docs: align wet-lab feedback intake#137
Conversation
Make .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/wet_lab_result.yml the single source of truth for public-safe wet-lab feedback fields. - Add default issue title and "user-feedback" label (label already exists in the repo's label set, alongside wet-lab/needs-triage) - Disable blank issues to reduce accidental disclosure risk in this public repo; structured templates (bug/feature/idea/wet-lab) already cover the general cases, and the email contact link remains for anything else - Sync docs/feedback-inbox.md and docs/validation.md field lists to the actual template fields, removing harvest_timepoint, institution_disclosure, expression_system_assay_type, and approximate-yield-range references that were never collected
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: bb2a52896b
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| - Protein class. | ||
| - Expression system / assay type. | ||
| - Harvest timepoint. | ||
| - Coarse assay category. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
At this line the docs start enforcing the new, narrower public-safe field set, but the root VALIDATION.md that README/CONTRIBUTING send users to for the submission format still lists the old fields (Expression system / assay type, Harvest timepoint, and Approximate yield range). That leaves two public validation surfaces giving conflicting instructions, and users may still include fields this change is trying to remove from public intake; please update VALIDATION.md in the same change.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
Summary
Audit of the FactorForge public-safe wet-lab feedback -> AgentOps -> ValidationHub pipeline found that
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/wet_lab_result.ymlis the actual source of truth for wet-lab feedback fields, but supporting docs and template config had drifted from it. This is the first low-risk operational PR in that pipeline (intentionally narrow — see Non-goals).title:and the existinguser-feedbacklabel towet_lab_result.yml(alongsidewet-lab,needs-triage— all three labels already exist in this repo)blank_issues_enabledto reduce the chance of sensitive wet-lab/construct details landing in an untemplated public issue. Tradeoff: general bug/feature/idea reports must now use a template, butbug_report.yml/feature_request.yml/idea.ymlalready cover those cases, and the email contact link remains for anything that doesn't fit.docs/feedback-inbox.mdanddocs/validation.mdfield lists to the actual template fields, removing references toharvest_timepoint,institution_disclosure,expression_system_assay_type, and "approximate yield range" — none of which are actually collected by the template.Non-goals (explicitly out of scope)
issues: opened/editedaccepted-feedback,needs-redaction, etc.) — deferred until the triage workflow that uses them existsTest plan
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/*.ymlfiles (pass)gh label listconfirmswet-lab,user-feedback,needs-triageexist in this repoharvest_timepoint,institution_disclosure,expression_system_assay_type, yield range) across touched docs — 0 matchesvalidated,proven,guarantee) — only pre-existing negation language present, no new claims introduced🤖 Generated with Claude Code