docs(contributing): fix stale coverage figure and false no-issue exemption - #3914
Merged
loopover-orb[bot] merged 1 commit intoJul 7, 2026
Merged
Conversation
…ption
CONTRIBUTING.md still said patch coverage was ~97% in two places while
AGENTS.md and the PR template already correctly said 99% — bumped both
to match the enforced codecov/patch threshold.
Several docs also implied a linked issue was optional ("a PR with no
linked issue is fine", "explain why an issue is not needed", an
explicit no-issue rationale accepted by the PR-text rubric). The
actual enforced rule has no such exemption: every contributor PR needs
a linked, currently open issue, full stop. Reworded CONTRIBUTING.md,
the PR template checkbox, and the contributing-to-gittensory skill's
SKILL.md and reference.md accordingly, including the gate-disposition
table row so "issue is closed" is listed as a disqualifying condition
alongside owner-assigned/maintainer-only instead of relying on the
word "open" appearing once elsewhere. Kept the legitimate anti-farming
point (filing your own issue then fixing it isn't farming; using
alt/sock-puppet accounts to manufacture one is) but removed the false
"no issue is fine" framing around it.
Also disclosed the 2-open-PR contributor cap in CONTRIBUTING.md and
AGENTS.md, since it's an enforced rule that wasn't documented anywhere
a contributor or an AI agent following AGENTS.md would see it.
Ran a full repo grep for the same "97%" and "no issue is fine"/"explain
why" patterns outside the files above; found no further occurrences.
Contributor
|
Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR. |
loopover-orb
Bot
added
the
gittensor:bug
Contributor
|
Tip 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 ✅ Gittensory review result - approve/merge recommendedReview updated: 2026-07-07 06:14:33 UTC
✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge
Review summary Nits — 7 non-blocking
Review context
Contributor next steps
Signal definitions
🟩 Safe / merged · 🟦 Advisory · 🟨 Held for review · 🟥 Blocked / closed 💰 Earn for open-source contributions like this. Gittensor lets GitHub contributors earn for the work they already do — register to start earning →. Checked by Gittensory, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.
|
![loopover-orb[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/4139483?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #3912
Summary
~97%patch coverage in two spots while AGENTS.md and the PR template already correctly say 99% — fixed both to match the realcodecov/patchthreshold.contributing-to-gittensoryskill accordingly, and made the gate-disposition table explicitly list "issue is closed" as a disqualifying condition next to owner-assigned/maintainer-only.This is a docs-only change — no
src/**files touched, socodecov/patchdoesn't apply. Checkedpackage.jsonandscripts/for a docs-lint/drift check and ran the one that exists (npm run docs:drift-check); it doesn't cover these particular files (it cross-checks feature flags/commands/gate-mode fields against UI docs routes) but it passed.Scope
type(scope): short summaryConventional Commit format, for examplefix(api): restore profile access checks.CONTRIBUTING.mdand does not reintroduce GitHub Pages, VitePress,site/, orCNAME.Closes #3912) — a linked open issue is required for every contributor PR.Validation
git diff --checknpm run actionlintnpm run typechecknpm run test:coverage— not applicable, nosrc/**changes (docs-only)npm run test:workersnpm run build:mcpnpm run test:mcp-packnpm run ui:openapi:checknpm run ui:lintnpm run ui:typechecknpm run ui:buildnpm audit --audit-level=moderateIf any required check was skipped, explain why:
CONTRIBUTING.md,AGENTS.md,.github/pull_request_template.md,.claude/skills/contributing-to-gittensory/*.md) with nosrc/**,test/**, or build-config changes, so the code-focused checks (coverage, workers, mcp pack/build, ui lint/typecheck/build, openapi) don't apply. Rannpm run typecheck(clean) andgit diff --check(clean) to rule out any accidental syntax breakage, plusnpm run docs:drift-check, the repo's one docs-validation script (it checks a different surface — feature flags/commands/gate-modes vs UI docs routes — but it passed).Safety
UI Evidencesection below with JPG/JPEG or PNG screenshots arranged as organized, captioned, clickable thumbnails. — not applicable, no visible UI changesUI Evidence
Not applicable — this PR only changes markdown documentation and skill files, no UI surface.
Notes
.gittensory.yml'slinkedIssuePolicy: preferredvalue untouched — it's a non-representative example file by design, and the skill docs now explicitly call that out so an AI agent following them doesn't mistake the example for the live rule.