Revise contribution guidelines

[leighmcculloch]

What

Revising the contribution guidelines to encourage high-impact high-value contributions, which we find are typically creating issues, participating in issues and discussions.

Why

High-impact high-value contributions have the greater chance of having a meaningful impact on the Stellar network.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR updates CONTRIBUTING.md to steer community contributions toward discussions, proposals, and well-scoped issues, and to narrow when pull requests are accepted across Stellar-hosted projects.

Changes:

• Reframes contribution guidance toward discussions/ideas/experience reports and structured bug reports.
• Adds new “Reporting Bugs and Requesting Features” and “Pull Requests” sections with stricter PR acceptance criteria.
• Updates the “Getting Started” section with direct links to org discussions and protocol proposals.

Suppressed comments (1)

CONTRIBUTING.md:44

• The doc uses American English ("behavior"), but this paragraph uses "behaviour". Please standardize spelling (e.g., change to "behavior").

other projects. Correctness is critical and thoughtful evolution of behaviour and APIs is paramount.

---

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 1 out of 1 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

Suppressed comments (5)

Previously missed (2) — in code that hasn't changed since the last review.

CONTRIBUTING.md:26

• These bullets include raw URLs even though the rest of the document uses Markdown links. Converting them improves readability and makes the link text clearer in rendered docs.
  CONTRIBUTING.md:42
• This file still defines a [help-wanted] reference link; using it here makes the label actionable in the rendered doc and avoids an unused reference definition.

CONTRIBUTING.md:11

• Spelling is inconsistent with the rest of this repo’s documentation (e.g., profile README uses “decentralized”). Using US spelling here will keep CONTRIBUTING.md consistent.

> The Stellar network is open, decentralised, and programmable. For many ideas you may have, they can

CONTRIBUTING.md:46

• This paragraph mixes US and UK spelling (“behavior” vs “behaviour”) within the same document. Please standardize to match the repo’s prevailing usage (CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md uses “behavior”).

other projects. Correctness is critical and thoughtful evolution of behaviour and APIs is paramount.

CONTRIBUTING.md:54

• The first bullet is grammatically awkward, and the document still defines a [commit-msg] reference link that is otherwise unused. Rewording the bullet and adding a commit-message bullet improves clarity and reuses the existing reference.

Key things to keep in mind when creating a pull request:
* Confirm, does the pull request narrowly address an open issue and have you been assigned?
* Fork the project's repository and submit the pull request from a branch in your fork.
* Link the approved issue and keep the pull request narrowly within the scope of that issue.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 1 out of 1 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

Suppressed comments (4)

Previously missed (3) — in code that hasn't changed since the last review.

CONTRIBUTING.md:42

• The document defines a [help-wanted] reference link at the bottom; using it here avoids dead link definitions and makes the label reference clickable.
  CONTRIBUTING.md:46
• Use US English spelling to match the rest of the repository documentation: “behaviour” should be “behavior”.
  CONTRIBUTING.md:54
• This bullet is grammatically awkward (“Confirm, does…”). Rewording improves clarity; also consider referencing the existing [commit-msg] link so it isn’t left unused.

CONTRIBUTING.md:11

• Use US English spelling to match the rest of the repository documentation (e.g., profile/README.md uses “decentralized”): “decentralised” should be “decentralized”.

> The Stellar network is open, decentralized, and programmable. For many ideas you may have, they can

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 1 out of 1 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

Suppressed comments (2)

Previously missed (2) — in code that hasn't changed since the last review.

CONTRIBUTING.md:46

• Use US English spelling (“behavior”) to match the repo’s documentation convention, and fix the grammar “dependencies to” → “dependencies of”.
  CONTRIBUTING.md:52
• This bullet reads like a question with awkward punctuation (“Confirm, does…”). Rephrase to a direct checklist item for clarity.

[Copilot]

Copilot review overview

🟡 Changes recommended

Several newly added passages contain grammar and spelling issues that reduce clarity.

Get a fresh assessment by requesting another Copilot review.

Review effort: Balanced
Findings: 3

Open (3)

• Clarify the sentence subject · New
• Correct “dependencies to” to “dependencies of” · New
• Rewrite as a direct checklist instruction · New

[Copilot]

Copilot review overview

🟡 Changes recommended

The pull-request checklist conflicts with its stated project-specific exception, and several wording errors need correction.

Get a fresh assessment by requesting another Copilot review.

Review effort: Balanced
Findings: 3

Open (3)

• Clarify issue and assignment exceptions in the checklist · New
• Correct “dependencies to” to “dependencies of”
• Clarify the sentence subject

Resolved since last review (1)

• Rewrite as a direct checklist instruction

Previously missed (1)

In code that hasn't changed since last review

Use the repository's established US English spelling

CONTRIBUTING.md:53

Use the repository's established US English spelling, as seen in this file at line 40 and in CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md:47.

[Copilot]

Copilot review overview

🟢 Approval recommended

Only minor language consistency and clarity issues remain.

Review effort: Balanced
Findings: 2

Open (2)

• Correct “dependencies to” to “dependencies of”
• Clarify the sentence subject

Resolved since last review (1)

• Clarify issue and assignment exceptions in the checklist

[Copilot]

Copilot review overview

🔵 Needs a closer look

The pull-request eligibility requirements conflict, and several documentation errors remain.

Review effort: Balanced
Findings: 2

Open (2)

• Correct “dependencies to” to “dependencies of”
• Clarify the sentence subject

Previously missed (1)

In code that hasn't changed since last review

Use established US English spelling: behavior

CONTRIBUTING.md:55

Use the repository’s established US English spelling (behavior), which also appears earlier in this file at line 40 and throughout CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md (for example, line 47).

[Copilot]

Copilot review overview

🟢 Approval recommended

Only minor documentation and grammar corrections remain.

Review effort: Balanced
Findings: 2

Open (2)

• Correct “dependencies to” to “dependencies of”
• Clarify the sentence subject

Previously missed (2)

In code that hasn't changed since last review

Restore help-wanted link for qualifying issues

CONTRIBUTING.md:48

This no longer links contributors to the qualifying issues even though the existing [help-wanted] reference remains defined at line 110. Restoring the link makes the policy actionable and avoids leaving that reference unused.

Use US spelling behavior

CONTRIBUTING.md:55

Use the repository’s established US English spelling “behavior,” consistent with line 40 and CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md:47.

[Copilot]

Copilot review overview

🟡 Changes recommended

Pull-request eligibility is contradictory, and several grammatical issues remain.

Get a fresh assessment by requesting another Copilot review.

Review effort: Balanced
Findings: 3

Open (3)

• End the checklist question with a question mark · New
• Correct “dependencies to” to “dependencies of”
• Clarify the sentence subject

Previously missed (1)

In code that hasn't changed since last review

Use consistent US English spelling: “behavior”

CONTRIBUTING.md:55

Use the repository’s established US English spelling, “behavior,” which also appears on line 40 and in CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md:47.

[Copilot]

Copilot review overview

🔵 Needs a closer look

The revision removes a useful issue link and contains several grammatical inconsistencies.

Review effort: Balanced
Findings: 2

Open (2)

• End the checklist question with a question mark
• Correct “dependencies to” to “dependencies of”

Resolved since last review (1)

• Clarify the sentence subject

Previously missed (3)

In code that hasn't changed since last review

Restore the help-wanted issue queue link

CONTRIBUTING.md:48

Formatting help wanted as code removes the link to the organization-wide issue queue, even though the [help-wanted] reference remains defined at CONTRIBUTING.md:103. Restore the link so contributors can find eligible issues.

Use established US English spelling

CONTRIBUTING.md:55

Use the repository's established US English spelling, which is also used earlier in this document (behavior on line 40).

Fix question grammar and punctuation

CONTRIBUTING.md:64

The first question incorrectly coordinates two different subjects under “Does,” and the second question ends with a period. Separate the clauses grammatically and use question marks consistently.

[Copilot]

Copilot review overview

🔵 Needs a closer look

The missing help-wanted link and several documentation errors should be corrected before publication.

Review effort: Balanced
Findings: 2

Open (2)

• End the checklist question with a question mark
• Correct “dependencies to” to “dependencies of”

Previously missed (2)

In code that hasn't changed since last review

Restore the help-wanted label link

CONTRIBUTING.md:48

The retained [help-wanted] definition at line 115 is no longer referenced, so contributors cannot follow this guideline directly to find eligible issues. Keep the label linked as it was in the previous text.

Use US English spelling: behavior

CONTRIBUTING.md:55

Use the repository's established US English spelling, behavior, as seen in CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md:47 and CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md:55.

[Copilot]

Copilot review overview

🔵 Needs a closer look

Pull-request eligibility requirements conflict, and two grammatical issues remain.

Review effort: Balanced
Findings: 2

Open (2)

• End the checklist question with a question mark
• Correct “dependencies to” to “dependencies of”

Previously missed (2)

In code that hasn't changed since last review

Clarify and unify the contribution eligibility requirements

CONTRIBUTING.md:48

This eligibility rule conflicts with the checklist below: here a help wanted label is sufficient, while lines 63 and 65 additionally require assignment and an “approved” issue, neither of which has a described process. State one consistent gate and explain how contributors obtain it; otherwise contributors cannot determine whether a pull request will be accepted.

Use consistent US English spelling: “behavior”

CONTRIBUTING.md:55

Use the repository’s established US English spelling, “behavior,” which is also used earlier in this document at line 40 and throughout CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md (for example, line 47).