chore: add community standards files; remove stray BRIEFING.md#388
chore: add community standards files; remove stray BRIEFING.md#388
Conversation
- SECURITY.md: supported-versions table, private vulnerability reporting channel, 7-business-day triage SLA, scope notes. - CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md: canonical Contributor Covenant 2.1 (downloaded from the upstream EthicalSource repo, frontmatter stripped) with the contact routed through the maintainer's GitHub handle (no email exposed). - .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml + feature_request.yml: structured YAML issue forms with required reproducer, version/python/backend/OS fields for bugs, and use-case + methodology-references prompts for feature requests. - Remove BRIEFING.md: internal planning note that was committed in error during the docs-refresh initiative; no references to it anywhere in the repo. Together these populate the GitHub Community Standards checklist. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Overall assessment✅ Looks good No unmitigated P0/P1 findings. This PR is metadata-only: it does not change any estimator, weighting, variance/SE logic, identification assumptions, or defaults, so the Methodology Registry is not implicated. I found two P3 informational items worth tightening. Executive summary
Methodology
Code Quality
Performance
Maintainability
Tech Debt
Security
Documentation/Tests
|
… ignore - SECURITY.md: replace "Latest minor (current 3.x)" with "Latest release" to remove ambiguity about whether all 3.x minors get patches. Avoids needing version-number maintenance on each release. - .gitignore: add BRIEFING.md and briefings/ so per-initiative briefing notes can't be accidentally committed again, closing the recurrence loop for the issue this PR addresses. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
/ai-review |
|
🔁 AI review rerun (requested by @igerber) Head SHA: Overall assessment✅ Looks good No unmitigated P0/P1 findings. This remains a metadata-only PR: it does not change any estimator, weighting, variance/SE logic, identification assumptions, or defaults covered by the Methodology Registry. The two prior re-review items are addressed in Executive summary
MethodologyNo findings. Affected methods: none. The changed files are repository/community metadata only, so no Registry note or paper cross-check was required beyond confirming the diff does not touch methodology surfaces. Code QualityNo findings. PerformanceNo findings. MaintainabilityNo findings. The previous re-review item about preventing future stray briefing commits is addressed by Tech DebtNo findings. This PR does not add new deferred work or interact with existing SecurityNo findings. The previous ambiguity in supported-version wording is resolved by Documentation/Tests
|
Replace the placeholder's nonexistent `est.coef` with the documented public surface: `results = est.fit(...); print(results.att)`. Mirrors the docstring example in `diff_diff/estimators.py`. Avoids misleading bug reporters into copying an API that doesn't exist. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
/ai-review |
|
🔁 AI review rerun (requested by @igerber) Head SHA: Overall assessment✅ Looks good No unmitigated P0/P1 findings. This re-review remains a metadata-only PR: it adds community standards files, removes the stray briefing note, and does not touch any estimator, weighting, variance/SE, identification, or default-behavior surface covered by the Methodology Registry. Executive summary
MethodologyNo findings. Affected methods: none. The diff is confined to repo/community metadata and does not alter any estimator implementation, math, weighting, variance/SE, identification assumption, or default behavior covered by the registry, so no paper-level deviation check was triggered. Code QualityNo findings. The only substantive content mismatch from the prior review was the bug-template example, and it now matches the documented public API. PerformanceNo findings. The changed files are markdown, YAML, and MaintainabilityNo findings. Deleting the accidentally committed Tech DebtNo findings. This PR does not add new deferred work and does not intersect the tracked review-debt items in SecurityNo findings. Documentation/TestsNo findings. Both issue templates parse cleanly as YAML, and the bug form references valid package API for version/backend collection and a real results attribute for the reproducer. |
1 participant
Summary
SECURITY.md: supported-versions table (latest minor only), private vulnerability reporting via the Security tab, 7-business-day triage SLA, in/out-of-scope notes.CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md: canonical Contributor Covenant 2.1, downloaded directly from the upstream EthicalSource repo. Frontmatter stripped; contact routed through the maintainer's GitHub handle (no email exposed in plaintext)..github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml+feature_request.yml: structured YAML issue forms. Bug report requires a minimal reproducer plus version/Python/backend/OS context; feature request prompts for use case, proposed API, and methodology references.BRIEFING.md: internal planning note from the docs-refresh initiative that was committed in error. Verified no references to it elsewhere in the repo.Together these populate the GitHub Community Standards checklist (security policy, code of conduct, issue templates).
Methodology references (required if estimator / math changes)
Validation
yaml.safe_load(10 + 6 body items).grep -r BRIEFINGconfirmed no remaining references after deletion.Security / privacy