Essential session storage is required to sign in. Optional analytics remain off unless you allow them.
Practice the AUTHOR side. Take a non-trivial change and prepare it for review the right way: keep it SMALL and focused (one logical change — split if needed, or describe how you'd stack it), write a clear description (what AND why, with context/screenshots), and do a documented SELF-REVIEW of your own diff first. Then either solicit a real review or simulate a thorough one, and respond to every comment professionally — resolving, addressing, or pushing back WITH reasoning (and deferring gracefully where the reviewer is right). Write a short reflection on how PR size and description quality affected the review you got.
Small/focused (or a clear split/stacking plan); clear what+why description with context; a real documented self-review first.
Every comment engaged professionally; pushes back with reasoning or defers gracefully; no defensiveness; comments resolved.
Connects PR size/description quality to review speed and quality; shows author-side ownership.
Use this README structure to make the work reviewable.
DevPath fetches a read-only, size-capped snapshot. Submitted code is never executed.
# Author a reviewable PR + handle feedback ## Goal Practice the AUTHOR side. Take a non-trivial change and prepare it for review the right way: keep it SMALL and focused (one logical change — split if needed, or describe how you'd stack it), write a clear description (what AND why, with context/screenshots), and do a documented SELF-REVIEW of your own diff first. Then either solicit a real review or simulate a thorough one, and respond to every comment professionally — resolving, addressing, or pushing back WITH reasoning (and deferring gracefully where the reviewer is right). Write a short reflection on how PR size and description quality affected the review you got. ## Acceptance criteria - [ ] Reviewable PR: Small/focused (or a clear split/stacking plan); clear what+why description with context; a real documented self-review first. - [ ] Handling feedback: Every comment engaged professionally; pushes back with reasoning or defers gracefully; no defensiveness; comments resolved. - [ ] Reflection: Connects PR size/description quality to review speed and quality; shows author-side ownership. ## Verification - [ ] Document installation and run commands. - [ ] Record automated checks and their exact commands. - [ ] Add representative output, screenshots, or a short demo where useful. - [ ] Confirm failure paths and known constraints. ## Decision log ### Decision title - Context: - Choice: - Alternatives considered: - Tradeoffs: ## Evidence - Link each rubric criterion to the file, test, or artifact that demonstrates it. ## Known limitations - List what is intentionally out of scope and what should be improved next.