name: openclaw-pr-maintainer description: Review, triage, close, label, comment on, or land OpenClaw PRs/issues with maintainer evidence checks.
OpenClaw PR Maintainer
Use this skill for maintainer-facing GitHub workflow, not for ordinary code changes.
Start issue and PR triage with gitcrawl
- Use
$gitcrawlfirst anytime you inspect OpenClaw issues or PRs. - Check local
gitcrawldata first for related threads, duplicate attempts, and already-landed fixes. - Use
gitcrawlfor candidate discovery and clustering; usegh,gh api, and the current checkout to verify live state before commenting, labeling, closing, or landing. - If
gitcrawlis missing, stale, lacks the target thread, or has no embeddings for neighbor/search commands, fall back to the GitHub search workflow below. - Do not run expensive/update commands such as
gitcrawl sync --include-comments, future enrichment commands, or broad reclustering unless the user asked to update the local store or stale data is blocking the decision.
Common read-only path:
gitcrawl threads openclaw/openclaw --numbers <issue-or-pr-number> --include-closed --json
gitcrawl neighbors openclaw/openclaw --number <issue-or-pr-number> --limit 12 --json
gitcrawl search openclaw/openclaw --query "<scope or title keywords>" --mode hybrid --json
gitcrawl cluster-detail openclaw/openclaw --id <cluster-id> --member-limit 20 --body-chars 280 --json
Apply close and triage labels correctly
- If an issue or PR matches an auto-close reason, apply the label and let
.github/workflows/auto-response.ymlhandle the comment/close/lock flow. - Do not manually close plus manually comment for these reasons.
r:*labels can be used on both issues and PRs.- Current reasons:
r: skillr: supportr: no-ci-prr: too-many-prsr: testflightr: third-party-extensionr: moltbookr: spaminvaliddirtyfor PRs only
Select small high-confidence triage candidates
When asked for X issues or PRs to triage, X means qualified candidates, not sampled threads.
Only list candidates that pass all gates:
- small owner/surface, with a likely narrow fix and focused regression test
- symptom is reproducible or provable with logs, failing test, live command, dependency contract, or current-main behavior
- root cause is traceable to code with file/line and the proposed fix touches that path
- no strong smell that a broader refactor, ownership rethink, migration, or product decision is the better fix
- dependency-backed behavior checked against upstream docs/source/types; live or web proof used when local proof is insufficient
Loop:
- Use
gitcrawl/ghto gather candidate clusters. - Read issue/PR body, comments, current code, adjacent tests, and dependency contracts.
- Try focused repro or proof.
- Reject unclear, stale, speculative, broad-refactor, or owner-ambiguous items.
- Continue until
Xqualified candidates or the bounded search is exhausted.
Output only qualifying candidates, with: ref, surface, proof, cause, fix sketch, why small, expected test/gate. If none qualify, say so; do not pad.
Enforce the bug-fix evidence bar
- Never merge a bug-fix PR based only on issue text, PR text, or AI rationale.
- Before landing, require:
- symptom evidence such as a repro, logs, or a failing test
- a verified root cause in code with file/line
- a fix that touches the implicated code path
- a regression test when feasible, or explicit manual verification plus a reason no test was added
- If the claim is unsubstantiated or likely wrong, request evidence or changes instead of merging.
- If the linked issue appears outdated or incorrect, correct triage first. Do not merge a speculative fix.
Close low-signal manual PRs carefully
- Do not close for red CI alone. Require a clear low-signal category plus stale or failed validation.
- Good manual-close categories:
- blank or mostly untouched PR template with no concrete OpenClaw problem/fix
- random docs-only churn such as root README translations, generic wording tweaks, or community-plugin discoverability docs that should go through ClawHub
- test-only coverage without a linked bug, owner request, or behavior change
- refactor-only cleanup, variable renames, formatting, or generated/baseline churn without maintainer request
- third-party channel/provider/tool/skill/plugin work that belongs on ClawHub instead of core
- risky ops/infra drive-bys such as new external CI services, release workflows, host upgrade scripts, Docker base migrations, or apt retry/fix-missing tweaks without owner request and green validation
- dirty branches where a narrow stated change includes unrelated docs/generated/runtime/extension files
- repeated bot-review spam or copied bot output without author-owned fixes
- Keep or escalate plausible focused bug fixes, green PRs, active maintainer discussions, assigned work, recent author follow-up, and unique reproduction details.
- For third-party capabilities, prefer the
r: third-party-extensionauto-response label when it applies; it points contributors to publish on ClawHub.
Handle GitHub text safely
- For issue comments and PR comments, use literal multiline strings or
-F - <<'EOF'for real newlines. Never embed\n. - Do not use
gh issue/pr comment -b "..."when the body contains backticks or shell characters. Prefer a single-quoted heredoc. - Do not wrap issue or PR refs like
#24643in backticks when you want auto-linking. - PR landing comments should include clickable full commit links for landed and source SHAs when present.
Search broadly before deciding
- Prefer
gitcrawlfirst. Then use targeted GitHub keyword search to verify gaps, live status, comments, and candidates not present in the local store. - Use
--repo openclaw/openclawwith--match title,bodyfirst when usinggh search. - Add
--match commentswhen triaging follow-up discussion or closed-as-duplicate chains. - Do not stop at the first 500 results when the task requires a full search.
Examples:
gh search prs --repo openclaw/openclaw --match title,body --limit 50 -- "auto-update"
gh search issues --repo openclaw/openclaw --match title,body --limit 50 -- "auto-update"
gh search issues --repo openclaw/openclaw --match title,body --limit 50 \
--json number,title,state,url,updatedAt -- "auto update" \
--jq '.[] | "\(.number) | \(.state) | \(.title) | \(.url)"'
Follow PR review and landing hygiene
- If bot review conversations exist on your PR, address them and resolve them yourself once fixed.
- Leave a review conversation unresolved only when reviewer or maintainer judgment is still needed.
- When landing or merging any PR, follow the global
/landprprocess. - Use
scripts/committer "<msg>" <file...>for scoped commits instead of manualgit addandgit commit. - Keep commit messages concise and action-oriented.
- Group related changes; avoid bundling unrelated refactors.
- Use
.github/pull_request_template.mdfor PR submissions and.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/for issues. - Do not commit PR-only artifacts such as screenshots under
.github/pr-assets; attach them to the PR/comment or use an external artifact store instead.
Extra safety
- If a close or reopen action would affect more than 5 PRs, ask for explicit confirmation with the exact count and target query first.
syncmeans: if the tree is dirty, commit all changes with a sensible Conventional Commit message, thengit pull --rebase, thengit push. Stop if rebase conflicts cannot be resolved safely.