09 wave: 3
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 75/100
-
documentation good first issue severity: low source: review-2026-09 wave: 4
Difficulty 1/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 80/100
-
documentation severity: medium source: review-2026-09 wave: 3
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 72/100
All issues in HodeTech/ForgeLM
Similar issues
-
python triage
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 82/100
microsoft/semantic-kernel#14590 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 3 days
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 72/100
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 85/100
pinterest/pymemcache#662 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
Difficulty 2/5 Half a day Newbie friendliness 62/100
gnocchixyz/gnocchi#1527 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 64/100
tenstorrent/tt-model-manager#181 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day