Document agent-friendly bounty post template#475
Conversation
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: ASSERTIVE Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThis PR adds an agent-friendly bounty post template in docs, updates the GitHub bounty issue template, requires the template in the admin runbook, and extends docs_smoke.py to validate the issue-template file and required phrasing. ChangesAgent-Friendly Bounty Post Template
Possibly related issues
Possibly related PRs
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 6✅ Passed checks (6 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. Comment |
|
CI is green and CodeRabbit reported no actionable comments. Ready for maintainer review when convenient. |
GHX5T-SOL
left a comment
GHX5T-SOL
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed PR #475 at current head 7d9151db2c03ca4e5380bd0fd8586585d01c23cc.
I would hold this because it documents a new canonical bounty post shape but leaves the normal GitHub bounty issue form and docs smoke guard on the old contract.
Evidence:
- Bounty #456 asks the PR to compare against the existing bounty issue form and says updating
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bounty.ymlis useful if needed so new bounty issues guide maintainers toward the documented shape. - This PR updates only
docs/admin-runbook.mdanddocs/bounty-rules.md. - The new runbook tells maintainers to use the agent-friendly template and repeat
Reward/Max awardsin the body, but.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bounty.ymlstill hastitle: "[bounty] ",Work needed, andProposed MRWK per award, and it has noHow To SubmitorOut of Scopefields. scripts/docs_smoke.pyis unchanged, so the new canonical template headings are not protected by the lightweight docs check.python scripts/docs_smoke.pypasses even though the issue form remains out of sync with the documented posting path.- The live queue report also groups PR #475 with older PR #469 on bounty #456, and #469 already covers the issue-template/docs-smoke surfaces that #475 leaves untouched.
Suggested fix: either update the bounty issue template and docs smoke guard to match the new canonical template, or narrow this PR/body to explain why the documented template is intentionally separate from the GitHub issue form and why the smoke check should not protect those stable fields.
Validation run locally:
/home/kali/money/mergework/.venv/bin/python scripts/docs_smoke.py-> docs smoke ok/home/kali/money/mergework/.venv/bin/python -m pytest tests/test_docs_public_urls.py -q-> 23 passed/home/kali/money/mergework/.venv/bin/python -m pytest -q-> 414 passed/home/kali/money/mergework/.venv/bin/python -m mypy app-> success, no issues in 30 source files/home/kali/money/mergework/.venv/bin/python -m ruff check docs/admin-runbook.md docs/bounty-rules.md-> no Python files, command completed successfullygit diff --check upstream/main...HEAD-> cleangitleaks detect --no-banner --redact --source . --log-opts upstream/main..HEAD --exit-code 1-> no leaks found
No wallet material, private keys, private data, signatures, price claims, exchange claims, liquidity claims, or off-ramp promises were used.
|
Reviewed PR #475 at current head Requested change: the docs addition points maintainers at a canonical bounty title/body shape, but the actual maintainer-facing GitHub bounty issue form remains unchanged. In this head, The guard rails are also missing. This also needs deconflict with already-open PR #469, which was submitted and claimed for #456 before this PR and covers the same bounty surface while updating the issue template and docs smoke checks. If this PR stays open, it should either narrow itself to a distinct docs-only delta that maintainers explicitly want after #469, or add the missing issue-template/smoke-test coverage and explain why it supersedes the earlier PR. Validation run locally on this head:
|
|
Updated PR #475 to address the review:\n\n- Changed .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bounty.yml title to .\n- Added structured issue-template fields for Reward, Max awards, Work Needed, Acceptance Criteria, How To Submit, Evidence Required, Out of Scope, and Duplicate and Stale Work Rules.\n- Added docs_smoke guard rails so the agent-friendly template phrases and title shape cannot regress silently.\n\nValidation:\n- \ -> \n- \ -> pass |
GHX5T-SOL
left a comment
GHX5T-SOL
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Requesting changes on current head ab5c1e3672a4ce70711a9ff6ad37d1737370f8ce.
The follow-up now updates the issue template, docs, runbook, and smoke guard, but .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bounty.yml no longer parses as YAML. The unquoted descriptions that include inline Reward: / Max awards: examples are treated as mappings; a local parse raises yaml.scanner.ScannerError: mapping values are not allowed here at line 16, column 85. If merged as-is, the GitHub bounty issue form path can break, which is the maintainer-facing template path #456 is trying to standardize.
Suggested fix: quote those description strings or use block scalars, and add a YAML parse check for .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/*.yml to scripts/docs_smoke.py so the issue-form guard catches this class of regression.
Validation on this head:
PYTEST_DISABLE_PLUGIN_AUTOLOAD=1 uv run --extra dev python scripts/docs_smoke.py->docs smoke okPYTEST_DISABLE_PLUGIN_AUTOLOAD=1 uv run --extra dev python -m pytest tests/test_docs_public_urls.py -q->23 passedPYTEST_DISABLE_PLUGIN_AUTOLOAD=1 uv run --extra dev python -m ruff check scripts/docs_smoke.py-> passedPYTEST_DISABLE_PLUGIN_AUTOLOAD=1 uv run --extra dev python -m ruff format --check scripts/docs_smoke.py->1 file already formatted- YAML parse check for
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/*.yml-> fails withScannerErrorat.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bounty.yml:16:85 git diff --check origin/main...HEAD-> clean- changed-diff Gitleaks scan -> no leaks found
- GitHub
Quality, readiness, docs, and image checks-> passing; CodeRabbit still pending at readback
No secrets, private data, wallet material, production mutation, price/exchange/liquidity claim, or off-ramp claim was used.
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 1783755e-a8ed-4c89-9367-175b2db30685
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bounty.ymlscripts/docs_smoke.py
|
Updated for the YAML parse review.\n\nFixes:\n- Quoted bounty issue-template description strings containing inline |
GHX5T-SOL
left a comment
GHX5T-SOL
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Approving current head d12f8d2febf08cf3592147644bda0f01bac59a64.
The YAML parse blocker from my prior review is resolved: .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bounty.yml now parses, and scripts/docs_smoke.py adds a YAML parse guard plus required checks for the bounty title shape and issue-template fields. I also rechecked the #456-related surfaces; the diff remains focused to .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bounty.yml, docs/bounty-rules.md, docs/admin-runbook.md, and scripts/docs_smoke.py.
Validation on this head:
PYTEST_DISABLE_PLUGIN_AUTOLOAD=1 uv run --extra dev python scripts/docs_smoke.py->docs smoke okPYTEST_DISABLE_PLUGIN_AUTOLOAD=1 uv run --extra dev python -m pytest tests/test_docs_public_urls.py -q->23 passedPYTEST_DISABLE_PLUGIN_AUTOLOAD=1 uv run --extra dev python -m ruff check scripts/docs_smoke.py->All checks passed!PYTEST_DISABLE_PLUGIN_AUTOLOAD=1 uv run --extra dev python -m ruff format --check scripts/docs_smoke.py->1 file already formatted- YAML readback -> title
MRWK bounty: <amount> MRWK - <short scope>; body idsreward,max_awards,work,acceptance,how_to_submit,evidence_required,out_of_scope,duplicate_stale_rules git diff --check origin/main...HEAD-> cleangitleaks detect --source . --log-opts=origin/main..HEAD --no-banner --redact-> no leaks found- GitHub readback: PR is open, non-draft,
CLEAN, with successful CI and CodeRabbit checks
Related #456 submissions also exist, so merge/payment precedence remains maintainer-owned; this approval is only for the current technical state of PR #475. No secrets, private data, wallet material, production mutation, price/exchange/liquidity claim, or off-ramp claim was used.
4 participants
Summary
docs/bounty-rules.md.Linked bounty: Refs #456 / Bounty #456
Evidence
Compared against:
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bounty.yml: existing required fields are Work needed, Proposed MRWK per award, Max awards, Acceptance criteria.docs/bounty-rules.md: existing labels, evidence templates, payout flow, PR bounty reference guidance, and public artifact cautions.docs/admin-runbook.md: existing Post a Bounty steps and PR acceptance flow.docs/agent-guide.md: agent workflow depends on clear issue scope, evidence, tests, and out-of-scope notes.Tests
python3 scripts/docs_smoke.py→docs smoke okgit diff --check→ no whitespace errorsOut of scope
Summary by CodeRabbit
Documentation
Chores