[aaronpowell]

Pull Request Checklist

• I have read and followed the CONTRIBUTING.md guidelines.
• I have read and followed the Guidance for submissions involving paid services.
• My contribution adds a new instruction, prompt, agent, skill, workflow, or canvas extension file in the correct directory.
• The file follows the required naming convention.
• The content is clearly structured and follows the example format.
• I have tested my instructions, prompt, agent, skill, workflow, or canvas extension with GitHub Copilot.
• I have run npm start and verified that README.md is up to date.
• I am targeting the main branch for this pull request.

---

Description

Open PR Board suggestions can currently address the maintainer instead of the PR author, making direct posting confusing. This change explicitly separates public feedback from internal review advice.

A shared public-comment contract now applies to initial review prompts, re-review prompts, and the record_review action schema. It requires natural maintainer-to-author wording, concrete evidence, actionable changes or an evidence-backed decision, and preserved uncertainty. Maintainer instructions, board terminology, and invented claims of completed GitHub actions stay out of public comments; internal advice remains in fields such as rationale, risks, and checkNext.

The existing omitted/empty-comment convention remains intact. Review guidance includes examples, and regression coverage checks each prompt surface, including reviews with calibration and prior guidance.

---

Type of Contribution

• New instruction file.
• New prompt file.
• New agent file.
• New plugin.
• New skill file.
• New agentic workflow.
• New canvas extension.
• Update to existing instruction, prompt, agent, plugin, skill, workflow, or canvas extension.
• Other (please specify):

---

Additional Notes

Validation:

• node --test eng\open-pr-board.test.mjs eng\board-bulk-actions.test.mjs passed: 77 tests, 0 failures, 0 skipped. GitHub actions are exercised with in-process fakes.
• npm start passed after npm ci restored missing dependencies; generated tracked outputs were unchanged. The build reported existing external-plugin SPDX warnings.
• bash eng/fix-line-endings.sh passed.
• git --no-pager diff --check passed.

No live Copilot generation was evaluated: the tests verify prompt/schema contracts, not model-output quality. Existing stored suggestions are not rewritten; re-review a PR to regenerate them. No PR comments or reviews were posted during implementation.

The paid-services and new-file checklist items do not apply. Dependency restoration reported 4 audit findings (1 moderate, 3 high); dependency changes are outside this PR's scope.

---

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution abides by the Code of Conduct and will be licensed under the MIT License.

[github-actions]

🚦 Submission status: 👀 Ready for review

Risk tier: merge-risk:high — Privileged execution, automation, or review-policy change
Required to merge: passing submission-gate checks plus 1 approval from reviewers with write access, including a maintainer with admin or maintain permission.

Why this tier

• .github/extensions/open-pr-board/README.md is a high-risk path (automation, scripts, MCP config, hooks, or review policy)
• .github/extensions/open-pr-board/lib/review-prompt.mjs is a high-risk path (automation, scripts, MCP config, hooks, or review policy)
• .github/extensions/open-pr-board/review-guidance.md is a high-risk path (automation, scripts, MCP config, hooks, or review policy)
• eng/open-pr-board.test.mjs is a high-risk path (automation, scripts, MCP config, hooks, or review policy)

Automated checks

Check	Status	Details
Line endings	✅ Passed	Passed · logs
Spelling	✅ Passed	Passed · logs
Contributor reputation	✅ Passed	Passed · logs
Duplicate resource scan	✅ Passed	Passed · logs
PR quality signal	✅ Passed	Passed · logs

Review

• Approvals: 0/1
• Assigned reviewer: not assigned yet — comment /request-review to ask for one
• Review target date: not set
• Still needed: 1 more approval(s); an approval from a maintainer with admin or maintain permission
• The core-maintainers pool is not staffed yet; an approver with admin or maintain permission is required instead.

Commands

Command	Who	What it does
/rerun-checks	PR author, maintainers	Re-runs failed or incomplete checks and re-evaluates this gate
/request-review	PR author, maintainers	Asks the review rotation to assign a reviewer (adds needs-reviewer)

_{Updated for 6c4bdfa · gate run · This comment is maintained automatically — see submission gate docs.}

[github-actions]

🟡 Contributor Reputation Check: MEDIUM risk

Check	Risk
Profile	MEDIUM
Credential audit	NONE

Maintainers: please review this contributor before merging.
See the workflow run for full details.
Automated check powered by AGT.

[Copilot]

🔵 Needs a closer look

Maintainer review is needed to confirm the board instructions and public wording proposed under their identity, since validation covers prompt/schema contracts but not live Copilot output.

No open issues 🎉

What changed in this PR

This PR updates Open PR Board’s review guidance so suggested comments address PR authors directly and keep maintainer-only advice in internal fields.

Changes:

• Shares a public-comment contract across initial reviews, re-reviews, and the record_review schema.
• Documents post-ready wording, preserved uncertainty, and optional empty comments, with examples.
• Adds regression checks for prompt and schema requirements; model-output quality remains unevaluated.

File	Description
eng/​open-pr-board.test.mjs	Checks the shared comment contract and optional-comment behavior.
.github/​extensions/​open-pr-board/​review-guidance.md	Separates public feedback from internal advice and adds examples.
.github/​extensions/​open-pr-board/​README.md	Documents comment expectations and regeneration of stored suggestions.
.github/​extensions/​open-pr-board/​lib/​review-prompt.mjs	Applies shared public-comment guidance to prompts and schema descriptions.

_{Review effort: Balanced (auto)}