code-owners

name	code-owners
description	Identify who owns, maintains, or has expertise in a specific code area — use when asked who to talk to about a system, who to request a code review from, or who has been actively working in a codebase area.

Code Owners

Identify who owns, maintains, or has expertise in a specific code area.

Determine the component or codebase area from the user's request. If not specified, ask before proceeding.

Core Principles

• Multi-signal identification: Code + docs + org structure = complete picture
• Recency matters: Active maintainers are more useful than historical authors
• Be skeptical: Just having commits doesn't mean they're the right contact
• Quality over quantity: 2-3 right people beats 10 tangential names

Process

Phase 1: Find Recent Contributors

Search for who's been actively working on this code:

code_search "[component] owner:* updated:past_month"
code_search "[component] from:* updated:past_3_months"

Phase 2: Find Historical Authors

Look for original authors and significant contributors:

code_search "[component] owner:* after:2023-01-01"

Phase 3: Find Related Documentation Authors

People who wrote the docs often have deep knowledge:

search "[component] design doc OR architecture owner:*"
search "[component] RFC owner:*"

Phase 4: Cross-Reference with Org Info

Get current roles and contact info:

employee_search "[contributor names]"

Phase 5: Vet Each Candidate

For each person found, evaluate:

Test	✅ Active Owner	⚠️ Consider	❌ Reject
Ownership	Multiple commits in past 3 months, reviews PRs	Occasional activity, still relevant	Single commit, tangential involvement
Relevance	Same team, same area	Changed teams but retains context	Left company, completely different area
Knowledge	Wrote design docs, significant PRs, in CODEOWNERS	Regular contributor, knows the code	Minor commits, typo fixes
Contact	Owns the code, expects questions	Knowledgeable but busy/senior — suggest alternatives first	Would be surprised to be contacted

Phase 6: Present Vetted Ownership Map

# Code Ownership: [Component]

## Vetting Summary
| Candidates Found | Active Owners | Historical | Rejected |
|------------------|---------------|------------|----------|
| [X] | [Y] | [Z] | [W] |

## Primary Contacts (Recommended)

### 1. [Name] — [Title]
**Confidence**: High
- **Why**: Most active contributor, [X] commits in past month
- **Good for**: Day-to-day questions, PR reviews
- **Last active**: [date]
- **Contact**: [email]

## Secondary Contacts
| Name | Role | Why Secondary | Contact |
|------|------|---------------|---------|
| [Name] | [Title] | Moved to [team] but retains context | [email] |

## Historical Contributors
| Name | Contribution | Current Role | Last Active |
|------|--------------|--------------|-------------|
| [Name] | Original author | Now on [team] | [date] |

## Team Ownership
- **Team**: [team name]
- **Manager**: [name]
- **Slack channel**: [channel] (may be faster than individual outreach)

## Rejected Candidates
| Name | Reason |
|------|--------|
| [Name] | Single commit — typo fix only |
| [Name] | Left company |

If No Clear Owners Found

# Code Ownership: [Component]

## Ownership Unclear

Could not identify clear owners for this component.

**Possible explanations:**
- Ownership may be implicit within a team
- Code may be unmaintained/legacy

**Suggested next steps:**
1. Check the repository's CODEOWNERS or MAINTAINERS file directly
2. Look at recent PR reviewers as a proxy
3. Ask in [relevant Slack channel]