CalvinBackup/gstack
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git synced 2026-05-01 19:25:10 +02:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

fix: remove PR size nagging from /retro (v0.9.4.1) (#264)

Browse Source 
The retro template no longer flags XL PRs as problems or recommends
splitting them. PR size distribution is still reported as neutral data.

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Garry Tan
2026-03-20 19:42:28 -07:00
committed by GitHub
parent 9811ed37bf
commit 1f4b6fd7a2
4 changed files with 13 additions and 9 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
CHANGELOG.md
+6
View File
@@ -1,5 +1,11 @@
# Changelog
## [0.9.4.1] - 2026-03-20
### Changed
- **`/retro` no longer nags about PR size.** The retro still reports PR size distribution (Small/Medium/Large/XL) as neutral data, but no longer flags XL PRs as problems or recommends splitting them. AI reviews don't fatigue — the unit of work is the feature, not the diff.
## [0.9.4.0] - 2026-03-20 — Codex Reviews On By Default
### Changed
VERSION
+1 -1
View File
@@ -1 +1 @@
0.9.4.0
0.9.4.1
retro/SKILL.md
+3 -4
View File
@@ -435,7 +435,7 @@ From commit diffs, estimate PR sizes and bucket them:
- **Small** (<100 LOC)
- **Medium** (100-500 LOC)
- **Large** (500-1500 LOC)
- **XL** (1500+ LOC) — flag these with file counts
- **XL** (1500+ LOC)
### Step 8: Focus Score + Ship of the Week
@@ -627,14 +627,13 @@ Narrative interpreting what the team-wide patterns mean:
Narrative covering:
- Commit type mix and what it reveals
- PR size discipline (are PRs staying small?)
- PR size distribution and what it reveals about shipping cadence
- Fix-chain detection (sequences of fix commits on the same subsystem)
- Version bump discipline
### Code Quality Signals
- Test LOC ratio trend
- Hotspot analysis (are the same files churning?)
- Any XL PRs that should have been split
- Greptile signal ratio and trend (if history exists): "Greptile: X% signal (Y valid catches, Z false positives)"
### Test Health
@@ -673,7 +672,7 @@ For each teammate (sorted by commits descending), write a section:
- "Fixed the N+1 query that was causing 2s load times on the dashboard"
- **Opportunity for growth**: 1 specific, constructive suggestion. Frame as investment, not criticism. Examples:
- "Test coverage on the payment module is at 8% — worth investing in before the next feature lands on top of it"
- "3 of the 5 PRs were 800+ LOC — breaking these up would catch issues earlier and make review easier"
- "Most commits land in a single burst — spacing work across the day could reduce context-switching fatigue"
- "All commits land between 1-4am — sustainable pace matters for code quality long-term"
**AI collaboration note:** If many commits have `Co-Authored-By` AI trailers (e.g., Claude, Copilot), note the AI-assisted commit percentage as a team metric. Frame it neutrally — "N% of commits were AI-assisted" — without judgment.
retro/SKILL.md.tmpl
+3 -4
View File
@@ -231,7 +231,7 @@ From commit diffs, estimate PR sizes and bucket them:
- **Small** (<100 LOC)
- **Medium** (100-500 LOC)
- **Large** (500-1500 LOC)
- **XL** (1500+ LOC) — flag these with file counts
- **XL** (1500+ LOC)
### Step 8: Focus Score + Ship of the Week
@@ -423,14 +423,13 @@ Narrative interpreting what the team-wide patterns mean:
Narrative covering:
- Commit type mix and what it reveals
- PR size discipline (are PRs staying small?)
- PR size distribution and what it reveals about shipping cadence
- Fix-chain detection (sequences of fix commits on the same subsystem)
- Version bump discipline
### Code Quality Signals
- Test LOC ratio trend
- Hotspot analysis (are the same files churning?)
- Any XL PRs that should have been split
- Greptile signal ratio and trend (if history exists): "Greptile: X% signal (Y valid catches, Z false positives)"
### Test Health
@@ -469,7 +468,7 @@ For each teammate (sorted by commits descending), write a section:
- "Fixed the N+1 query that was causing 2s load times on the dashboard"
- **Opportunity for growth**: 1 specific, constructive suggestion. Frame as investment, not criticism. Examples:
- "Test coverage on the payment module is at 8% — worth investing in before the next feature lands on top of it"
- "3 of the 5 PRs were 800+ LOC — breaking these up would catch issues earlier and make review easier"
- "Most commits land in a single burst — spacing work across the day could reduce context-switching fatigue"
- "All commits land between 1-4am — sustainable pace matters for code quality long-term"
**AI collaboration note:** If many commits have `Co-Authored-By` AI trailers (e.g., Claude, Copilot), note the AI-assisted commit percentage as a team metric. Frame it neutrally — "N% of commits were AI-assisted" — without judgment.