docs: clarify bounty submission hygiene#386
Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThis PR updates bounty submission guidance across three complementary documents. The pull request template adds checklist prompts for capacity and attempt verification; the agent guide expands the bounty submission checklist with openness checks and claim-window guidance; and the bounty rules document adds pre-submission state verification requirements and PR body quality criteria. ChangesBounty Submission Guidance
Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~8 minutes Possibly related issues
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
carpedkm
left a comment
carpedkm
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I found one claim-window coverage gap.
The new guidance in docs/agent-guide.md says claim-window PR bodies should include the expected PR size, but .github/pull_request_template.md only asks for capacity, active attempts/open PRs, intended scope/files, and out-of-scope notes. Because this template is the path contributors will actually fill in for bounty PRs, it still does not capture one of the explicit Bounty #383 / discussion #128 fields: expected PR size. That makes it easy for future submissions to remain non-compliant even after this docs update.
Please add an explicit Expected PR size: prompt to the PR template, preferably near Intended scope and files:, and keep the wording aligned with the new agent-guide checklist. A focused docs smoke rerun should be enough after that.
Validation I ran on head 656c937:
./.venv/bin/python scripts/docs_smoke.py-> docs smoke okgit diff --check origin/main...HEAD-> clean- live submission quality gate against the PR body -> PASS for Bounty #383
No private keys, seed material, secrets, deployment credentials, private vulnerability details, payout credentials, or MRWK price claims are included.
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@docs/agent-guide.md`:
- Around line 222-223: Replace the phrase "claim-window style bounties" with the
hyphenated compound "claim-window-style bounties" in the sentence starting "For
claim-window style bounties, keep the PR body..." so the modifier is
grammatically correct and more readable.
In `@docs/bounty-rules.md`:
- Line 96: Replace the wording "same exact scope" with "same scope" in the
sentence that reads "covers the same exact scope, do not race it with a
duplicate PR." (locate the phrase "covers the same exact scope" in the doc and
update it to "covers the same scope") to remove the redundant word and tighten
the phrasing.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Repository UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 28e6f674-7761-4f1d-bed4-55360976d8a0
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
.github/pull_request_template.mddocs/agent-guide.mddocs/bounty-rules.md
| For claim-window style bounties, keep the PR body precise enough that a | ||
| maintainer can see the intended review window without reading the whole diff: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hyphenate the compound modifier for readability.
At Line 222, use “claim-window-style bounties” for cleaner grammar in the heading sentence.
🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[grammar] ~222-~222: Use a hyphen to join words.
Context: ...longer being reviewed. For claim-window style bounties, keep the PR body precise...
(QB_NEW_EN_HYPHEN)
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@docs/agent-guide.md` around lines 222 - 223, Replace the phrase "claim-window
style bounties" with the hyphenated compound "claim-window-style bounties" in
the sentence starting "For claim-window style bounties, keep the PR body..." so
the modifier is grammatically correct and more readable.
| Good PR bodies make the claim window easy to review. Include the exact bounty | ||
| reference, the intended files or surfaces, the test plan, and the evidence that | ||
| shows the work satisfies the acceptance text. If another active attempt already | ||
| covers the same exact scope, do not race it with a duplicate PR. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Remove redundant wording in scope sentence.
At Line 96, replace “same exact scope” with “same scope” to tighten phrasing.
🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[style] ~96-~96: This phrase is redundant. Consider writing “same”.
Context: ...other active attempt already covers the same exact scope, do not race it with a duplicate ...
(SAME_EXACT)
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@docs/bounty-rules.md` at line 96, Replace the wording "same exact scope" with
"same scope" in the sentence that reads "covers the same exact scope, do not
race it with a duplicate PR." (locate the phrase "covers the same exact scope"
in the doc and update it to "covers the same scope") to remove the redundant
word and tighten the phrasing.
Bounty #383 — agent submission hygiene and claim-window docs Adds two complementary updates for the 2nd award slot: 1. docs/api-examples.md: Pre-Bounty Preflight Checks section with live API examples for checking award capacity, active attempts, open PR overlap, and stale/exhausted round detection. 2. docs/agent-guide.md: Recovering from Rejection section under Bounty Submission Checklist, explaining how to respond to mrwk:rejected and mrwk:needs-info labels. These changes complement PR #386 which focuses on the agent checklist and PR template. This PR adds the API-level preflight workflow and post-submission recovery guidance. Refs #383
|
Maintainer status: held with |
3 participants
Summary
Evidence
GET https://api.mrwk.ltclab.site/api/v1/bounties/58returnedstatus: "open",awards_remaining: 2.GET https://api.mrwk.ltclab.site/api/v1/bounties/58/attemptsreturned no active attempts; open PR list did not show an existing MRWK bounty: agent submission hygiene and claim-window docs #383 submission.docs/agent-guide.md,docs/bounty-rules.md,.github/pull_request_template.md.Test Evidence
ruff format --check .ruff check .mypy apppytest./.venv/bin/python scripts/docs_smoke.py(docs smoke ok)git diff --checkMRWK
Bounty #383
No private keys, seed material, secrets, deployment credentials, private vulnerability details, payout credentials, or MRWK price claims are included.
Summary by CodeRabbit