review-data-pr

## Review Process This skill goes beyond schema validation to check data quality and plausibility. ### Step 1: Read the PR Context - Read the PR description for intent and data source - Check which files are changed and what entity types are involved - Note the number of records being added/modified/deleted ### Step 2: Check Geographical Plausibility For each record, consider: - Does the city name make sense for this country/state? (e.g., a city named "Springfield" in India would be unusual) - Are the coordinates in the right general area? (a city in Maharashtra should be in western India) - Is the state assignment correct? (verify the city actually belongs to that state) - For states: does the type make sense? (e.g., "province" vs "state" vs "region") ### Step 3: Look for Suspicious Patterns Flag these patterns for manual review: - All records have identical or sequential coordinates (copy-paste error) - All records have the same latitude or longitude (likely placeholder data) - Records have unusually low coordinate precision (e.g., whole numbers like 34.0, -118.0) - Bulk additions with no clear geographic grouping - Names that appear machine-generated or contain unusual characters - Coordinates that resolve to ocean/water bodies rather than land ### Step 4: Verify Data Source - Is the data source documented in the PR description? - Is it a Tier 1 (government, ISO, UN) or Tier 2 (GeoNames, academic) source? - Is the source URL accessible? - Does the source actually contain the claimed data? ### Step 5: Check for Completeness For city additions: - Are nearby or related cities included? (not required, but useful context) - Is the timezone field included? (optional but valuable) - Is the wikiDataId included? (optional but aids cross-referencing) ### Step 6: Assess Overall Quality Rate the contribution on: - **Accuracy:** Do the values appear correct? - **Completeness:** Are optional but valuable fields included? - **Source quality:** Is the data from a reliable source? - **Impact:** How many users would benefit from this data? ## Review Output Structure your review as: ``` ### Data Quality Review **Plausibility:** [Assessment] **Source Quality:** [Assessment] **Completeness:** [Assessment] **Findings:** - [List specific observations] **Recommendation:** [Approve / Request Changes / Needs Maintainer Review] ``` ## Escalation Criteria Escalate to the maintainer (@dr5hn) when: - Contribution involves deletions of states or countries - Data source is questionable or unverifiable - Coordinates appear systematically incorrect - Contribution modifies more than 100 records - You are uncertain about the geographical accuracy ## Tone Guidelines - Be welcoming and constructive, especially for first-time contributors - Acknowledge the effort involved in data contributions - Provide specific, actionable feedback - Link to the contribution guidelines when relevant - Thank contributors for their work