Awesome Agentic Patterns Pr Review

Use gh first:

• gh pr view <number> --repo nibzard/awesome-agentic-patterns --json title,number,state,isDraft,author,baseRefName,headRefName,headRepository,headRepositoryOwner,maintainerCanModify,files,additions,deletions,mergeable,mergeStateStatus,reviewDecision,statusCheckRollup,labels,url,body
• gh pr diff <number> --repo nibzard/awesome-agentic-patterns --patch
• gh pr checks <number> --repo nibzard/awesome-agentic-patterns

If you need the exact branch locally, fetch it with:

• git fetch origin refs/pull/<number>/head:pr-<number>

Capture these facts before deciding anything:

• Whether the PR is a new pattern submission, a pattern edit, or a broader repo/tooling change
• Whether the change correctly uses patterns/<slug>.md rather than editing generated docs directly
• Whether README.md or apps/web/public/ generated outputs changed because the contributor regenerated outputs, or because they hand-edited generated files
• Whether maintainerCanModify is enabled and which fork/branch must be updated if you need to fix the PR
• Whether GitHub mergeability is trustworthy yet; UNKNOWN can be transient right after a push

2. Validate the submission contract

For pattern submissions, check the repository's exact contract before debating fit:

• One pattern per PR
• New patterns live in patterns/ and use kebab-case filenames
• PR title should use Add: pattern-name
• The pattern should be concise, roughly capped at about 200 lines
• Do not edit README auto-generated sections manually
• docs/index.md is only a compatibility symlink to README.md
• Front-matter should include: title status category tags plus authors, based_on, and source when available
• source_link is invalid here; use source
• Required content sections are: ## Problem ## Solution ## References

For generated-file sync, check whether the PR also updated:

• README.md
• apps/web/public/data/patterns.json
• other generated files under apps/web/public/ when the pattern catalog changed

Call out structural violations explicitly. These are repository requirements, not style nits.

3. Apply local policy

Use CONTRIBUTING.md for the actual acceptance rubric. Evaluate:

• Whether the PR documents a reusable pattern rather than a product announcement
• Whether the pattern is materially novel and non-repetitive relative to existing patterns
• Whether the write-up clearly explains Problem, Solution, and Trade-offs or practical mechanics
• Whether references are public and verifiable
• Whether the contribution is community-first and non-promotional
• Whether external links are mostly github.com, github.io, or neutral technical references for outside contributors
• Whether any vendor or product links are justified by clear novelty rather than marketing
• Whether contributor-owned projects are disclosed and framed as examples rather than the center of the PR
• Whether the category is the best fit for existing repo taxonomy

Separate policy fit from technical mergeability. A PR can be in scope but still need a maintainer fix before merge.

4. Run structural validation when useful

When reviewing a local branch or checking CI behavior, run:

• python3 scripts/lint_front_matter.py
• python3 scripts/pattern_validator.py <pattern-file.md>
• python3 scripts/pattern_validator.py --all
• bun run build:data when checking generated README or site data changes

Treat the scripts as structural checks, not the decision-maker. Human review still decides repository fit, novelty, promotion risk, and category choice.

5. Repair the branch when the PR is acceptable but stale

If the PR is acceptable and the user wants it fixed or merged, prefer the smallest possible maintainer correction:

• Fetch the PR branch locally
• Rebase or replay it onto origin/main
• Fix only the minimum structural issue
• Normalize front-matter keys or section headings to repo expectations
• Regenerate README.md and site data with bun run build:data only if the PR already requires generated-file sync
• Push back to the contributor's exact head branch, preferably with --force-with-lease
• Re-check gh pr view after the push because mergeable and mergeStateStatus may temporarily show UNKNOWN

Do not turn a small submission repair into a broader cleanup.

6. Produce the review

Use a code-review mindset:

• Present findings first, ordered by severity, with file references when applicable
• If there are no findings, say that explicitly
• After findings, give one clear decision: Accept, Request changes, or Close
• Include mergeability as a separate line: clean, needs maintainer repair, or blocked
• When the user wants to merge, include the exact next action: comment, fix and push, merge, or close

Output Shape

Keep the final review compact and consistent. Use this exact structure:

Summary

• One short sentence on PR state or scope if useful

Findings

• Findings first, ordered by severity
• If there are no findings, say No blocking findings.

Decision

• Policy fit: Accept | Request changes | Close
• Mergeability: clean | needs maintainer repair | blocked
• Recommended action: comment | fix and push | merge | close

Proposed comment to contributor

• Draft a short, polite comment suitable for posting on the PR
• If the maintainer already fixed the PR, say what was adjusted and thank the contributor
• If requesting changes, state the minimum changes needed

What next

• End with a direct question to the user asking what they want next
• Example: Do you want me to post the comment, push the small fix, or merge it?