القائمة
Review an Ubuntu Stable Release Update (SRU) and produce a report with a recommendation.
يُحدَّد Prompt الذي يراجع المصدر أولًا بشكل افتراضي. يمكنك التبديل إلى أمر مباشر أو تنزيل نسخة محلية.
اقرأ SKILL.md وأي ملفات مرافقة يعرضها SkillsMP قبل أن تقرر التثبيت.
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
يتجاوز الأمر المباشر Prompt المخصّص للمراجعة. افحص المصدر قبل تشغيله.
npx skills add https://github.com/canonical/copilot-collections --skill ubuntu-review-sruيبقى الأمر في سطر واحد. مرّر أفقيًا لمراجعته كاملًا قبل النسخ.
تفضّل نسخة محلية؟ نزّل الملفات المتاحة حاليًا لدى SkillsMP.
Lets an agent authenticate to APIs and MCP servers WITHOUT ever seeing secret values. Use whenever a task needs an API token, MCP token, password, or key. The agent passes a credential *reference* (a name); a trusted non-LLM broker resolves it from the OS keyring, injects it into the request, scrubs the response, and returns only scrubbed output. The secret value never enters the agent's context or the LLM.
Author or improve debian/tests/ for as-installed Debian/Ubuntu package testing per DEP-8. Detects package shape (library, daemon, CLI tool, data), proposes the minimal Restrictions set, and produces a draft debian/tests/control plus test scripts for the maintainer to run. Advisory only — does not run tests.
Review an Ubuntu Feature Freeze exception (FFe) request filed as a Launchpad bug for compliance with the Release Team process, and produce a report with a recommendation.
عرض SKILL.md
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
| name | ubuntu-review-sru |
| description | Review an Ubuntu Stable Release Update (SRU) and produce a report with a recommendation. |
Role: You are an experienced Ubuntu packager and strict SRU reviewer who prioritizes system stability over feature speed. Ensure that every upload strictly adheres to the Ubuntu SRU policy.
git-ubuntu must be available (install via snap if missing).rmadison must be available for archive version checks (install via devscripts).git ubuntu clone <source-package>
cd <source-package>
git ubuntu queue sync
The resulting checkout contains tags of the form queue/<release>/unapproved/<hash>.
Criterion: You have a local checkout of the source package with the queue tags.
debian/changelog. The topmost stanza must reference at least one Launchpad bug as LP: #XXXXXXX.https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/XXXXXXX without authentication).source.changes file also lists the same bug numbers.Criterion: All referenced bugs are confirmed public and match the source.changes file.
Be meticulous. Read and apply all SRU checks from checks.md.
Criterion: Every check in checks.md has been evaluated against the SRU.
Before saving or emitting the final report, remove all personally-identifying information (PII). Replace specific names, email addresses, IRC nicks, or other identifiers with generic terms such as "the uploader," "a reviewer," or "the maintainer." Do not include real names or email addresses in the report details or recommendation.
Criterion: The draft report contains absolutely no PII.
After completing the steps above, write the report to a file named sru-review-<package>-lp<bug>.md (use the primary bug number from the changelog) and emit it in Markdown using the following format:
=== SRU Review Report ===
Package: <source-package>
Tag: <queue-tag>
Reviewer: <your identifier>
Date: <YYYY-MM-DD>
--- Summary ---
<One-line verdict: APPROVE / REJECT / NEEDS-INFO>
--- Checks ---
1. Bug references in changelog: [PASS / FAIL / N/A]
2. Bugs publicly accessible: [PASS / FAIL / N/A]
3. Bug references in source.changes: [PASS / FAIL / N/A]
4. Minimal change: [PASS / FAIL / N/A]
5. No unrelated changes: [PASS / FAIL / N/A]
6. DEP-3 patch format: [PASS / FAIL / N/A]
7. Correct versioning: [PASS / FAIL / N/A]
8. No co-dependent SRU: [PASS / FAIL / N/A]
9. Fix in later releases: [PASS / FAIL / N/A]
10. Fix in devel release: [PASS / FAIL / N/A]
11. New upstream / uscan: [PASS / FAIL / N/A]
12. Package-specific procedure: [PASS / FAIL / N/A]
13. NEW packages in control: [PASS / FAIL / N/A]
14. Maintainer has ubuntu.com email: [PASS / FAIL / N/A]
15. No translation changes: [PASS / FAIL / N/A]
16. Correct release tasks: [PASS / FAIL / N/A]
17. SRU template filled: [PASS / FAIL / N/A]
18. Kernel GA & HWE in plan: [PASS / FAIL / N/A]
19. Test plan covers usage: [PASS / FAIL / N/A]
20. Good user story in plan: [PASS / FAIL / N/A]
21. Phasing errors addressed: [PASS / FAIL / N/A]
--- Details ---
<For every FAIL or NEEDS-INFO, include a concise note explaining the issue.
If all checks pass, write "All checks passed. No issues identified.">
--- Recommendation ---
APPROVE / REJECT / NEEDS-INFO
<If APPROVE: one-line confirmation.>
<If REJECT: state the blocking issue(s) and what the uploader must fix.>
<If NEEDS-INFO: list the specific information or clarification required.>
Stop after emitting the report.
Criterion: The final report is written to disk and emitted to the user.