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.
37 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
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.
|