openclaw-pr-maintainer

Guide maintainer-grade triage and evidence-gated decisions for OpenClaw pull requests.

Updated Apr 8, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/JOHNNYWHITEMIKE/openclaw --skill openclaw-pr-maintainer-johnnywhitemike
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: openclaw-pr-maintainer
Source: https://github.com/JOHNNYWHITEMIKE/openclaw/tree/main/openclaw/.openclaw/openclaw/.agents/skills/openclaw-pr-maintainer
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/JOHNNYWHITEMIKE/openclaw --skill openclaw-pr-maintainer-johnnywhitemike

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

This Skill helps maintainers review and decide on OpenClaw pull requests and related issues safely, with correct labeling, strong evidence standards, and proper GitHub workflow hygiene.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Labeling and auto-close alignment: Apply the right r:* and other labels so repository automation handles commenting, closing, locking, and related flows.
  • Evidence-gated bug-fix decisions: Enforce a strict bar requiring symptom evidence, verified root cause with code location, touched code paths, and regression testing (or an explicit rationale when testing is not feasible).
  • Safe GitHub comment and landing practices: Prepare maintainer-style PR/issue actions and comments while avoiding unsafe newline/escaping patterns and ensuring landing guidance follows the global process.
  • Broad search before action: Use GitHub search across titles/bodies/comments and ensure searches are not prematurely capped when triage requires depth.
  • Landing hygiene: Follow landing/merge conventions (including the /landpr process) and prefer scoped commit tooling like scripts/committer.

Quick Start

Use the openclaw-pr-maintainer skill when you are preparing an OpenClaw PR for merge or closure and need maintainer-grade triage, evidence validation, and safe GitHub workflow actions.

Frequently Asked Questions about openclaw-pr-maintainer

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I validate bug-fix evidence for a pull request before merging?

Bug-fix validation requires gating a pull request on strict evidence: symptom proof, verified root cause with code location, touched code paths, and regression testing rationale. This ensures safe merges by preventing unverified fixes from landing.

What is the correct way to apply r:* labels for GitHub pull request triage?

Correct pull request triage requires applying specific r:* labels so repository automation manages commenting, closing, and locking flows. Proper label alignment triggers automated GitHub workflows, reducing manual maintainer overhead during issue resolution.

How do I prepare a GitHub pull request for a safe merge and landing process?

Safe pull request landing requires following merge conventions like the /landpr process and using scoped commit tooling. Maintainers must construct multiline comments safely, avoiding unsafe newline patterns, to ensure clean repository history.

Why does GitHub search need to be broad before closing a duplicate pull request?

Broad GitHub search across titles, bodies, and comments is required before duplicate auto-close determinations. Prematurely capping search depth risks missing related issues, leading to incorrect duplicate labeling and improper pull request closures.

What are the limitations of automated bug-fix validation in pull request triage?

Bug-fix validation cannot bypass strict evidence gating even when testing is infeasible. Maintainers must provide an explicit rationale for missing regression tests, ensuring automated triage does not merge unverified code paths.

Can I use scoped commit tooling like scripts/committer for OpenClaw PR landing?

Scoped commit tooling like scripts/committer is preferred for OpenClaw pull request landing. Using these tools ensures commit history adheres to landing hygiene conventions and integrates properly with the global /landpr process.