Repository navigation
Assess knowledge uplift in the code-review skill and PR Review board - #5046
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Centralize the knowledge-uplift test in the code-review skill and require evidence-backed classifications in the PR Review board. Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> Copilot-Session: 9082818f-c7db-42c7-add6-c337afb05fdb
Contributor
🚦 Submission status: 👀 Ready for reviewRisk tier: Why this tier
Automated checks
Review
Commands
Updated for |
Contributor
|
🟡 Contributor Reputation Check: MEDIUM risk
Maintainers: please review this contributor before merging. |
github-actions
Bot
added
needs-review:MEDIUM
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🔵 Needs a closer look
The partial-uplift wording still permits approval, and this governance-sensitive policy change requires maintainer review.
2 open findings
What changed in this PR
Adds a canonical knowledge-uplift assessment to repository review policy and integrates it into the Open PR Board.
Changes:
- Defines
high,partial, andnoneuplift classifications. - Adds uplift evidence to board guidance and structured review prompts.
- Updates the differentiation schema description.
Knowledge uplift: High—the policy introduces repository-specific classification and approval constraints.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
.github/skills/code-review/SKILL.md |
Defines the canonical uplift test. |
.github/extensions/open-pr-board/review-guidance.md |
Maps uplift results to board recommendations. |
.github/extensions/open-pr-board/lib/review-prompt.mjs |
Adds uplift requirements to review prompts and schema. |
🧠 Review effort: Balanced
💡 Configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.
| return [ | ||
| "Knowledge uplift — apply the \"Knowledge uplift\" test from the code-review skill to every agent, instruction, skill, prompt, hook, or workflow the PR adds or substantially changes. It is the criterion most often under-applied, so do not skip it for well-formatted PRs:", | ||
| " - Always start the `differentiation` field with the `high` / `partial` / `none` classification and the quoted lines that justify it, then note any overlap with existing resources.", | ||
| " - `none` must not be `approve`: use `needs-insight`, or `close` when it is also a near-duplicate. `partial` is usually `request-changes`; name the generic sections to cut in `suggestedComment`.", |
| - **Knowledge uplift** — the most common way a well-formatted PR still fails. Apply the | ||
| "Knowledge uplift" test from `.github/skills/code-review/SKILL.md` to every content | ||
| resource. `none` is never `approve` (use `needs-insight`, or `close` if it is also a | ||
| near-duplicate); `partial` is usually `request-changes`. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Pull Request Checklist
npm startand verified thatREADME.mdis up to date.mainbranch for this pull request.Description
AI reviews can approve well-formatted resources without establishing whether they improve on what a capable model already does. This adds an explicit knowledge-uplift test to the repository's code-review skill so the criterion applies beyond the PR Review canvas.
The skill compares behavior with and without the resource, distinguishes specific knowledge and workflow constraints from generic advice, and requires cited evidence for a
high,partial, ornoneclassification. The board references that canonical test rather than duplicating it, records the classification first indifferentiation, and maps absent or partial uplift to non-approval recommendations.Type of Contribution
Additional Notes
This strengthens review policy: no uplift must not receive approval, and partial uplift asks authors to remove generic sections and expand the useful core. Maintainer review of the policy change is needed.
Validation:
npm start: passed; generated README and marketplace output remain unchanged.bash eng/fix-line-endings.sh: passed.node --experimental-vm-modules --test eng/open-pr-board.test.mjs eng/board-bulk-actions.test.mjs eng/board-state-storage.test.mjs: passed, 49 tests.git diff --check: passed.Live Copilot review calibration was not run. Paid-service guidance and new-resource checklist items are not applicable.
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution abides by the Code of Conduct and will be licensed under the MIT License.