gleanwork Code Owners
Identify who owns, maintains, or has expertise in a specific code area.
Determine the component or codebase area from the user's request. If not specified, ask before proceeding.
Core Principles
- Multi-signal identification: Code + docs + org structure = complete picture
- Recency matters: Active maintainers are more useful than historical authors
- Be skeptical: Just having commits doesn't mean they're the right contact
- Quality over quantity: 2-3 right people beats 10 tangential names
Process
Phase 1: Find Recent Contributors
Search for who's been actively working on this code:
code_search "[component] owner:* updated:past_month"
code_search "[component] from:* updated:past_3_months"
Phase 2: Find Historical Authors
Look for original authors and significant contributors:
code_search "[component] owner:* after:2023-01-01"
Phase 3: Find Related Documentation Authors
People who wrote the docs often have deep knowledge:
search "[component] design doc OR architecture owner:*"
search "[component] RFC owner:*"
Phase 4: Cross-Reference with Org Info
Get current roles and contact info:
employee_search "[contributor names]"
Phase 5: Vet Each Candidate
For each person found, evaluate:
| Test | ✅ Active Owner | ⚠️ Consider | ❌ Reject |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Multiple commits in past 3 months, reviews PRs | Occasional activity, still relevant | Single commit, tangential involvement |
| Relevance | Same team, same area | Changed teams but retains context | Left company, completely different area |
| Knowledge | Wrote design docs, significant PRs, in CODEOWNERS | Regular contributor, knows the code | Minor commits, typo fixes |
| Contact | Owns the code, expects questions | Knowledgeable but busy/senior — suggest alternatives first | Would be surprised to be contacted |
Phase 6: Present Vetted Ownership Map
# Code Ownership: [Component]
## Vetting Summary
| Candidates Found | Active Owners | Historical | Rejected |
|------------------|---------------|------------|----------|
| [X] | [Y] | [Z] | [W] |
## Primary Contacts (Recommended)
### 1. [Name] — [Title]
**Confidence**: High
- **Why**: Most active contributor, [X] commits in past month
- **Good for**: Day-to-day questions, PR reviews
- **Last active**: [date]
- **Contact**: [email]
## Secondary Contacts
| Name | Role | Why Secondary | Contact |
|------|------|---------------|---------|
| [Name] | [Title] | Moved to [team] but retains context | [email] |
## Historical Contributors
| Name | Contribution | Current Role | Last Active |
|------|--------------|--------------|-------------|
| [Name] | Original author | Now on [team] | [date] |
## Team Ownership
- **Team**: [team name]
- **Manager**: [name]
- **Slack channel**: [channel] (may be faster than individual outreach)
## Rejected Candidates
| Name | Reason |
|------|--------|
| [Name] | Single commit — typo fix only |
| [Name] | Left company |
If No Clear Owners Found
# Code Ownership: [Component]
## Ownership Unclear
Could not identify clear owners for this component.
**Possible explanations:**
- Ownership may be implicit within a team
- Code may be unmaintained/legacy
**Suggested next steps:**
1. Check the repository's CODEOWNERS or MAINTAINERS file directly
2. Look at recent PR reviewers as a proxy
3. Ask in [relevant Slack channel]