Skip to content

skills(running-tend): record settled tend#607 self-review-noop ruling #263

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
nedtwigg merged 1 commit into from
Jul 15, 2026
+6 −0
Merged

skills(running-tend): record settled tend#607 self-review-noop ruling #263

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
6 changes: 6 additions & 0 deletions .claude/skills/running-tend/SKILL.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -8,3 +8,9 @@ No project-specific tend preferences yet beyond the notes below. Add guidance he
## Filing issues in other repos

When asking permission to file an issue upstream (e.g. at `max-sixty/tend`), do **not** include the standing-exception offer ("I can treat this target as file-directly going forward"). nedtwigg wants to keep approving each cross-repo issue individually — keep asking each time, and skip the offer. ([diffplug/dormouse#168](https://github.com/diffplug/dormouse/issues/168#issuecomment-4836133002))

## Settled upstream rulings — don't re-file

Before a `review-runs`/`review-reviewers` sweep flags a tend behavior as waste or files it upstream, check this list — these were already raised and ruled on, so re-filing burns a session and spams upstream:

- **`tend-review` silently running a full review on the bot's own PRs is intended, not waste.** The diff read *is* the review — it catches lint failures and edge cases even though self-approval is impossible, so a silent exit means the review ran and found nothing to post. Ruled intended behavior by the upstream owner in [max-sixty/tend#607](https://github.com/max-sixty/tend/issues/607) (closed as intended, same ruling as tend#212/#154). Do not treat self-review-of-bot-PRs no-ops as cost waste and do not re-file. (The companion `tend-mention` no-op on undirected bot comments, [tend#606](https://github.com/max-sixty/tend/issues/606), was *fixed* upstream — that one is resolved, not rejected.)
Loading