Collaboration

This page defines how contributors should collaborate in a shared repository, whether the other contributor is a human teammate or an automation tool.

Shared-Tree Workflow

        flowchart LR
    Start["Start work"] --> Status["Check git status"]
    Status --> Dirty{"Dirty or shared worktree?"}
    Dirty -- "No" --> Scope["Confirm task scope and contracts"]
    Dirty -- "Yes" --> ReRead["Re-read active files and identify unrelated changes"]
    ReRead --> Conflict{"Direct conflict?"}
    Conflict -- "Yes" --> Coordinate["Pause and coordinate before editing"]
    Conflict -- "No" --> Scope
    Scope --> Edit["Make focused edits"]
    Edit --> Contract{"Changed shared contract?"}
    Contract -- "Yes" --> Update["Update tests, docs, and handoff notes"]
    Contract -- "No" --> Validate["Run required validation"]
    Update --> Validate
    Validate --> Handoff["Share summary, contracts, validation, and follow-ups"]
    

        flowchart LR
    Start["开始工作"] --> Status["检查 git status"]
    Status --> Dirty{"是否为脏工作树或共享工作树?"}
    Dirty -- "否" --> Scope["确认任务范围与共享契约"]
    Dirty -- "是" --> ReRead["重读活跃文件并识别无关改动"]
    ReRead --> Conflict{"是否存在直接冲突?"}
    Conflict -- "是" --> Coordinate["暂停编辑并先协调"]
    Conflict -- "否" --> Scope
    Scope --> Edit["进行聚焦编辑"]
    Edit --> Contract{"是否修改了共享契约?"}
    Contract -- "是" --> Update["同步更新测试、文档与交接说明"]
    Contract -- "否" --> Validate["运行所需验证"]
    Update --> Validate
    Validate --> Handoff["共享摘要、契约、验证与后续事项"]
    

This is the default collaboration path when more than one contributor or tool may touch the tree.

Shared-Tree Discipline

• Start by checking the current worktree state before large edits.

• Treat unrelated local changes as owned by someone else unless you have clear evidence they are disposable.

• Do not use destructive git commands to discard changes you did not make.

• Re-read files that are actively changing before editing them, especially large route handlers, shared utilities, and docs entry points.

Before You Edit

• Decide whether the task is one concern or several. Split branches or PRs when the work mixes behavior changes, refactors, and contributor-workflow updates.

• Identify the shared contracts you might change before editing. Schema, env vars, route shapes, tool names, persisted client keys, and contributor commands all need explicit follow-through.

• Decide which validation commands and documentation updates will be required before you start writing code.

Scope Discipline

• Keep each branch or PR focused on one engineering concern.

• Separate refactors from behavior changes unless the refactor is required to make the behavior change safe.

• Keep migrations, environment-variable changes, and API contract changes explicit rather than hiding them inside broad cleanup diffs.

• Keep generated artifacts that are required by the source change, such as migrations or .po updates, in the same change so reviewers can validate the full contract shift.

Shared Contracts

Coordinate carefully when changing any of these repository-wide contracts:

• Database schema and migrations

• Environment variables and startup assumptions

• API request and response shapes

• Tool names, tool privilege levels, and skill contracts

• Persisted client/session keys such as localStorage-backed agent state

• Documentation entry points used by contributors

When you change a shared contract:

• update the relevant docs in the same change

• update tests for the contract boundary

• call out the change in the PR or handoff summary

Reviewability

• Use descriptive branch names and Conventional Commits.

• Prefer reviewable patches over large mixed diffs.

• Include the exact verification commands you ran and the result you observed.

• For UI or workflow changes, include screenshots, short recordings, or precise reproduction notes when practical.

Review And Handoff Checklist

Before asking for review or handing work to another contributor, include:

• what changed and the user-facing or maintainer-facing impact

• which shared contracts, migrations, or risky files deserve extra review

• the exact validation commands you ran and the result you observed

• any known follow-ups, rollout steps, or unresolved risks

Use a compact handoff format when possible:

Summary:
Contracts:
Validation:
Follow-ups:

Example Handoff

Summary: Added repository and agent contribution flow diagrams to the development docs.
Contracts: Contributor guidance changed in AGENTS.md and docs/development/*.md; translation catalogs refreshed.
Validation: npm run lint; npm test; NEXT_TELEMETRY_DISABLED=1 npm run build; sphinx-build en/zh with -W --keep-going.
Follow-ups: Translate newly added Chinese msgstr entries if localized docs need complete coverage.

Human And Automation Collaboration

• Point automation tools at AGENTS.md before asking them to edit the repository.

• Give automation bounded tasks with clear file or subsystem scope.

• Review generated diffs with the same skepticism you would apply to a human contribution.

• Re-run validation after automation work instead of trusting success claims from the tool.

• If an automation task changes contributor workflow, docs, or architecture boundaries, make sure the human reviewer sees those changes first.

• Tell automation what is out of bounds, which contracts are sensitive, and which verification commands are required before it starts editing.

• Treat automation summaries as hints, not truth. The reviewer is still responsible for the final contract, risk, and verification checks.

Documentation And Translation Workflow

• English Markdown source files are the documentation source of truth.

• When English docs change, refresh .po files so translation drift is visible immediately.

• Keep repository-level contributor guidance aligned across AGENTS.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, and docs/development/.

When To Stop And Coordinate

Pause and coordinate before proceeding if:

• another contributor’s changes directly conflict with your task

• you need to rewrite a shared contract used by multiple subsystems

• you are unsure whether a local-only directory is actually being treated as source by someone else’s workflow

• a migration or execution-path change could break existing environments without a clear rollout path