upstream-pr-contribution

# Read CONTRIBUTING.md in Full Before an Upstream PR — the Gates Live Below the Fold Before opening a PR against a repo you don't own, read **all** of `CONTRIBUTING.md` and the **PR template**, not the first screenful. The welcoming "here's what we merge" list is at the top; the *gates* — the requirements that get a PR auto-closed by a bot — are typically 150+ lines down, past the local-dev setup. A `head -60` read looks like due diligence and misses them entirely. ## When to Use This Skill | Use this skill when... | Use something else when... | |---|---| | About to open a PR against a repo you don't own | Opening a PR in your own repo → `git-pr` | | Writing the description for that PR | Scoping the work from the upstream issue thread → `git-issue-scoping` | | A bot flagged the PR within a minute of opening | The fork has diverged and the commit won't rebase cleanly → `git-upstream-pr-diverged` | ## The two gate classes a truncated read misses | Gate | What it demands | Failure mode | |---|---|---| | **Issue-first policy** | An issue must exist *before* the PR, linked via `Fixes #N` / `Closes #N` in the description | A bot comments "no linked issue"; PR blocked or closed without review | | **Prose-style rules** | Short, plain-voiced descriptions written in your own words | *"If you paste a large clearly AI generated description here your PR may be IGNORED or CLOSED"* — no bot catches this; a human just stops reading | The second is the one that doesn't announce itself. Compliance bots check for a linked issue and for template sections; **nothing** flags an AI-shaped wall of text. It costs you the maintainer's attention silently, and green checks give false reassurance that the PR is in good shape. ## The check — two API calls, before writing anything ```sh gh api repos/<owner>/<repo>/contents/CONTRIBUTING.md --jq .content | base64 -d gh api repos/<owner>/<repo>/contents/.github/pull_request_template.md --jq .content | base64 -d ``` Read both **to the end**. Grep is not a substitute — you don't know the section names in advance (`Issue First Policy`, `No AI-Generated Walls of Text`, `General Requirements` are not terms you'd think to search for). Also check for enforcement automation, which sets the clock you're working against: ```sh gh pr view <n> -R <owner>/<repo> --json comments --jq '.comments[]|"\(.author.login): \(.body[0:200])"' gh pr checks <n> -R <owner>/<repo> ``` ## Writing the description - **Fill the template verbatim** — same headings, same order, checkboxes ticked. Several repos auto-reject on missing sections. - **Halve it, then halve the framing.** Keep: what broke, the change, the non-obvious implementation details, and the verification output. Cut: restated context the maintainer already has, bolded lead-ins on every paragraph, exhaustive rationale sections, "Scope"/"Notes" appendices. - **Verification is not optional prose** — most templates ask *how you verified it works* and *how a reviewer reproduces it*. Paste the actual output (a runner log excerpt, a before/after command), not a claim. - The house style for a portfolio-internal PR body (detailed, sectioned, evidence-heavy) is **wrong** for an upstream one. Different audience, different budget for your words. ## Bots enforce on a deadline Compliance bots comment within ~60s of opening and frequently carry a hard timer (*"address the above within 2 hours, or it will be automatically closed"*). So **check the PR's comments shortly after opening it** rather than walking away — an upstream PR is not done when `gh pr create` returns. Fixing compliance re-runs the checks; the original bot comments **stay on the thread** and are not retracted. The checks, not the comments, are the live signal — read `gh pr checks`, and note the newer run id. > Evidence (2026-07, `anomalyco/opencode#39147`): I read the first 60 lines of > CONTRIBUTING.md, concluded the PR "fits their bug-fixes category", and opened > it. Two bots fired in 60 seconds — missing linked issue, missing template > sections, 2-hour auto-close. Line 180 held an Issue First Policy; line 204 > held "No AI-Generated Walls of Text", which the original description was a > textbook instance of. Recovered by opening issue #39163 and rewriting to the > template at roughly half the length, but the *style* violation would have > cost the PR its reading regardless of the green checks. ## Relationship to sibling rules - `~/.claude/rules/read-issue-thread-before-contributing.md` — read the issue *thread* before scoping the work. This rule is the next step: read the *contribution gates* before opening the PR. Both are "go to the primary source, and don't stop at the summary." - `agent-patterns-plugin:harness-tool-errors` (Read refuses >25000 tokens; page with offset/limit) — the mechanical habit that causes this: truncating a long doc and treating the excerpt as the whole. - `github-metadata-hygiene.md` — the metadata checklist for repos *we* own; upstream repos impose their own, stricter, and enforced by bot. ## Rationale The asymmetry is stark: reading two files to the end costs one minute, and skipping it costs a bot-blocked PR on a countdown, a scramble to open a retroactive issue, and — worse, because nothing reports it — a description written in exactly the register the maintainers said they ignore. The top of CONTRIBUTING.md is marketing; the bottom is the contract.