Hacktoberfest 2026: die Issues, die Maintainer für den Oktober markiert haben – offen und einsteigerfreundlich. Hacktoberfest-Issues durchsuchen

Add a two-stage assessment and review process for community PRs

Offen
  • Stimmt etwas nicht?
#4,410 7 Kommentare 0 Reaktionen 0 zugewiesene Personen Auf GitHub ansehen

Maintainer antworten meist innerhalb von 1 Tag

Dieses Issue hat noch niemand übernommen.

Bewertung

Schwierigkeit
5/5
Geschätzter Aufwand
Über eine Woche
Anfängerfreundlichkeit
48/100
Issue-Typ
Feature
Klarheit
Größtenteils klar
Aktivitätsstatus
Aktiv
Tech-Stack
github-actions
Bereich
ci-cd, tooling

Rechercherichtung

Beginne damit, die bestehende bug extension und den feature-assess workflow zu lesen, um staged artifacts und die Installation von Erweiterungen zur Laufzeit zu verstehen. Verfolge dann, wie ein vorgeschlagener community-pr-review workflow den label gate, den read-only context, SHA checks und constrained outputs nutzen könnte. Als erledigt gilt die Aufgabe, wenn die Akzeptanzkriterien für assessment, conditional review, stale revisions, permissions und comment limits erfüllt sind.

Vom Indexierungsmodell aus dem Issue-Text verfasst.

Beschreibung

feature-assess feature-needs-clarification triage-can-wait

Summary

Add a reusable Spec Kit extension and label-triggered agentic workflow for assessing pull requests submitted by community contributors.

The proposed process has two stages:

assessment → project fit?
               ├─ no or unclear → stop
               └─ yes → review

This follows the staged artifact model used by the bug extension and the runtime extension installation used by the feature-assess workflow, while keeping maintainers responsible for acceptance.

Proposed extension

Add a contribution extension with two commands:

  1. speckit.contribution.assess writes .specify/contributions/pr-<number>-<short-head-sha>/assessment.md. It captures PR intent, linked issue or specification, scope, contribution-policy compliance, AI disclosure, architectural fit, risks, and required checks.
  2. speckit.contribution.review consumes the assessment and existing CI evidence, then writes review.md with prioritized findings, contributor actions, and a recommendation for maintainers.

Both commands are read-only with respect to repository source. Every artifact records the PR base and head SHAs and refuses to consume stale artifacts after the contributor pushes another revision.

Proposed agentic workflow

Add a community-pr-review workflow triggered when a maintainer applies a community-review label to an open PR.

The workflow posts at most two top-level comments:

  1. Community contribution assessment — Stage 1/2: summarizes fit, scope, policy compliance, risks, and the assessed head SHA.
  2. Community contribution review — Stage 2/2: summarizes findings, CI evidence, contributor actions, and the maintainer recommendation.

If assessment returns out-of-scope, invalid, or needs-clarification, the workflow posts only the assessment comment, applies the corresponding outcome label, and stops. Review runs only when assessment determines that the contribution fits the project and has enough information to evaluate.

Each comment should identify its stage and PR head SHA. Configure safe outputs with add-comment: max: 2 and constrained outcome labels.

Guardrails

  • Use a human-applied label as the execution gate.
  • Never modify or push to the contributor's branch.
  • Never formally approve, request changes, merge, or resolve review threads.
  • Use the pull_request security context, not pull_request_target.
  • Keep repository and pull-request permissions read-only and expose no secrets.
  • Treat PR descriptions, comments, diffs, and changed files as untrusted data rather than instructions.
  • Consume existing CI results instead of executing contributor-controlled commands in the agentic workflow.
  • Record the head SHA and stop when assessment or CI evidence is stale.

Suggested outcomes

Assessment can conclude:

  • fits-project — continue to review.
  • needs-clarification — request information and stop.
  • out-of-scope — explain why and stop.
  • invalid — explain why and stop.

Review can conclude:

  • ready-for-maintainer-review.
  • needs-contributor-action.
  • blocked.

These are recommendations only; a maintainer remains the final decision-maker.

Acceptance criteria

  • A maintainer can trigger the process against a community PR by applying one label.
  • Assessment always posts first and clearly identifies itself as Stage 1/2.
  • Review runs and posts Stage 2/2 only when assessment returns fits-project.
  • At most two comments are created per run.
  • Both outputs identify the exact PR head SHA they evaluated.
  • Source files and the contributor's branch are never modified.
  • Re-running after a new push cannot reuse stale assessment artifacts.

AI disclosure

This issue was drafted and filed on behalf of @mnriem by GitHub Copilot (model: GPT-5.6 Sol).

Vorherrschende Sprache
Python
Sterne
140k
Forks
12.6k
Ø Merge
2 T. 11 Std.
Gemergte PRs (30 T.)
186

Entwicklungsumgebung

In Codespaces öffnen

Startet den Dev-Container des Projekts im Browser, mit Ihrem eigenen GitHub-Konto.

Erste Schritte

  1. Lesen Sie das ganze Issue und danach den Beitragsleitfaden des Projekts.
  2. Schreiben Sie ins Issue, dass Sie es übernehmen — das erspart doppelte Arbeit.
  3. Forken Sie das Repository und arbeiten Sie in einem Branch.
  4. Öffnen Sie einen Pull Request, der die Issue-Nummer nennt.

Mehr aus github/spec-kit

Alle Issues in github/spec-kit

Ähnliche Issues

Weitere Issues zu Python

Neue Issues direkt in Ihr Postfach

Eine kurze Übersicht über anfängerfreundliche GitHub-Issues.