@@ -71,13 +71,12 @@ from evidence you could not access. Do not run untrusted PR code merely to decid
7171Read the guide's linked sections before applying these checks. Inspect enough source to substantiate
7272scope and behavioral claims; leave the full correctness, security, and performance audit to code review.
7373
74- - Under [ prior approval] ( ../../../CONTRIBUTING.md#prior-approval ) , identify the actual failure and
75- intended behavior. Inspect maintainer responses in the linked issue or discussion, including what
76- direction and scope they approved. A link, label, or acknowledgment alone is not approval. Judge a
77- claimed obvious-bug exception by purpose, impact, and necessary changes, without numeric cutoffs.
78- Separately assess focused configuration of an established capability: identify what already exists,
79- what the option controls, and its effects and necessary scope. This route does not require a proven
80- obvious bug. Adding a setting alone establishes neither a new feature nor an approval exemption.
74+ - Under [ fix a bug] ( ../../../CONTRIBUTING.md#prior-approval ) , identify the actual failure and
75+ intended behavior. A feature, or anything on the guide's not-interested list, warrants closure
76+ unless a maintainer in the trusted exemption list asked for that PR. Inspect the request and the
77+ direction and scope it covers. A link, label, or acknowledgment alone is not a request. Judge a
78+ claimed bug fix by purpose, impact, and necessary changes, without numeric cutoffs. A setting that
79+ adds a workflow or changes a default is a feature.
8180 Check whether an alleged fix intentionally changes product behavior or overlooks an existing workflow.
8281 Preserve any useful documentation, onboarding, or discoverability problem when declining the solution.
8382- Under [ one problem] ( ../../../CONTRIBUTING.md#one-problem ) , trace how each material change contributes
@@ -90,27 +89,18 @@ scope and behavioral claims; leave the full correctness, security, and performan
9089 as the guide requires them. Do not demand unrelated evidence or repo-wide tests. An unavailable local
9190 platform does not defeat adequate contributor evidence. Do not infer fabrication or AI authorship
9291 from writing style, suspicion, or a check you cannot reproduce.
92+ - Under [ models] ( ../../../CONTRIBUTING.md#models ) , use only the model and harness the PR names,
93+ usually in its closing attribution line.
9394
94- ### Configuration and workflow examples
95-
96- - Hosting CLI-path configuration in [ #11653 ] ( https://github.com/pingdotgg/t3code/pull/11653 ) is eligible
97- for deeper review under the maintainer's ruling: it makes an existing capability configurable.
98- It need not qualify as an obvious-bug repair or obtain prior feature approval on that basis.
99- Still assess one underlying problem, necessary scope and credible verification. Deeper review can
100- reject the configuration mechanism or its implementation.
101- - Preserving Files as an independent tab in [ #14436 ] ( https://github.com/pingdotgg/t3code/pull/14436 )
102- changes tab lifetime and navigation. The maintainer classified it as a broader workflow change
103- requiring prior product-direction approval, which is absent. Propose closure for missing approval
104- in a dry run, or carry out closure in authorized enforcement. Its good evidence does not make it
105- eligible or justify keeping it pending after that ruling. The remedy is to obtain scope approval.
106-
107- Use these examples to distinguish effects, not to exempt every configuration option. Apply current
108- trusted policy and reassess changed submission evidence; neither example grants permanent eligibility.
95+ Bans in the guide are a maintainer decision. Report suspected spam to maintainers; do not ban or
96+ threaten a ban.
10997
11098## Apply the outcome
11199
112100Do not automatically close a PR if a maintainer in the trusted ` TRIAGE_EXEMPTIONS.td ` list has
113101commented or submitted a review, including on earlier heads, or if ` triage:keep-open ` is present.
102+ Comments that triage itself posted, such as an earlier notice or question, are not maintainer
103+ involvement, even when they were posted from a maintainer's account on that maintainer's behalf.
114104Leave protected PRs open for maintainer decision. This does not grant an author exemption,
115105eligibility, or review approval.
116106
@@ -126,20 +116,30 @@ comment text but do not write to GitHub. Keep the eligibility finding separate f
126116 This is a routing exception, not a claim that the PR passed eligibility or correctness review.
127117- ** Closure warranted.** The assessment is complete and establishes a specific policy violation.
128118 Prepare a clear explanation under [ closure and reconsideration] ( ../../../CONTRIBUTING.md#closure-and-reconsideration ) ,
129- post it, and close the PR. Verify that the explanation is present and the PR is closed. The comment
119+ post it, then read the repository variable ` PR_LIMITS_ENFORCE `
120+ (` gh variable get PR_LIMITS_ENFORCE -R pingdotgg/t3code ` ). When it prints ` true ` , apply
121+ ` triage:closing ` as the last thing you do to the PR, verify that the explanation and the label
122+ are present, and do not close the PR yourself:
123+ [ pr-limits.yml] ( ../../../.github/workflows/pr-limits.yml ) closes it 72 hours after the label. Any
124+ activity on the PR after the label, including a further comment or label from you, removes the
125+ label; treat an author's reply or push as new evidence, reassess, and apply the label again only
126+ if the finding still holds. When the command prints any other value, or fails saying the variable
127+ was not found, the variable is off and nothing would close a labeled PR: close it yourself and
128+ verify that the explanation is present and the PR is closed. Only another failure, such as a
129+ permission error, means the variable cannot be read; then report the closure as incomplete. The comment
130130 must name the violated rule, cite supporting submission evidence, link the maintained guide section,
131131 and give a concrete remedy. Missing contributor evidence can warrant closure; explain what must be
132- established. Missing product approval calls for maintainer discussion, not an agent's product decision.
132+ established. The remedy for a feature is an Ideas discussion, not an agent's product decision.
133133 Close for multiple problems only when the independence of those changes is supported. Closing a PR
134134 does not require a configured Macroscope label.
135135- ** Needs explanation or maintainer decision.** Name the unresolved question and who can resolve it.
136136 Post the specific question on the PR when commenting is within the authorized scope, and verify it
137137 was posted. If tracing the source leaves an extra diff's necessity unclear, request the causal
138138 explanation needed. If established facts leave a product-direction choice to maintainers, identify
139139 that choice. Leave the PR open and pending that answer; do not mark it eligible. Do not substitute
140- "the agent was uncertain" for a violated rule. Once maintainers establish that a workflow change
141- requires approval and that approval is absent , apply the closure outcome instead of retaining a
142- pending classification. Good verification does not cure missing approval .
140+ "the agent was uncertain" for a violated rule. Once a change is established as a feature with no
141+ maintainer request , apply the closure outcome instead of retaining a pending classification. Good
142+ verification does not make a feature eligible .
143143- ** Incomplete; retry required.** State the failed retrieval, missing access, truncated diff, or unfinished
144144 assessment and what is needed to resume. Do not convert operational failures into policy violations
145145 or hand the PR off as having passed. An inaccessible artifact is different from an omitted artifact.
@@ -173,9 +173,10 @@ description, evidence, approvals, existing triage comments, PR open/closed state
173173label when relevant. Reassess changes that could invalidate the finding. Reuse an existing explanation
174174only if it still matches the current finding; avoid duplicate comments, closures, or label applications.
175175
176- For closure, establish that the required explanation is posted before closing. If posting fails or its
177- result is ambiguous, read back the comments before retrying or proceeding. If the comment succeeds but
178- closure fails, preserve the comment and retry only the unfinished closure after checking current state.
176+ For closure, establish that the required explanation is posted before applying ` triage:closing ` or
177+ closing. If posting fails or its result is ambiguous, read back the comments before retrying or
178+ proceeding. If the comment succeeds but the label or the closure fails, preserve the comment and retry
179+ only that unfinished step after checking current state.
179180Handle a failed or ambiguous label application the same way: inspect labels before any retry. If access
180181or state still cannot be verified, report an incomplete action and the step needed to resume. Do not
181182retry blindly or claim success for an unverified action.
0 commit comments