andreahlert opened a new pull request, #67:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow-steward/pull/67

   The `pr-management-code-review` skill embedded airflow-specific paths 
(`.github/instructions/code-review.instructions.md`, `providers/AGENTS.md`, 
`Cadwyn` version markers) in 17 places across `SKILL.md`, `criteria.md`, 
`adversarial.md`, `posting.md`, and `review-flow.md`. None of those paths exist 
in any other adopter repo, so the skill could not function outside Apache 
Airflow.
   
   This PR routes every reference through the same 
`<project-config>/pr-management-code-review-criteria.md` indirection the rest 
of the framework already uses. Adopters substitute their own review-criteria 
paths in that single config file. The existing template at 
[`projects/_template/pr-management-code-review-criteria.md`](https://github.com/apache/airflow-steward/blob/main/projects/_template/pr-management-code-review-criteria.md)
 serves as the worked Airflow example.
   
   What changed semantically:
   
   - The category list (Architecture boundaries, DB / query correctness, Code 
quality, Testing, API correctness, UI, Generated files, AI-generated code 
signals, Quality signals, Commits and PRs, Security model) is now an abstract 
canonical list. Concrete URLs come from the adopter's `Section anchors` table.
   - Backports section is gated on the adopter declaring a backport branch 
pattern. The Cadwyn-specific wording is gone, replaced with a generic 
"versioning-sensitive subsystem" reference.
   - Provider-specific section is now generic per-area subtree handling (no 
hardcoded `providers/elasticsearch/AGENTS.md` / 
`providers/opensearch/AGENTS.md`).
   
   Validated with prek and the in-tree `skill-validator` (0 violations on this 
branch).


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to