Skip to content

Extract shared readiness-checks spec in pr-flow v1.2.1#7

Merged
gering merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
task/extract-readiness-checks-spec
Jun 12, 2026
Merged

Extract shared readiness-checks spec in pr-flow v1.2.1#7
gering merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
task/extract-readiness-checks-spec

Conversation

@gering

@gering gering commented Jun 12, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Summary

  • Extracts the duplicated documentation-readiness logic from /open (steps 3c–3f) and /merge (step 8) into one canonical spec, following the proven REVIEW-OUTPUT-FORMAT.md pattern.
  • Eliminates the drift risk flagged as Prio 4 in the 2026-06 architecture review — /merge step 8 previously had to "mirror /open checks 3c-3f" by hand.
  • Net reduction of ~674 words of skill prose; both consumer skills shrink (they were near the size limit where instruction-following degrades).

Behavior change (intentional harmonization)

Before this PR, /open and /merge disagreed on the README-freshness check: /open treated touching any *.md file as satisfying it, while /merge counted only README.md. The shared spec adopts /merge's stricter rule, so /open now also warns when user-facing code changed but only a non-README markdown file (e.g. CONTRIBUTING.md) was touched. This is the point of the extraction — one canonical definition — but it does slightly tighten /open's heuristic. The check is advisory only.

Changes

  • New: plugins/pr-flow/docs/READINESS-CHECKS.md — canonical definitions for the four checks (README freshness, version bump, changelog, knowledge/conventions): detection signals, ✅/⚠️/❌/➖ semantics, auto-fixable vs. manual classification, and a "how consumers apply this" section.
  • /open 3c–3f now reference the spec; keep only open-specific behavior (auto-resolve fixes in place during the check phase). −563 words.
  • /merge step 8 now references the spec; keep only merge-specific behavior (read-only inspection, DOC_WARNINGS collection for the step-13 f/m/a decision). −111 words.
  • README.md: note the shared spec, mirroring how REVIEW-OUTPUT-FORMAT.md is surfaced.
  • Bump pr-flow 1.2.0 → 1.2.1 (plugin.json + marketplace.json).

Readiness

  • ➖ Uncommitted: only TASK.md (work-system file, intentionally excluded)
  • ✅ README updated
  • ✅ Version bumped 1.2.0 → 1.2.1 (both files in sync)
  • ➖ Changelog: N/A (none in repo)
  • ✅ Knowledge: applies existing shared-spec pattern, nothing new to capture
  • ➖ Tests / Lint / Build: N/A (markdown-only plugin repo)

Test plan

  • Run /open on a branch and confirm 3c–3f resolve correctly from the spec
  • Run /merge and confirm step 8 stays read-only and surfaces DOC_WARNINGS in the step-13 plan
  • Verify ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/docs/READINESS-CHECKS.md resolves at runtime (same mechanism as REVIEW-OUTPUT-FORMAT.md)

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

@gering

gering commented Jun 12, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner Author

@claude review

Pull the duplicated documentation-readiness logic out of /open
(steps 3c-3f) and /merge (step 8) into a single canonical spec,
following the REVIEW-OUTPUT-FORMAT.md pattern.

- Add plugins/pr-flow/docs/READINESS-CHECKS.md: detection signals,
  status semantics, auto-fixable vs. manual classification
- /open 3c-3f now reference the spec, keep only open-specific
  auto-resolution behavior (-563 words)
- /merge step 8 references the spec, keeps only read-only +
  f/m/a handling (-111 words)
- README: note the shared spec, mirroring REVIEW-OUTPUT-FORMAT
- Bump pr-flow 1.2.0 -> 1.2.1 (plugin.json + marketplace.json)

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
@gering gering force-pushed the task/extract-readiness-checks-spec branch from 0f1a13f to aa709ac Compare June 12, 2026 14:25
@gering gering merged commit 1123e95 into main Jun 12, 2026
1 check passed
@gering gering deleted the task/extract-readiness-checks-spec branch June 12, 2026 17:27
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant