メニュー
Review an Ubuntu Stable Release Update (SRU) and produce a report with a recommendation.
デフォルトでは、最初にソースを確認する Prompt が選択されています。直接コマンドに切り替えるか、ローカルコピーをダウンロードすることもできます。
インストールを決める前に、SKILL.md と SkillsMP に表示されている付属ファイルをお読みください。
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
直接コマンドでは確認用 Prompt が省略されます。実行前にソースを確認してください。
npx skills add https://github.com/canonical/copilot-collections --skill ubuntu-review-sruコマンドは1行のまま表示されます。コピー前に横へスクロールして全体を確認してください。
ローカルで確認しますか？SkillsMP が現在取得できるファイルをダウンロードできます。
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.
SKILL.md を表示中
SOC 職業分類に基づく
| 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.