Repository navigation
Mark the required sections, and put the AI usage comment under its heading - #115
Conversation
The template check adds a marker convention: a section is required when its heading carries a REQUIRED comment, and a section without one stays optional. The check reads the marker from the template, so deleting the comment blocks from a pull request body does not change what is required.
⚪ Queued for reviewLast updated: 2026-10-21 16:39 UTC |
rtibblesbot
left a comment
rtibblesbot
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
PR #115: the marker change is fine. One wording conflict needs fixing (see inline).
CI passing.
Next step: This is a low-risk change; it needs a light-touch code review by a human engineer.
Written by rtibblesbot, an LLM-based coding agent.
The header named the AI usage section as the only required one. Summary, References and Reviewer guidance carry the marker too, so it contradicted them.
rtibblesbot
left a comment
rtibblesbot
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
PR #115 has no new findings. The one prior finding is resolved. CI is passing.
Prior-finding status
RESOLVED — .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md:10 — header instruction contradicts the new REQUIRED markers
Next step: This is a low-risk change and can merge as is, with no further human review.
Written by rtibblesbot, an LLM-based coding agent.
Every other section carries its guidance comment after the heading. AI usage carried it before, in the pull request template and in all seven issue templates, so the block read as part of the section above it. In the pull request template the comment also opened with "AI USAGE - REQUIRED", which the heading and the REQUIRED marker now say.
akolson
changed the title
rtibblesbot
left a comment
rtibblesbot
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
PR #115: 1 of 1 prior finding resolved; no new findings.
CI passing.
Prior-finding status
RESOLVED — .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md:10 — header instruction contradicts the REQUIRED markers
Next step: This is a low-risk change and can merge as is, with no further human review.
Written by rtibblesbot, an LLM-based coding agent.
The pull request template marks the section with a REQUIRED comment under the heading. The issue templates said REQUIRED inside the description comment instead, so the same section carried two shapes. The marker now opens the section in all of them, and the duplicated line is gone. Nothing reads an issue template yet: the check in #102 runs on pull requests only.
|
Quick check on rtibblesbot's review of this PR: react 👍 helpful · 😕 mixed · 👎 not helpful. Reply with anything specific. |
Summary
Contributors open pull requests that leave required sections of the template empty, and
reviewers ask for the missing information by hand. #102 adds a check for that, and the check
needs a way to tell a required section from an optional one.
A section is required when its heading carries a
<!-- REQUIRED -->comment. The check readsthe marker from the template file, never from the pull request body, so a contributor deleting
the instruction comments as the template asks cannot change what is required.
The change
## Summary,## References,## Reviewer guidanceand## AI usagecarry the marker.section that carries the marker.
seven issue templates. Every other section carries its comment after the heading, so that
block read as part of the section above it.
the line is gone and the marker opens the section in all eight files.
Nothing reads an issue template yet, since the check in #102 runs on pull requests only. The
marker is there so the same section has one shape everywhere.
References
Part of #102.
Reviewer guidance
moved under its heading in eight files.
unchanged, because a comment does not render.
Nothing enforces the markers yet. The check that reads them lands in #116, and the three repos
that keep their own template get the same markers first.
AI usage
I used Claude Code to confirm which repos fall back to this template, to find that the three
repo-specific templates carry no AI usage section, and to make the edits. I decided the marker
convention and which sections are required, and I reviewed the diff.