The rules for opening a PR you must read before creating or editing any pull request.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
实测评分 未实测
查看安装方法安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。
If even one question you put to the user is still unanswered, stop here. Do not open a pull request, do not edit one, do not write a title or a description. End the turn by asking for the answer.
A pull request never goes out with an open question behind it. "The rest is ready" is not a reason to proceed, and neither is a question that looks minor: the user decides what is minor.
Read the branch's own changes, generated files left out:
git diff origin/main...HEAD -- $(scripts/changed-sources.sh)
The title and description come from that diff, not from the session that
produced it. scripts/changed-sources.sh drops what .gitattributes marks
linguist-generated or linguist-vendored, which is where a regenerated corpus
or a fetched one would otherwise bury the change the PR is actually about. Say
in the description that the generated output was regenerated, not what moved
inside it.
Revise the branch while you are there: clean up comments and docs according to the project rules.
Check mergeability by exit status (after git fetch origin main):
git merge-tree --write-tree --no-messages --name-only HEAD origin/main
Exit 0 = mergeable; exit 1 = conflicts, printing the merged tree OID followed by one conflicted path per line. This runs the real (ort) merge in memory and touches neither the worktree nor the index.
If conflicting, resolve with the git-upstream-sync skill.
If the branch touches what the stdlib tests or the benchmarks compile or run
on, run mise run update-baselines and commit the update: the compiler, the
stdlib, benchmark/, a package-* a benchmark imports (Gale), or wasmtime in
Cargo.lock. CI fails on any difference from either baseline: the stdlib
coverage, a region a test now reaches included, and the fuel benchmarks.
wado-compiler/AGENTS.md says what the coverage baseline may change.
A short summary of the value the branch creates, not of what was edited. A reader scanning a list of PRs is deciding whether to care.
<type>(<scope>): <the value>
If the branch is worth more than one thing, name the largest and leave the rest to the description.
type is one of these, with ! for a breaking change. The scope is optional.
.claude/hooks/pr-conventions.mts reads the types from this list.
featfixdocsperfrefactorchoreOpen with the outcome, in a paragraph a reader can stop after: what holds once this is merged, and what it is worth. Mechanism comes after, under headings.
Do not include trial-and-error history in the description; the commit history is the SSoT. That is any sentence which only parses against the pre-branch state: "previously X, now Y", "an earlier approach", "X was replaced by Y", a count given as a delta ("2 -> 0"). Read each sentence back and ask whether it works for someone who sees only the merged tree. If it needs the old state, cut it.
result_ty against the slot's type."The opening paragraph is the hardest place to hold that line: a speedup is worth stating, the struggle to find it is not.
If the branch obviously closes a known issue, add a closing keyword
(Closes #N). Do not go looking for one to attach.
No need to include a test section. CI runs the full test suite.
Angle brackets need nothing but a code span: `t_<Name>` renders as
written. The GitHub MCP server drops them and HTML-escapes quotes in the text it
reads back. Check the web UI before believing the description is broken, and
never rewrite prose to work around it.
Cut the draft before posting. A first draft follows the shape of the work: a heading for each thing that happened, at the length it took to do. Read it back and cut every sentence a reader would skip.
Subscribe to the PR with subscribe_pr_activity. Handle every event it
delivers; skipping one is a decision you state.
If the tool is unavailable, check the PR status and its review comments every 10 minutes instead. Stop once the review has settled and CI passes.
Keep checking mergeability (mergeable_state). If conflicting, resolve it with
the git-upstream-sync skill.
Answer a review, human or bot, with the code-review-response skill.
还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。
无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问，或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。
还没有评论。来写第一条吧。
Measure Wado's performance or the size of the Wasm it generates, and refresh the benchmark/ and wasm-size/ README files. Use for any benchmarking or size-measurement request, whichever benchmark it names.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Measure how long GitHub Actions jobs and steps took across past runs, and find the pull request that made CI slower. Use for any question about CI duration, a slow job, or when CI got slow.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
How to answer code review feedback — a human reviewer, CodeRabbit, or any review bot. Verify the findings, report the classes they are instances of to the user before fixing, then fix the class rather than the sites named. Put design decisions to the user, then run /distill. Invoke when responding to review comments on a pull request, or to the findings of a /code-review run.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Investigate and improve code coverage for the wado-compiler crate. Use for any question about what the tests do and do not reach, dead code included.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Review the branch with /code-review at high, then answer the findings with /code-review-response.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Use rust-gdb to inspect variables and step through code without modifying it. Prefer it over print debugging for any investigation into what the compiler is actually doing (lldb is unavailable on Claude Code Web).
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。