docs(pr-flow): read the issue and all its comments before starting work - #2491
Conversation
…rk (#2487) Step 1 checked that an issue exists and moved its card, but never told the reader to read it. Comments are where scope actually changes, so working from the body alone can build the wrong thing. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Signed-off-by: cliffhall <cliff@futurescale.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Copilot review overview
🔵 Needs a closer look
The workflow currently allows untrusted public comments to override the approved issue scope.
Review effort: Balanced
Findings: None
What changed in this PR
Updates the pr-flow skill to require reading the full issue thread before starting work.
Changes:
- Adds
gh issue view <N> --commentsguidance. - Clarifies scope precedence and ambiguity handling.
- Moves assignment and board actions after issue review.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
.claude/skills/pr-flow/SKILL.md |
Adds issue-reading guidance to Step 1. Comment precedence must be limited to maintainer-authored or maintainer-endorsed comments. |
💡 Add a code-review agent skill for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.
…review) The repo is public, so an arbitrary commenter must not be able to override the approved scope. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Signed-off-by: cliffhall <cliff@futurescale.com>
|
Copilot round 1: no inline comments. The overview headline found one issue: "untrusted public comments [could] override the approved issue scope". That was a real defect in the text this PR added, since "follow the comment" let any commenter redirect the work. Fixed in d780fd6: a comment that contradicts the body sets scope only if a maintainer wrote or endorsed it, and anyone else's comment is input to weigh. |
|
Copilot round 2: clean, with no inline comments, no suppressed findings and "Approval recommended". Review loop closed on the first clean round. |
Closes #2487
Step 1 of the
pr-flowskill ("Start from an issue") checked that an issue exists, assigned it and moved its card. It never told the reader to read the issue, and nothing said to read its comments, which is where maintainers narrow scope, rule out approaches and record decisions.This adds a paragraph at the top of step 1:
gh issue view <N> --commentsand read the body plus every comment before assigning or branching.The existing "Step 1 is two actions" sentence now reads "Then two actions", since reading comes first.
Only the skill body changed, not its
description, so the listing budget and trigger evals are unaffected.npm run local:gatepassed.🤖 Generated with Claude Code