callstack__agent-device/docs/agents/pull-requests.md

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, 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 fuzz-worker 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 — do not call 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 you could not complete.
• Two readiness claims, never blurred. Published and reported: the branch is pushed, the PR body carries evidence gathered at a named commit, and CI on the head is the authority still to come. Merge-ready: required checks are green on the actual head and, for device-facing paths, the live evidence exists (docs-only and pure-tooling changes owe none). "Don't wait for CI" licenses the first claim, not the second — say which one you are claiming.

Rebasing onto a moving main

main has no "require branches up to date" rule; a rebase is not owed to GitHub. Rebase when there is a conflict, or when the commits main gained since your base touch a surface your change depends on or that decides your gates:

pnpm check:affected --base <your-merge-base> --head origin/main   # what main gained, by gate

If that plan names only files and gates disjoint from yours, the rebase buys nothing but another full validation cycle. PR-body evidence is stamped with the commit it was gathered at, so a rebase dates it rather than invalidating it; CI on the new head re-establishes it. A merge queue is the answer once independent migration units regularly land against each other; until then this rule is.

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 a 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 fix. For new or changed public APIs, give 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. Skip 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.
• Call out real tradeoffs, known gaps, and follow-ups; omit boilerplate when there are none.
• Note the touched-file count and whether scope grew 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 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.
• Before adding an error classifier, trace every producer through normalization, wrapping, serialization, and transport; inventory sibling consumers and the existing reason-code vocabulary; then repair the deepest shared boundary that loses the signal. Message text is not a reason code.
• For each key regression test, name what deletion or revert would make it fail. If reverting the implementation still passes, the test is vacuous.
• For recurring failures, prefer a design that makes the class impossible at the owning interface; keep one small regression as evidence rather than enumerating examples. If a custom guard needs repeated exceptions or reconstructs compiler/schema behavior, move the invariant to its source of truth instead of extending the guard.
• 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.
• The CI Size workflow is review evidence; local size comparisons are not required by default. Escalate scrutiny at roughly 700 or more net production lines (excluding tests, generated data, fixtures, documentation) or more than 3 kB npm unpacked growth. Consider gross additions and deletions too, so a move-dominated change is not mistaken for pure growth. These thresholds trigger investigation, not automatic rejection: ask an independent reviewer whether a deeper owning interface, stronger types, less ceremony, reuse of an existing construction path, or deletion of superseded code can make the change materially smaller. The PR should itemize justified growth and record why a smaller design was rejected.