Apollo Contributor Promotion Review

Use this skill to run a quarterly Apollo contributor promotion review. It scans recent activity across apolloconfig, ranks the top contributors, backfills historical evidence, and produces an internal report for governance decisions.

Path notes:

• Assume SKILL_ROOT points to this skill directory.
• Example: export SKILL_ROOT=/path/to/apollo-contributor-promotion-review

Defaults

• organization: apolloconfig
• lookback window: 100 days
• ranking size: top 10
• primary data sources:
  • GitHub GraphQL search for recent PRs and issues
  • GitHub REST search for top-candidate historical evidence
  • apolloconfig/apollo docs/en/community/team.md for PMC / committer detection
  • apolloconfig/apollo-community membership request issues for member detection
• default policy file: $SKILL_ROOT/references/review-policy.example.json
• optional role override file: --role-overrides /path/to/role-overrides.json

Workflow

1. Review the policy inputs.
   • Use the default policy unless the user explicitly wants a different repo scope, lookback window, or score weights.
   • Use a role override file when the public GitHub data is known to be incomplete for members, committers, PMC, aliases, or ignore rules.
2. Run the scan.

   python3 "$SKILL_ROOT/scripts/contributor_promotion_review.py" \
     scan \
     --policy-file "$SKILL_ROOT/references/review-policy.example.json" \
     --pretty > /path/to/scan.json
   

3. Render the internal report.

   python3 "$SKILL_ROOT/scripts/contributor_promotion_review.py" \
     summarize \
     --scan-file /path/to/scan.json
   

4. Review the recommendations manually before taking action.
   • Member means the evidence is strong enough to consider sending a membership invitation flow, but 2FA and sponsorship remain manual checks.
   • Committer discussion means the candidate looks ready for a PMC nomination discussion, not that the promotion should happen automatically.
   • Candidate for PMC discussion means the candidate looks strong enough for internal PMC consideration, not that the vote has happened.
   • Continue observing means the skill found useful evidence but not enough for a promotion recommendation.

Output Rules

• Prefer the markdown report for user-facing output.
• Keep absolute dates in the report so the review window is explicit.
• Show 3 to 5 evidence links per ranked contributor.
• Preserve the conservative recommendation style:
  • only recommend Member when the evidence is clearly above threshold
  • only recommend Committer discussion for recognized members
  • only recommend Candidate for PMC discussion for recognized committers
  • route everyone else to Continue observing

Safety Rules

• Never auto-post issue comments, PR comments, or discussions from this skill.
• Never create membership requests, committer nominations, PMC nominations, or team-list PRs unless the user asks for a separate follow-up task.
• Treat 2FA, internal voting, contribution difficulty, and private governance context as manual checks.
• If GitHub data is incomplete or ambiguous, keep the recommendation conservative and list the missing evidence in blockers.

Resources

scripts/

• contributor_promotion_review.py: fetches GitHub data, aggregates recent contributions, enriches top candidates with historical evidence, and renders a markdown report.

references/

• review-policy.example.json: default scoring, scope, and threshold policy for quarterly reviews.
• role-overrides.example.json: optional manual overrides for known members, committers, PMC, aliases, or ignored logins.