skills/callstack__agent-device
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/callstack/agent-device.git synced 2026-09-14 20:06:34 +08:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
Files
agent/restrict-project-config-trust
callstack__agent-device/docs/agents/pull-requests.md
T
Michał Pierzchała 53e4be5f86 Remove SkillGym suite and repo-health snapshot infrastructure (#1480) 
* chore: drop SkillGym and the repo-health aggregator (#1412 descope)

Remove the SkillGym harness (test/skillgym/), its check-affected lane,
package scripts, and devDependency — the help-conformance bench is now
the single non-gating small-model oracle. skills/ markdown classifies
as docs in the affected-check selector instead of failing open.

Remove scripts/repo-health: its only gating assertion duplicated the
Layering Guard job, its case-count metric imported the deleted SkillGym
suite, and its sole planned consumer (#1424 / PR #1477) was closed with
the Track C descope on #1412.

Verified: check-affected node --test suites, oxfmt, oxlint, tsc,
check:layering, fallow audit vs origin/main, and the full unit suite
(unit-core + subprocess-stub) all pass.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01FUv7bvbWNryuXgSBuqTtep

* fix(scripts): fold slow-test budgets into the reporter for production-exports

The Fallow production-exports gate flagged all three budget exports:
their in-file consumer (SLOW_TEST_RATCHET) and the repo-health entry
point that kept the module reachable were both removed in the descope,
leaving the config-loaded reporter as the only consumer — invisible to
--production analysis. The data-only module's second consumer is gone,
so per the boundaries-are-earned norm the constants move into the
reporter instead of gaining a suppression.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01FUv7bvbWNryuXgSBuqTtep

* docs: align skills/ format policy and purge last SkillGym mention

Address both P2 review findings on #1480: the testing-matrix row and
the selector's formatGate both still claimed oxfmt covers skills/,
while selectChecks classifies skills/*.md docs-only (oxfmt ignores
**/*.md, so the claim was a no-op even before). The matrix now states
the docs-only policy and formatGate drops the dead underSkills fact.
The merged examples/README.md index (from #1469) loses its skillgym
mention.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01FUv7bvbWNryuXgSBuqTtep

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-29 11:45:22 +02:00

4.1 KiB
Raw Permalink Blame History

Pull Requests

Readiness

  • Static gates first: required checks pass, pnpm check:fallow --base origin/main is clean when code-quality/dead-code risk is relevant, CI guards are green, and no conflict markers or unmerged paths remain.
  • A local unit-only run is not CI-green. Use pnpm test:unit for the repo unit bundle, or vitest run --project unit-core --project subprocess-stub when invoking Vitest directly. The Integration Tests and Coverage jobs run the provider-integration project — verify those green on the actual PR head.
  • Device-facing behavior is not merge-ready without real simulator/emulator/device evidence for the changed path. Fixture-backed tests prove contracts; they do not replace a live run that creates or observes the artifact/state the feature claims to handle. If live verification is blocked, state the blocker and the exact command/device needed, and downgrade the PR to residual risk rather than calling it ready.
  • Command-surface changes preserve CLI, Node.js, daemon, MCP, help, and docs coverage where that surface is affected, without duplicating command contracts across layers.
  • Runtime output stays agent-friendly: compact defaults, top offenders first for diagnostics/perf, bounded arrays in JSON, artifact paths for large raw data, progressive lookup for deeper detail.
  • Close every manual agent-device session opened during verification (docs/agents/device-verification.md) and report any cleanup that could not be completed.

PR body

Conventional commit prefixes (feat:, fix:, chore:, perf:, refactor:, docs:, test:, build:, ci:). No bracketed bot tags like [codex]. Ready-for-review by default; draft only when asked or when the work is intentionally incomplete.

  • ## Summary: user/API behavior, not an implementation file tour. Lead with what changed for operators, clients, command authors, or platform behavior. A compact before/after helps when it clarifies the workflow or bug fix. For new or changed public APIs, include 1-3 concrete CLI/Node/MCP examples a reviewer can scan. Closes #123 when applicable.
  • ## Validation: meaningful evidence in concise prose — scenario names, manual device/browser evidence, changed screenshots, CI status, notable failures/retries and their outcome. Avoid command accounting for routine local gates; name an exact command only when it is unusual, manually reproducible evidence, or needed to explain a residual risk. For docs-only changes, say why runtime validation does not apply instead of writing a command checklist.
  • Call out real tradeoffs, known gaps, and follow-ups; omit boilerplate when there are none.
  • Note touched-file count and whether scope expanded beyond the initial command family.

Reviewing

  • Review against the linked issue, not only the diff. State the issue's motivating behavior and verify the PR fixes that.
  • Check relevant ADRs before reviewing architecture, routing, command-surface, platform-boundary, diagnostics, or testing-strategy changes. An ADR conflict is a review finding unless the PR updates or supersedes the ADR explicitly.
  • Read dependency notes (Blocked by: ..., linked PRs, sibling branches) before judging correctness. A base/sequence problem outranks detail review.
  • Trace the real production route from command surface through daemon/request routing to the platform backend. Tests that mock away the router, or exercise only a helper, do not prove the shipped path.
  • For each key regression test, identify what deletion or revert would make it fail. If reverting the implementation still passes, the test is vacuous.
  • Check for hidden behavior changes separately from intended refactors: output shape, warning/error propagation, artifact paths, fallback/retry tiers.
  • Verify tests cover the issue's motivating failure, not just the new abstraction. Prefer before/after evidence when an issue reports a concrete divergence.
  • Green CI is necessary but insufficient for device-facing or routing-sensitive work.
  • Check whether the tightening pass removed code/tests the change made obsolete.
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink