pr-contributor-review

name	pr-contributor-review
description	Review and help prepare a contributor's pull request (upstream or fork). Use when the user asks to review a PR, get a contributor PR ready, update a contributor's branch, or ensure a PR meets project standards before merge. Follow this skill so contributor PRs are reviewed consistently and avoid rework (lint/test failures, outdated base, weak description).
argument-hint	<PR number or URL>
user-invocable	true
metadata	{"author":"APME Operator contributors","version":"1.0.0"}

Review Contributor PR

This skill defines how to review and assist with a contributor's pull request (someone else's PR, e.g. from a fork or another branch). Use it when you are helping make a contributor PR merge-ready, not when submitting your own PR (use pr-new for that).

Goals

• PR is up to date with upstream main (no merge conflicts, clean rebase).
• Quality gates pass: make lint and make test on the full tree.
• PR description follows the project template (Summary, Changes, Test plan) so reviewers and history have clear context.
• Avoid pushing to the contributor's branch with failing CI or an outdated base.

Workflow

1. Fetch PR metadata and diff

Use the GitHub API or gh pr view to get:

• PR number, title, body, base/head refs, author.
• List of changed files and patch/diff.

Confirm the base branch (e.g. ansible:main) and that you know which remote/branch you will push to if you make changes (e.g. djdanielsson:branch).

2. Check if the branch is up to date with upstream

• Fetch upstream main (or the base branch).
• Compare base ref of the PR to current upstream/main. If upstream has newer commits, the contributor's branch should be rebased (or merged) onto upstream/main before merge.

If you are going to push changes to the contributor's branch (e.g. adding fixes or improving the PR):

• Rebase the local branch that mirrors their PR onto upstream/main before pushing. That way the PR stays mergeable and CI runs against the latest main.

3. Run quality gates before pushing

Run quality gates on the entire tree, not only the changed files:

make lint
make test

Fix any failures (line length, untyped decorators, docstring sections, format, test regressions) before pushing to the contributor's branch.

Do not run golangci-lint or go test directly for PR gates — always use make lint and make test (Makefile). See the make skill.

Do not push to the contributor's branch if quality gates fail; fix in a new commit and then push so CI stays green.

4. PR description quality

• If the PR body is minimal or missing structure, suggest or apply the pr-new template: Summary, Changes, Test plan (and optionally Related Specs, Type of Change, Security Checklist from CONTRIBUTING).

• You can update the PR body via GitHub (if you have permission) or draft text for the maintainer/contributor to paste:

  gh pr edit <N> --repo ansible/apme-operator --body-file path/to/body.md
  

• Keep the description accurate: list what changed and how to verify (tests, manual steps).

5. Pushing to the contributor's branch

• Only push to the contributor's fork/branch if you have permission and the user has asked you to (e.g. "push our updates to djdanielsson:fix_errors").

• Before pushing:

  1. Rebase onto upstream/main so the PR is up to date.
  2. Ensure make lint and make test pass (see §3).
  3. Use --force-with-lease when pushing a rebased branch: git push <remote> <local-branch>:<their-branch> --force-with-lease.

• After pushing, the PR will update automatically. Optionally update the PR description to mention the new commits.

5a. Comment on review threads

When you push fixes that address a review comment, reply on that thread so the resolution is visible. Follow the pr-address-feedback skill for the full procedure (finding thread IDs / Node IDs and using the GraphQL-based thread workflow).

5b. Track all deferred work as issues

When reviewing a contributor PR, any suggestion that work should happen in a follow-up PR — whether from you, the contributor, or another reviewer — MUST be captured as a GitHub issue immediately. Do not leave "TODO for later" or "out of scope, will address separately" without creating an issue. Untracked follow-ups are invisible debt.

gh issue create --repo ansible/apme-operator \
  --title "<type>(scope): <description from review>" \
  --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
## Context

<What was deferred and why>

Flagged during review of PR #N: <link to comment>

## Proposal

<What should be done>

EOF
)"

Include the issue URL in the PR comment thread so reviewers can verify tracking.

6. What not to include in the skill

• Local-only or environment-specific issues (e.g. commit signing, SSH config, IDE settings) should not be part of the contributor-PR review checklist unless they are project policy (e.g. DCO). Document those separately or in maintainer docs if needed.

Checklist (quick reference)

When reviewing or preparing a contributor PR:

• Fetched PR and know base/head and remotes.
• Branch is up to date with upstream main (rebase if needed before push).
• make lint and make test pass.
• PR description has Summary, Changes, and Test plan (pr-new style).
• If pushing to their branch: rebase onto upstream main, make lint and make test green, then git push <remote> <local>:<their-branch> --force-with-lease.
• If you addressed a review comment: follow the pr-address-feedback skill to reply on the thread with explanation + commit SHA and resolve it.

References

• make skill (/make): Makefile target reference.
• pr-new skill: PR body template and commit conventions.
• pr-address-feedback skill: Responding to review comments and resolving threads.
• CONTRIBUTING.md: PR template, testing, security checklist.
• README.md: Quality gates (make lint, make test).