Local-only OSS contribution command center. Auto-refreshes the user's
in-flight PR and issue state on invoke so conversations start with full
context — no need to brief Claude on what's in flight. Helps the user
find issues to contribute to on GitHub, builds per-repo dossiers of what
each upstream expects (CLA, DCO, branch convention, AI policy, draft-first,
review bots, issue templates), runs deterministic gates before any
external action so AI-assisted contributions don't reach maintainers as
slop. State is markdown-only: candidate files at
~/.contribute-system/candidates/, repo dossiers at
~/.contribute-system/research/, append-only event log at
~/.contribute-system/log.jsonl. No database, no cloud calls.
Use when the user asks about their PRs / issues / contributions, wants to
find new work to take on, claim an issue, build/refresh a repo's dossier,
or draft a Design Issue or PR. Trigger with "/contribute", "what's my PR
status", "find a contribution", "claim issue X", "draft a Design Issue
for Y", "refre
Installer avec Codex ou Claude Copiez ce prompt, collez-le dans Codex, Claude ou un autre assistant, puis laissez-le vérifier la page du skill et l'installer pour vous.
Une commande directe contourne le prompt de vérification. Examinez la source avant de l'exécuter.
La commande reste sur une seule ligne. Faites défiler horizontalement pour la vérifier avant de la copier.
Vous préférez une copie locale ? Téléchargez les fichiers actuellement disponibles dans SkillsMP.
Explorateur de fichiers
100 fichiers
Affichage de SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Instructions source · Aperçu en lecture seule
name
contribute
description
Local-only OSS contribution command center. Auto-refreshes the user's
in-flight PR and issue state on invoke so conversations start with full
context — no need to brief Claude on what's in flight. Helps the user
find issues to contribute to on GitHub, builds per-repo dossiers of what
each upstream expects (CLA, DCO, branch convention, AI policy, draft-first,
review bots, issue templates), runs deterministic gates before any
external action so AI-assisted contributions don't reach maintainers as
slop. State is markdown-only: candidate files at
~/.contribute-system/candidates/, repo dossiers at
~/.contribute-system/research/, append-only event log at
~/.contribute-system/log.jsonl. No database, no cloud calls.
Use when the user asks about their PRs / issues / contributions, wants to
find new work to take on, claim an issue, build/refresh a repo's dossier,
or draft a Design Issue or PR. Trigger with "/contribute", "what's my PR
status", "find a contribution", "claim issue X", "draft a Design Issue
for Y", "refresh dossier for Z". Also triggers on "/contribute <github-url>"
or "/contribute owner/repo" — onboards a new repo (builds dossier, stubs
candidates, surfaces context) or resurfaces briefing for a known repo.
Local-only OSS contribution workflow. The skill itself is the system — there is no separate CLI binary, dashboard, or cloud backend. State lives in three places:
GitHub itself — fetched live via gh for any PR/issue state question. Never cached long-term.
Markdown candidate files at ~/.contribute-system/candidates/<owner>__<repo>__issue<N>.md — one per issue we're tracking. Frontmatter is the queryable layer (status, scout_score, repo, research_path, overrides). Body holds claim drafts, PR drafts, scope notes.
Markdown repo dossiers at ~/.contribute-system/research/<owner>__<repo>.md — one per upstream repo we contribute to. Built by the @researcher subagent. Frontmatter is canonical for every gate (CLA, DCO, branch convention, AI policy, draft-first, review bots, issue templates). Body holds curated knowledge: pet peeves, failure log, free-form notes that survive refresh.
Append-only event log at ~/.contribute-system/log.jsonl — every gate run, transition attempt, override, scout/researcher invocation lands here with a UTC timestamp. Filterable via jq.
Use this skill when the user wants to:
Know what's in flight (open PRs, claimed issues, candidate queue)
Find a new issue to contribute to on GitHub
Build or refresh a per-repo dossier (delegates to @researcher)
Run gate-checked transitions (claim, work, submit) — every external action passes through transition.sh first
Draft a claim comment, Design Issue, or PR description (default: Design Issue, NOT a PR)
Run an upstream repo's test suite
The pre-2026-04-30 version of the skill used a SQLite tracker (~/.contribute-system/contribute.db, 32 tables) plus a separate contribute-system/ monorepo (Next.js dashboard, TS CLI, Cloud Functions). Both were deleted because they were never used in practice. The skill now reads markdown directly. That tradeoff is deliberate: human-readable, greppable, git-trackable, survives any tool, no daemon process.
Prerequisites
gh CLI, authenticated as the user (gh auth status should show "Logged in")
jq on PATH (used by gates + log filtering)
Workspace at ~/000-projects/contributing-clanker/ containing upstream clones (each clone has its own for project conventions)
CLAUDE.md
Runtime state dir at ~/.contribute-system/ — created on first scout/researcher run if missing
Run this DCI check at activation (output is auto-injected into the prompt):
On every invocation, inspect the args first. If the args contain a GitHub URL
(https://github.com/owner/repo or github.com/owner/repo) or a bare owner/repo
slug, enter Repo Init Mode instead of the normal Step 0 flow. If no args, proceed
to Step 0.
Wasteland federation repos — if the owner is gastownhall (the org), or the repo
is specifically julianknutsen/wasteland (match the repo, not the owner —
julianknutsen is a personal account with unrelated repos), or the user references a
w-<id> board item or the wl CLI, this is Wasteland
work: claims happen in a Dolt commons via wl claim (not gh issue comment),
and the deliverable is still a GitHub PR. Read references/wasteland-federation.md
before drafting any claim for those repos — it maps the wl claim → PR → wl done
flow, which gates adapt (A-phase claim gates read the wl board, not GitHub
assignees; C-phase PR gates still fully apply), the [wendy:github-mirror]
staleness trap, and the candidate wl_id / scope_verdict fields.
Scope guard: if OWNER matches an own-org prefix (jeremylongshore, intent-solutions-io),
surface a warning — "this looks like one of your own repos; contribute is for upstream-only work"
— and ask if they meant a different URL. Stop until clarified.
Step 2 — Determine branch: New vs. Known
Check dossier existence, then take the matching path:
# Repo metadata
gh api repos/${OWNER}/${REPO} \
--jq '{description:.description, stars:.stargazers_count, language:.language,
license:.license.name, open_issues:.open_issues_count, default_branch:.default_branch,
updated:.updated_at, archived:.archived}'
# Open issues
gh issue list --repo ${OWNER}/${REPO} --state=open --limit=20 \
--json number,title,labels,assignees,createdAt
# CONTRIBUTING.md quick read (first 80 lines)
gh api repos/${OWNER}/${REPO}/contents/CONTRIBUTING.md --jq '.content' \
2>/dev/null | base64 -d 2>/dev/null | head -80 || echo "no CONTRIBUTING.md"
# PR history — gauge maintainer activity and external merge velocity
gh pr list --repo ${OWNER}/${REPO} --state=merged --limit=10 \
--json number,title,author,mergedAt
Then:
Build the dossier — invoke @researcher build ${OWNER}/${REPO} (subagent at
agents/researcher.md). It fetches deep context (issue templates, CLA, AI policy,
review bots, etiquette comments) and writes
~/.contribute-system/research/${OWNER}__${REPO}.md. Returns a one-paragraph summary.
Create candidate stubs for any open, unassigned, un-closing issues — write
~/.contribute-system/candidates/${OWNER}__${REPO}__issue<N>.md with status: open
and scout_score: 0 (unscored — let @scout score them properly before claiming).
Surface onboarding context block (see Output § Repo Init below).
Stop — surface the context block and wait for the user's next instruction.
Branch B — Known repo (dossier exists)
Briefing mode. No full rebuild needed. Run these in parallel:
# Current dossier freshness
awk '/^last_refreshed:/{print $2; exit}' "$DOSSIER"
# Live open issues (GitHub, not just cached)
gh issue list --repo ${OWNER}/${REPO} --state=open --limit=20 \
--json number,title,labels,assignees,createdAt
# Existing candidates for this repo
for f in ~/.contribute-system/candidates/${OWNER}__${REPO}__*.md; do
[ -f "$f" ] || continue
awk '/^(issue_number|status|scout_score|pr_number):/{print FILENAME, $0}' "$f"
done 2>/dev/null
# Any open PRs already in flight for this repo
gh pr list --repo ${OWNER}/${REPO} --author=@me --state=open \
--json number,title,isDraft,url 2>/dev/null
Then:
If dossier is >14 days old, invoke @researcher refresh ${OWNER}/${REPO}.
Surface a briefing block (same Output § Repo Init format, but includes existing
candidates and any open PRs already filed).
Stop — surface the briefing and wait for the user's next instruction.
Step 0 — Refresh state (run first, every time)
First, print the dashboard. Run the local ASCII status dashboard and show its
output verbatim in a fenced code block (so the box-drawing renders) — this is the
headline the user sees the moment /contribute fires:
# ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR} when set (distributable per skill-creator spec); else the install path
"${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR:-$HOME/.claude/skills/contribute}/scripts/dashboard.sh"
It reads only local markdown (candidates + dossiers + log.jsonl) — no network — so it
renders instantly and deterministically: the candidate pipeline funnel, in-flight work
needing action, recently-shipped PRs, suggested next tasks (top open by scout_score +
stale dossiers + drift), and a recent-activity timeline. Don't paraphrase it; paste the
block, then add any live-state notes below it.
Then, to reconcile that local snapshot against live GitHub PR state, run these in
parallel with the Bash tool:
# Upstream PRs in flight (filtered to outside-org repos only —
# the system tracks contributions INTO repos the user does not own;
# own-repo PRs are out of scope and must be excluded).
#
# OWN_ORGS is the prefix list of repos to exclude. Update if the user
# adds a new org. (Discoverable via `gh api user/orgs --jq '.[].login'`
# plus the user's own login from `gh api user --jq '.login'`.)
OWN_ORGS='jeremylongshore/ intent-solutions-io/'
gh search prs --author=@me --state=open --limit=50 \
--json number,title,url,repository,isDraft,createdAt | \
jq --arg own "$OWN_ORGS" '
($own | split(" ")) as $excl |
map(select(.repository.nameWithOwner as $r |
($excl | map(. as $p | $r | startswith($p)) | any) | not))
'
# Recently-merged + closed upstream PRs (last 30, same scope filter)
gh search prs --author=@me --state=closed --limit=30 \
--json number,title,url,repository,closedAt,createdAt | \
jq --arg own "$OWN_ORGS" '
($own | split(" ")) as $excl |
map(select(.repository.nameWithOwner as $r |
($excl | map(. as $p | $r | startswith($p)) | any) | not))
'
# Local candidate tracker — markdown frontmatter is the queryable layer.
# Candidates are upstream-only by construction (scout never enqueues
# own-repo issues), so no scope filter needed here.
for f in ~/.contribute-system/candidates/*.md; do
awk -v f="$(basename "$f" .md)" '
/^---$/ { fm = !fm ? 1 : 2; next }
fm == 1 && /^(repo|issue_number|status|scout_score|research_path|pr_number):/ { print f, $0 }
' "$f"
done 2>/dev/null
# Recent activity from the event log
tail -50 ~/.contribute-system/log.jsonl 2>/dev/null \
| jq -c "select(.event | test(\"transition_|gate_|researcher_|scout_\"))" 2>/dev/null
Scope rule (non-negotiable): this skill applies only to contributions made INTO repos the user does not own. Own-org PRs (jeremylongshore/*, intent-solutions-io/*) are out of scope — they are personal-project work, not anti-slop OSS contributions. The whole architecture (gates, dossiers, lifecycle) exists because upstream maintainers need protection from low-quality AI work; that concern doesn't apply to the user's own repos. If a candidate file ever references an own-org repo, it's a scout bug — flag it.
Then summarize for the user:
N open / draft PRs (and any blocked on review)
N candidates in claimed or working status but not yet submitted
N candidates in open / shortlist status (sorted by scout_score desc)
Any contradictions between gh (PR state) and the candidate's status: field (e.g., PR merged but candidate still says submitted) — flag for cleanup
N candidates whose research_path: is empty or stale (>14d) — flag for @researcher build/refresh
Skip Step 0 only when the user asks about something unrelated to their own contributions.
Step 0.5 — Ensure dossier exists for any repo we'll touch
Every repo we contribute to needs a dossier at
~/.contribute-system/research/<owner>__<repo>.md — that's where every gate
in ~/.contribute-system/gates/ reads its rules from (branch convention,
CLA/DCO, AI policy, draft-first preference, review bots, etc.).
Before any lifecycle transition (claim, work, submit) for a candidate at
repo <owner>/<repo>:
DOSSIER=~/.contribute-system/research/$(echo <owner>/<repo> | tr '/' '_').md
DOSSIER=${DOSSIER/__/__} # ensure double underscore
if [[ ! -f "$DOSSIER" ]]; then
echo "no dossier — invoking @researcher"
# delegate to the researcher subagent
fi
# Also check staleness — refresh if >14 days old
LAST=$(awk '/^last_refreshed:/{print $2; exit}' "$DOSSIER")
if [[ -n "$LAST" ]]; then
AGE_DAYS=$(( ( $(date +%s) - $(date -d "$LAST" +%s) ) / 86400 ))
[[ "$AGE_DAYS" -gt 14 ]] && echo "stale ($AGE_DAYS d) — invoking @researcher refresh"
fi
Delegate dossier build/refresh to the @researcher subagent (defined
at ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/agents/researcher.md). It runs in its own context window so
the verbose CONTRIBUTING.md fetch + depth-1 link follows stay out of your
main conversation. It writes the dossier to disk and reports back a
one-paragraph summary.
If the user already invoked @researcher earlier in the session for this
repo, skip — don't re-build.
Step 0.6 — First-touch fit (read BEFORE choosing any artifact)
The mechanical gates (CLA, DCO, branch convention, trust-ladder size) tell you whether a
contribution is well-formed. They do not tell you whether it will be received. The
2026-06-02 ISEDC Centaur council exposed four signals the dossier historically MISSED — and
the miss would have produced a credibility-torching first move (a governance Design Issue into a
closed-collaboration repo whose author ships a competing stack). Every dossier must now carry these, and you
must read them before Step 5:
collaboration_surface: open | guarded | closed — is the repo actually a place outsiders
land work? Derive from external-merge-rate (90d), issue-reply-rate to external authors, median
internal merge latency, and presence of CONTRIBUTING. A repo merging 60+ internal PRs/week at
minute-scale cycles with a dead tracker is closed-collaboration — invert the Design-Issue default
(Step 5). NOTE: closed describes collaboration posture, NOT provenance — it is still the
canonical, maintainer-owned repo (verify isFork:false), not a fork or third-party copy. A PR
there lands on the real thing; the maintainers just don't co-develop via the public tracker.
counterparty_design_intent — fetch SECURITY.md + any threat-model / design docs and
extract what the maintainers declared deliberate, out-of-scope, or WIP / feedback-wanted.
NEVER pitch a "gap" that their own docs call an intentional choice or an excluded threat — to a
domain-expert maintainer that reads as "you didn't read my threat model." The feedback-wanted
surfaces are the ONLY safe place to raise design questions.
positioning_risk: none | adjacent-builder | direct-competitor — does the contributor ship a
product that overlaps this repo (one web search away)? This is an OPTICS/perception risk, NOT a
conflict of interest — a contributor owes the upstream no duty, so there is no conflict to manage;
the only risk is that a maintainer misreads a contribution as a covert pitch. Distinguish honestly:
tooling that governs or composes with this repo is adjacent-builder, not direct-competitor. If
adjacent-builder/direct-competitor, any governance/strategic contribution gets disclosure-first
(one honest line in-body) and the first touch reveals nothing about the overlapping stack — that is
good-faith transparency, not COI management.
competing_license_fence — scan the contributor's OWN referenced repos for BUSL-1.1 / SSPL /
Commons-Clause "Competing Service" clauses that conflict with naming them upstream. Resolve in
writing before any cross-promotion.
local_test_fit: isolated | partial | full-stack-only — how heavy is the repo's
local-verification bar? A repo whose only documented test path is "boot the whole stack"
(k8s/Helm/secrets/1Password, a just up / compose / helm bring-up) is full-stack-only: an
outsider who can't stand that up can only safely contribute fixes that are isolatable
(shell-logic, pure functions) and provable on their own machine. Derive from the AGENTS.md /
CONTRIBUTING "Testing" section. This shapes which issues are viable — see Step 2.5 "Local-testability
fit." (Added 2026-06-03: the Centaur run's full-stack-only bar is exactly why a one-line
entrypoint.sh fix was the right first touch and a slackbot-streaming fix was not.)
If any of these five fields is absent or stale in the dossier, invoke @researcher to populate them
before proceeding. The first-touch shape (Step 5 table) is a FUNCTION of collaboration_surface; the
reveal level is a function of positioning_risk; the safe design-question surface is a function of
counterparty_design_intent; the viable-issue set is a function of local_test_fit.
Step 1 — Discover
Find issues worth contributing to. Sources, in priority order:
Existing candidates with status: open or status: shortlist already in ~/.contribute-system/candidates/ — already discovered + vetted, ranked by scout_score: frontmatter field
Fresh GitHub label searches scoped to repos / languages in ~/.contribute-system/profile.md: gh search issues "label:'good first issue' state:open language:<lang>" --limit 50
Delegate discovery to the @scout subagent (defined at ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/agents/scout.md). It runs in its own context window so the verbose gh search output stays out of your main conversation. Pass it a mode: baseline (full per-tier sweep), refresh (re-evaluate existing candidates for momentum), or an ad-hoc query like "TypeScript repos at mainstream tier with no competing PRs." Scout writes ranked candidate markdown files to ~/.contribute-system/candidates/ and appends events to ~/.contribute-system/log.jsonl. Summarize the top picks for the user from those files; do not re-run the search yourself.
Step 2 — Qualify
Before claiming any issue, run these in parallel against the target repo:
gh pr list --repo <owner>/<repo> --search "<issue#>" --state=all
gh api repos/<owner>/<repo>/commits --jq '.[0:3] | map({date: .commit.author.date, msg: .commit.message[0:60]})'
gh api repos/<owner>/<repo>/contents/CONTRIBUTING.md --jq '.content' | base64 -d 2>/dev/null
Quick-reject signals:
2+ active PRs already on the issue
Issue >90 days old with maintainer silence
CLA required for trivial work
Stack mismatch with the user's strengths
Use the bundled agents/repo-analyzer.md for the structured eligibility / CLA / rules check.
Step 2.5 — Rejection-log + feasibility (read from the dossier)
Before a first contribution, three repo-specific reads decide whether a candidate is receivable and verifiable, not just well-formed. @researcher produces all three in the dossier (added 2026-06-03 after the Centaur run) — read them, don't re-derive by hand:
## Rejection patterns — what gets outsiders denied here, mined from closed-unmerged NONE/CONTRIBUTOR PRs (feature/tool-adds silently closed; fixes superseded or fixed-internally; repro disagreement; "live-testing showed wrong layer"). Avoid these in your own PR.
local_test_fit frontmatter — if full-stack-only, prefer a fix verifiable without their stack (shell-logic / pure-function); never fake an e2e run — say "verified via isolated repro" honestly.
Supersession — confirm the target file isn't mid-rewrite, the issue has no internal fix in flight, no competing open PR.
If the dossier predates this (no ## Rejection patterns / local_test_fit), run @researcher refresh <owner>/<repo> first. (Mechanics live in agents/researcher.md.)
Step 3 — Claim
Draft a claim comment from assets/claim-template.md. Adapt to the upstream's tone (lowercase if they use lowercase). Show the draft to the user for approval. Never gh issue comment autonomously.
Wasteland federation exception — for gastownhall/* and julianknutsen/wasteland
board work, the claim is wl claim w-<id> against the Dolt commons, not a GitHub
issue comment; completion is recorded with wl done w-<id> --evidence "<PR-url>" after
the PR opens. Still human-approved — show the intended wl claim to the user and never
run it autonomously. For [wendy:github-mirror] items, verify the mirrored GitHub
issue isn't already closed before claiming (see references/wasteland-federation.md).
Gate-checked transitions — before showing the claim draft to the user,
run the gate-runner via transition.sh to catch traps (already-assigned,
already-shipped, stale labels, AI-policy strikes, etc.):
If gates BLOCK, surface the blockers + fix hints to the user. They can fix
the underlying issue, pick a different candidate, or use
--override-gate <ID> "reason" if they have a specific justification (the
reason is logged to ~/.contribute-system/log.jsonl).
After the user posts the claim and gates pass, the candidate's status:
field is bumped automatically by transition.sh (atomic write). No manual
SQLite update needed — the markdown candidate file IS the tracker.
Step 4 — Work
Each clone in ~/000-projects/contributing-clanker/ has its own CLAUDE.md. Read it first. Run the project's native test suite — common patterns:
cargo build && cargo test && cargo clippy --all-targets
Scala
sbt compile && sbt test && sbt scalafmtCheckAll
Use agents/test-runner.md for the structured runner that tees output to ~/.contribute-system/test-logs/.
Step 5 — Submit
Default to a Design Issue, not a PR — BUT only for repos that are an actual collaboration surface. Auto-opening PRs creates "whack-a-mole slopfests" for maintainers (per the repo's CLAUDE.md philosophy). This default is correct when the upstream uses its issue tracker to think. It is exactly wrong for a closed-collaboration repo — a canonical, maintainer-owned repo (NOT a fork or third-party copy) that is nonetheless developed at internal velocity and treats its public issue tracker as write-only, where the tracker is a graveyard and the merge filter is "do I already know who you are," not patch quality. There, a Design Issue is the deadest channel; leading with one marks you as a stranger-with-an-agenda and gets ignored.
Read the dossier's collaboration_surface: field (Step 0.6) before choosing:
collaboration_surface
Signals
First-touch shape
open
issues get maintainer replies, external PRs merge on quality, CONTRIBUTING invites contribution
Design Issue first (the default below)
guarded
some external merges but identity-correlated, slow issue replies
Tiny merge-able PR first to bank identity, THEN Design Issue
closed
near-zero external merges, dead/ignored tracker, high internal velocity, no CONTRIBUTING (canonical repo, but closed collaboration posture — not a fork)
Non-proposal micro-fix PR ONLY (≤30 LOC, 1 file, zero strategy/governance/self-promotion). No Design Issue until a merge banks identity. If no clean micro-fix exists, ship nothing and build identity through public adjacency first.
Order (collaboration-surface = open only):
Open a Design Issue using assets/pr-template.md reshaped for an issue body — include problem, proposed solution, diff preview, test results
Wait for maintainer approval of the approach
Open the PR using assets/pr-template.md
For guarded / closed: lead with the identity-banking micro-PR per the table; defer any Design Issue / proposal until after it merges.
Use agents/draft-writer.md for the body drafter. Always show the draft to the user for approval before posting.
Gate-checked submission — before opening the PR / Design Issue, run:
This runs phase B (pre-PR), C (PR submission), E (identity), F (legal),
and G (infrastructure) gates against the local diff + dossier rules. BLOCK
gates refuse the transition; WARN gates surface in the briefing for the
user to acknowledge before proceeding.
After successful submission, transition.sh bumps the candidate's
status: to submitted atomically. Manually add the PR number to the
candidate's frontmatter:
# After PR is opened
sed -i "s/^pr_number:.*/pr_number: <num>/; s|^pr_url:.*|pr_url: <url>|" \
~/.contribute-system/candidates/<owner>__<repo>__issue<N>.md
Omarchy submission lane (omarchy-submit) — for a marketplace entry the
user owns (a whole repo, not an upstream diff), the candidate argument is the
entry's repo directory:
This runs the C/E/F/G phases against the full tree. The submission-content
gates (c28+) exist because these defects actually shipped in past entries and
were only caught by hand or by a post-submit review panel:
Gate
Catches
Verdict
c28 voice-no-dashes
em/en dashes in shipped prose or outbound drafts
BLOCK
c29 private-names
denylisted private names (~/.contribute-system/private-names.txt) in content or filenames
BLOCK
c30 md-strikethrough
tilde pairs GitHub renders as strikethrough
WARN
c31 omarchy-qml-security
Text binding data with no textFormat (AutoText sniffing); curl argv with no --max-filesize
BLOCK
c32 omarchy-validate
omarchy-plugin-validate failure (self-skips if the binary is absent; run on the rig)
BLOCK
c33 qmllint
qmllint errors (warnings advisory; self-skips if absent)
BLOCK on error
c34 omarchy-exec-injection
shell or notification execution assembled from untrusted data
BLOCK
c35 omarchy-runtime-dependency
runtime interpreters unavailable in a stock graphical Omarchy session
BLOCK
c36 omarchy-qml-overflow
dynamic QML text with no effective width and elision bound
BLOCK
c37 omarchy-rig-proof
missing, stale, failing, or source-mismatched Buzz validation receipt
BLOCK at omarchy-submit
c38 omarchy-ssrf-host-allowlist
narrow dotted-quad filters that miss alternate local-address forms
BLOCK
c40 omarchy-panel-design
flat panels with no hierarchy, visible affordance, or row structure
WARN
c41 omarchy-state-file-hygiene
mutable state lifecycles that trust replaceable pathnames
BLOCK
c42 omarchy-local-resource-budget
recurring local scans that buffer or sort before a hard bound
BLOCK
c43 omarchy-marketplace-presentation
short copy, missing/generic banner, or blank/stale/unproven preview evidence
BLOCK
c28-c30 also run in the normal working→submitted flow, scanning only lines
the contributor ADDED plus the drafted PR/issue body, so upstream's own prose
never blocks. The run must be green before the submission issue is drafted;
the honest boundary is that these gates catch the deterministic slice only —
taste findings (over-configuration, dead-code altitude, AI-sounding copy)
remain a review-agent judgment call. Regression suites:
scripts/test-submission-gates.sh plus the c3x and c43 bats files under
tests/unit/gates/.
Reconciliation
Periodically (or on user request "reconcile candidates"), check candidates with a pr_number: field against live GitHub state:
for f in ~/.contribute-system/candidates/*.md; do
PR=$(awk '/^pr_number:/{print $2; exit}' "$f")
REPO=$(awk '/^repo:/{print $2; exit}' "$f")
[[ -z "$PR" || "$PR" == "null" ]] && continue
gh pr view "$PR" --repo "$REPO" --json state,merged,closedAt
done
For each candidate whose actual PR state has moved on:
PR merged → set status: merged in the candidate (atomic write)
PR closed unmerged → set status: dropped and append a row to the dossier's ## Failure log section so we learn from it
PR still open → no change (status: submitted)
Mandatory: human approval before external submission
Copied verbatim from the repo's CLAUDE.md:
Before submitting ANYTHING to external repos:
Run all tests — ALL must pass
Run project-specific linters — no errors
ASK JEREMY FOR APPROVAL with test summary, file list, proposed body
Default to Design Issue, NOT a PR
NEVER auto-submit PRs. NEVER bypass human approval. Design issues > PRs.
Strip the attribution footer on external repos (always)
The user's global config auto-appends an intentsolutions.io / personal signature to commit messages and PR bodies (attribution.commit / attribution.pr). That footer is correct on the user's own repos and wrong on every upstream — it's org/positioning signal on someone else's project, and for an adjacent-builder / direct-competitor repo it leaks exactly what the first touch is supposed to conceal (Step 0.6 positioning_risk). Added 2026-06-03 after the Centaur PR, where this had to be caught by hand.
When committing/pushing/opening a PR to a repo the user does not own:
Commit: write the message with no footer, then verify — git log -1 --format=%B — and git commit --amend if the signature appended. Prefer the user's GitHub no-reply identity as author; never add Co-Authored-By or any "generated with" line.
PR body: after gh pr create, read the body back from GitHub and grep it — gh pr view <N> --repo <o>/<r> --json body --jq .body | grep -iE 'intentsolutions|<user full name>|claude|co-authored|generated with'. If anything matches, overwrite with the clean body via gh pr edit <N> --repo <o>/<r> --body "<clean>".
The DCO sign-off (when dco_required: true) is the only trailer allowed, and only if the dossier says so.
Trust-ladder discipline
A contributor's (N+1)th PR to a given repo is constrained by their N prior
merges in that same repo. The rule exists because maintainer review attention
is the single scarcest resource on a high-velocity project, and a contributor
who has shipped zero working fixes has not yet earned the right to a
multi-finding umbrella conversation. The canonical failure case is
oven-sh/bun#30903: 0 prior merges,
983 files / +122K lines, asks the maintainer to "decide whether to accept this
as-is." After 11 days: 1 drive-by comment, 3 thumbs-down, no review. The audit
of that PR drove the addition of this rule. Full details at
references/anti-patterns.md (the Audit Dump, the Trust-Ladder Skip).
Rungs (read from dossier field merged_prs_by_user, populated by
@researcher on build/refresh):
Rung
Prior merges
Permitted scope
PR size cap
Notes
0
0
Single-issue (must have issue_number) OR Design Issue
≤ 200 LOC, ≤ 10 files, no new top-level dirs
Umbrella scope blocked at gate A07
1-3
1-3
Single-issue, single-fix; umbrella WARNS
≤ 500 LOC, ≤ 20 files, no new top-level dirs
Earned moderate trust
4+
4+
Anything goes
(no cap)
Earned umbrella trust
Where this is enforced:
gates/a07-trust-ladder-fit.sh — fires at shortlist→claimed /
claimed→working. Reads the candidate's scope_intent field and the
dossier's merged_prs_by_user. Blocks rung-0 umbrellas and rung-0
PRs without an attached issue_number. Design Issues
(scope_intent: design-discussion) bypass the ladder unconditionally.
gates/b13-trust-ladder-size.sh — fires at working→submitted.
Computes local diff size against upstream/<default_branch> (or
origin/<default_branch> as fallback). Blocks if LOC, file count, or
new top-level directory count exceeds the rung's cap.
Per-repo dossier overrides (rare; use only when the maintainer has
explicitly invited a bigger first contribution):
trust_ladder_disabled: true # bypass both gates entirely
trust_ladder_threshold: 0 # let rung 0 ship umbrella scope
trust_ladder_rung0_max_loc: 400 # lift the rung 0 LOC cap
trust_ladder_rung0_max_files: 20
trust_ladder_rung13_max_loc: 1000
trust_ladder_rung13_max_files: 40
Candidate-side scope_intent field (required for accurate gating; set
during scout / candidate authoring):
Value
Meaning
single-issue
Addresses one tracked GitHub issue (set issue_number)
single-fix
Addresses one untracked finding (no issue, but bounded)
umbrella
Multi-finding audit / multi-area refactor / large proposal
design-discussion
Design Issue, not a code PR — bypasses ladder
Override discipline: if the user explicitly invokes
transition.sh ... --override-gate A07 "<reason>" or --override-gate B13,
the override is logged to ~/.contribute-system/log.jsonl and surfaced in
scripts/audit-overrides.sh. A user who overrides A07 or B13 more than once
per week should expect this skill to surface the pattern: either the rule
is calibrated wrong for their workflow, or they are systematically skipping
the ladder. Either way the audit subcommand makes it visible.
Why this rule sits ABOVE the size gates and not inside them: the
trust-ladder rule is a discipline, not a measurement. The size caps are
proxies for "how much trust have you earned at this repo," and a contributor
who consistently overrides the size cap with a one-line rationale is gaming
the proxy. The rule is the thing; the gates are the implementation.
Output
After Step 0, output a status block. After each subsequent step, output structured progress.
State summary (after Step 0)
The dashboard.sh ASCII block (printed first, per Step 0) is the primary state view —
pipeline funnel, in-flight, shipped, suggested-next, timeline. The text summary below is
the live-GitHub reconciliation layer that goes beneath the dashboard: it surfaces
anything the local snapshot can't know (PR draft/review state, merges not yet reconciled
into candidate files, drift between gh and the candidate status:).
PRs in flight: <N> open, <M> draft
- <repo>#<num>: <title> (state, age)
...
Claimed but not submitted: <N>
- <id>: <repo>#<issue> ($value)
...
Tracked opportunities: <N> (top 5 by value)
- <id>: <repo>#<issue> ($value, <competition flag>)
...
Drift: <N> rows where tracker disagrees with GitHub
- <id>: tracker says <X>, gh says <Y> — suggest <Z>
Per-step output
Step
Output
Discover
Three sections: Tracker queue / Fresh GitHub / Algora URLs. Top 3 picks highlighted.
Qualify
Verdict block: claim / wait / skip with one-sentence reason
Claim
Markdown draft of the comment, with placeholders filled. Awaits user approval.
Work
Test summary: pass/fail counts, duration, coverage %, log path
Submit
Markdown draft of the PR or Design Issue body. Awaits user approval.
Repo Init context block (after URL/repo arg)
Repo: <owner>/<repo> — <description>
Stars: N · Language: X · License: Y · Default branch: main
Last push: YYYY-MM-DD · Archived: false
Quality gates (from CONTRIBUTING.md):
- Build: <local_check_command>
- Lint: <linter command if found>
- CLA: false | true · DCO: false | true
- AI disclosure required: false | true
- Conventional commits: true | false
Open issues: N
<If 0>: No open issues — nothing to claim right now. Watch for new issues or check ROADMAP.
<If >0>:
- #N: <title> [labels] (assigned: yes/no)
...
Dossier: built | refreshed | built fresh this session
Path: ~/.contribute-system/research/<owner>__<repo>.md
Suggested next steps:
- <If issues exist>: Review issues above → /contribute claim <owner>/<repo>#<N>
- <If ROADMAP exists>: Check ROADMAP.md for planned work that might open as issues
- <If 0 issues>: /contribute scout "<owner>/<repo> custom query" when issues open
Audit subcommands
When the user asks "what gates am I overriding most?" or "audit my contribution
history" or "show me override frequency":
${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/audit-overrides.sh # all-time
${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/audit-overrides.sh --since=30 # last 30 days
${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/audit-overrides.sh --scope=org:posthog # one org
${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/audit-overrides.sh --gate=A05 # one gate
${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/audit-overrides.sh --json # JSON
Output is a per-gate table with [overrides, blocks, override_rate, top_reason],
sorted by override_rate desc. Gates overridden ≥50% of the time get flagged for
investigation — either the gate is too strict (false-positive heavy) or it's
catching real risk that's being consistently dismissed. Either way, surface it.
Daily recap email (cron-driven, deterministic)
scripts/contribute-daily-recap.sh composes a personal daily recap from the
existing reporters — no LLM anywhere in the correctness path. It renders the
Intent Solutions house email template (styled <div>, inline CSS, real HTML
tables — same design language as the weekly growth rollup / posting packets;
never raw text dumps). Body: stat tiles, a lead "Action needed (N)" card
(stale claims, quiet PRs, overrides awaiting audit — each with a default next
step), a pipeline funnel + in-flight table (the same data dashboard.sh
renders in the terminal), a fixed 2-day log.jsonl event window (1-day
overlap cushion, no watermark file by design), and the
audit-overrides.sh --since=7 --json trend as a table. A quiet day collapses
to a one-card heartbeat + pipeline count, valid ONLY on positive proof of a
successful log read — a read failure is an alert, never a heartbeat.
Wait 60s and retry; check gh auth status token scopes
Candidate's status: submitted but PR is merged
Reconciliation drift
Run reconciliation step (above)
User asks to claim, but competing PR exists
Risk
Surface the competing PR explicitly; gate A2 already-shipped will BLOCK if it's a merged dupe
Test suite hangs (e.g., posthog without flox)
Wrong env
Wrap in flox activate -- bash -c "..." for flox-managed repos
gh issue comment permission denied
Repo private or token missing scope
Show the comment text to the user; they post manually
Gate run BLOCKs unexpectedly
Stale dossier or wrong rule
@researcher refresh <owner>/<repo>; if the rule itself is wrong, edit the dossier (manual sections survive refresh) or override with transition.sh ... --override-gate <ID> "reason"
Dossier missing for a candidate's repo
First time touching this repo
@researcher build <owner>/<repo> (auto-invoked by Step 0.5 anyway)
Hook/transition/scout/gate behaves like an old version, or a script 404s
The deployed runtime mirror at ~/.contribute-system/bin/ has drifted from or is missing repo scripts
scripts/doctor.sh to see what drifted/missing, then bin/install.sh --force to re-sync the mirror from the repo
If any external submission would happen without human approval, stop and ask. This is non-negotiable.
Examples
Example 1: "What's my PR status?"
User invokes /contribute or asks "what's in flight?"
Run Step 0 (parallel gh pr list + gh issue list + candidate-frontmatter scan + recent log events)
Output the State Summary block
Stop. The user can drill into any PR with a follow-up question.
Example 2: "Find me a new contribution to work on"
User asks "what should I work on next?" or "scout opportunities."
Run Step 0 first (state summary)
Delegate to @scout (the user-scope subagent at ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/agents/scout.md)
Optional: per top pick, run Step 2 (Qualify) to surface CLA / competing-PR signals
Example 3: "Draft a claim for screenpipe#1234"
User asks to claim a specific issue.
Run Step 2 (Qualify) on mediar-ai/screenpipe#1234
If verdict is claim, read assets/claim-template.md
Fill placeholders (approach in 1-2 bullets, ETA, CLA status)
Show draft to user
On user approval, post via gh issue comment AND update tracker (Step 3 SQL)
Example 4: "Reconcile the tracker"
User asks to sync local state with GitHub.
Read all tracker rows where pr_number IS NOT NULL
For each, run gh pr view <repo> <pr_number> --json state,merged
Update tracker rows whose status disagrees with GitHub state
Output a diff summary: N rows updated, M unchanged
Example 5: "Run tests on cortex"
User asks to verify a working branch.
Read agents/test-runner.md
Detect cortex stack (Python + pyproject.toml)
cd ~/000-projects/contributing-clanker/cortex && pytest -v 2>&1 | tee ~/.contribute-system/test-logs/$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S)-cortex.log
Output test summary block (pass/fail counts, log path)
Resources
Bundled subagents (load with Read agents/<name>.md)
@scout (user-scope subagent at ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/agents/scout.md) — discovery sweep, GitHub-only, ranked by star-tier brackets. Each candidate it writes carries a research_path: frontmatter field pointing at the matching dossier (or empty if not yet built).
@researcher (user-scope subagent at ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/agents/researcher.md) — build / refresh the per-repo dossier at ~/.contribute-system/research/<owner>__<repo>.md. Auto-invoked when a candidate's dossier is missing or older than 14 days.
agents/repo-analyzer.md — DEPRECATED. Most of its function is now in the dossier system. Keep until Slice 3 retires it.
agents/draft-writer.md — draft a Design Issue or PR body from a working branch's diff
agents/test-runner.md — detect upstream stack and run the native test suite, log to disk
The repo's own CLAUDE.md at ~/000-projects/contributing-clanker/CLAUDE.md for project conventions and per-clone build commands
Old patterns (deprecated, do not reintroduce)
The pre-2026-04-30 skill referenced a contribute CLI binary, EV scoring, judge gates, slack notifications, asciinema work-session recording, evidence bundles, and competition risk scoring. The underlying contribute-system/ monorepo was deleted because it was never used.
The pre-2026-05-03 skill used a SQLite tracker at ~/.contribute-system/contribute.db (32 tables, bounties-keyed schema) plus an Algora/Gumroad/Cortex bounty-board framing. That DB was wiped; the framing is gone. The system is now markdown-only: candidate files + dossiers + JSONL event log. The skill is a contribution tool — not a tracker, not a payouts system, not a portfolio.
If a feature from those eras is wanted back, recover code from git log in ~/000-projects/contributing-clanker/. The bar to re-add is "Jeremy actually uses it daily."
