agentsclimarketplace

Contributor setup

Skill emaarco/hogwarts/plugins/felix-felicis/skills/contributor-setup

Analyzes a repo's contributor experience and creates or updates what's missing: GitHub issue-form templates (bug/feature/refactor), an open-source target-group-focused README, CONTRIBUTING.md, and the remaining community-health files (PR template, CODE_OF_CONDUCT, SECURITY, LICENSE, CODEOWNERS). Use when asked to make a repo contributor-friendly, open-source ready, or to set up issue templates / README / CONTRIBUTING.From its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add emaarco/hogwarts --skill contributor-setup

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

  • 0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

SKILL.md

7.5 KB, ~1.7k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Skill: contributor-setup

Audits everything a first-time visitor or contributor touches — README, issue templates, CONTRIBUTING.md, and the surrounding community-health files — then creates what's missing and upgrades what falls short. Analysis always comes first: never overwrite an existing file without showing the user what's wrong with it.

Run this when asked to "make this repo contributor-friendly", prepare a project for open-sourcing, set up issue templates, or as the community slice of a repo maturity audit.

Phase 1 — Analyze

Start from GitHub's own community-profile scoring, then inspect each file locally:

gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/community/profile --jq '{health_percentage, files}'
ls .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/ 2>/dev/null
ls .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md .github/CODEOWNERS CONTRIBUTING.md CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md SECURITY.md LICENSE README.md 2>/dev/null

Then judge quality, not just existence. Before writing anything, understand the project well enough to describe it accurately: read the manifest (package.json / pom.xml / …), the entry points, and any existing docs — the README must reflect what the project actually does, not a generic template.

README — evaluate against the target group (the developer who lands on the repo knowing nothing):

  • Answers what is this and why should I care in the first screen (one-paragraph pitch, not an architecture essay)
  • States the added value: which problem it solves, for whom, and why to pick it over the obvious alternatives — features alone don't answer this
  • Install / quickstart that works copy-paste
  • A "what you get" section — features, screenshot/GIF for anything visual
  • Badges that carry information (CI status, version, license) — not badge walls
  • Links to CONTRIBUTING.md and LICENSE near the end
  • Reference shape (from wardley-maps-modeler): pitch → Install → What you get → structure/packages → Contributing → License

Issue templates — issue forms (.yml with a body: of typed fields), not legacy .md templates:

  • .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/ with at least a bug report and a feature request; a refactor template for code-heavy projects
  • Each form: name, description, title prefix ('[Fix]: ', '[Feat]: '), labels, and required: true on the fields that make an issue actionable (bug: description + steps to reproduce + expected + actual; feature: summary + motivation)
  • config.yml present (decide blank_issues_enabled with the user; add contact_links for discussions/security if applicable)

CONTRIBUTING.md — must let a stranger go from clone to merged PR without asking anything:

  • Setup and inner loop as copy-paste commands (install, build, test, lint)
  • What pre-commit hooks/CI actually enforce vs. what the contributor must run themselves
  • Commit convention (e.g. Conventional Commits) with concrete examples
  • PR process: branch naming, review expectations, where to ask questions
  • Project-specific gotchas (build-before-test, version pins that must move together, …)

Everything else that matters:

  • LICENSE — without it the project isn't legally usable; ask the user which (MIT default suggestion)
  • .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md — short: summary, linked issue, checklist mirroring CONTRIBUTING requirements
  • CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md — Contributor Covenant is the standard; needs a real contact address
  • SECURITY.md — how to report vulnerabilities privately (GitHub private vulnerability reporting or an email)
  • .github/CODEOWNERS — default * owner so PRs auto-request review (also required by the sibling skill dependabot-setup)
  • Repo metadata via gh repo view — description and topics set; issues enabled

Phase 2 — Report

Summarize as a table before touching anything:

ItemStatusFinding
README✅ / ⚠️ needs work / ❌ missinge.g. "no quickstart; assumes internal context"
Issue templatese.g. "legacy .md templates; no required fields"
CONTRIBUTING.md
LICENSE / CoC / SECURITY / PR template / CODEOWNERS

Propose a prioritized fix list and confirm scope with the user (AskUserQuestion) — especially: license choice, blank issues yes/no, CoC contact address, and who owns CODEOWNERS.

Phase 3 — Create or update

Work through the confirmed list. Rules:

  • Update > replace. For existing files, fix the specific gaps from Phase 1; keep the author's voice and any project-specific content.
  • Ground every claim. Commands in README/CONTRIBUTING must be the repo's real scripts (read package.json scripts, Makefile, CI workflow) — run the quickstart yourself if possible; never invent commands.
  • Write for the target group. README sells the project to a potential user first, contributor second. CONTRIBUTING is all mechanics. Don't duplicate content between them — link.

Issue templates — ready-to-use forms ship with this skill in its reference/ folder (next to this SKILL.md):

  • reference/fix.yml — bug report (label bug)
  • reference/feat.yml — feature request (label enhancement)
  • reference/refactor.yml — refactoring proposal (label refactor)
  • reference/config.yml — issue chooser config (blank-issues toggle, optional contact links)

Copy them to .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/, replace the <project>/<owner> placeholders with the real repo, and adjust fields only where the project genuinely differs. For config.yml, settle blank_issues_enabled and any contact_links with the user per the Phase 1 checklist.

Ensure the labels exist — a form that references a missing label opens the issue silently unlabeled. Check and create what's missing:

gh label list --json name --jq '.[].name'
# default repos ship bug + enhancement, but usually not refactor:
gh label create refactor --description "Code refactoring or structural improvement" --color 6f42c1

Phase 4 — Verify

  • Issue forms: valid YAML and valid schema — GitHub silently falls back to a blank issue on schema errors, so check field types against the syntax reference
  • Every command written into README/CONTRIBUTING was executed or verified against the repo's actual scripts
  • Re-run gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/community/profile after pushing to confirm the health percentage improved
  • Internal links resolve (CONTRIBUTING ↔ README ↔ LICENSE)

Sources

What ships with it: 4 files

4.4 KB alongside SKILL.md

reference/

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 325,949. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.