Files
Evandro Fonseca Junior ee44fa0f7a feat: add wf-readme workflow + skills, validated, applied to this repo
New wf-readme workflow (grounded README creation/audit/rewrite) built on
readme-crafter, good-readme and curating-readme skills. Validated with the
QA harness: 302.3 -> 379.0 on the same ruler, all phases verified, no
false-positive skill refs.

Applied it to this repo: audit-repo.sh scan, link/TOC/em-dash validation,
added CONTRIBUTING.md (gap the workflow flagged) and wired the docs.
2026-08-19 17:37:45 -03:00

37 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown

# Contributing
Thanks for taking the time to contribute. This project is small, so keep it simple: open an issue to discuss first, then send a PR.
## What to improve
Workflows, skills, or the QA harness. All changes should keep the same rules the workflows themselves enforce:
1. **Grounded.** Every claim in a workflow or README must trace back to a real repository fact. No fabricated commands, examples, or badges.
2. **Verifiable phases.** A phase is not done until it has a verification step (a command that proves the work). Add one if you touch a workflow.
3. **No AI-isms.** Docs and workflows must pass the avoid-ai-writing check (no em-dash runs, no "robust/seamless/leverage" filler).
## What not to change
- The QA harness must keep its meta-tests green. If you change scoring, re-run `qa/test_tests.py` and update `qa/snapshots/baseline-final.json`.
- Do not remove skills referenced by workflows without updating the workflows and `docs/SKILLS.md` together.
## Local checks before a PR
```bash
cd qa
python3 wf_quality_harness.py # score must not drop below baseline
python3 test_quality.py # gates green
python3 test_tests.py # meta-tests green
```
## Process
1. Fork the repo.
2. Create a branch: `git checkout -b feat/your-change`.
3. Make the change. Keep it small and focused.
4. Run the qa checks above.
5. Commit with a clear message.
6. Open a PR describing what changed and why.
Questions or ideas: open an issue.