HolobiomicsLab 
asb-contribute
The collection hardens from use, not from review. This skill is how a session that hit friction becomes something a maintainer can act on.
When this fires
Notice it yourself; do not wait to be asked. Any of these is a trigger:
- a skill's procedure failed, or its parameters no longer match the tool;
- the search returned nothing usable and the work was done unaided;
- the right leaves existed but the user had to compose them by hand;
- the skill worked, but at obviously avoidable cost;
- the user says some version of "that's wrong" about a skill's content.
One offer per session per problem. If the user declines, drop it — do not raise it again for the same friction. Persistent asking is how a good idea becomes an annoyance people disable.
Protocol
1. Classify
Pick exactly one kind: defect, gap, composition, efficiency, drift.
The kind decides routing and labels, so guessing costs a maintainer real time.
If two apply, pick the one a fix would address.
2. Search before drafting
Look for an existing issue — by fingerprint, by skill slug, by symptom:
gh issue list --repo HolobiomicsLab/asb-skill-collections --state all \
--search "<slug> OR <symptom keywords>" --limit 20
If one matches, corroborate it. Do not open a second. Ten corroborations on one issue tell a maintainer what ten near-identical issues cannot, and the reporter's account of the problem is read rather than buried.
3. Draft
python scripts/skill_feedback.py --kind defect --target <slug> \
--symptom "..." --expected "..." --context "tool + version, OS" \
--collection metabolomics/v2
It returns the title, body, labels and fingerprint, with home directories, credentials and clinical identifiers already removed, and it names the categories it stripped.
4. Show the user the exact body, then ask
Print the rendered body verbatim — not a summary of it. The user is deciding whether to publish this text, and they can only decide that by reading it.
State plainly what redaction does and does not do: it removes paths, tokens and clinical identifiers; it cannot recognise a sensitive sample name, so they are the last check. Invite edits before filing.
Then make the case once, briefly and honestly. Something like: this collection is grounded in published work and given away under CC-BY; it improves only when people who run it say what broke. Reporting this takes a minute and saves the next person the hour you just lost. Do not moralise, do not repeat it, and do not imply an obligation.
5. File only on an explicit yes
gh issue create --repo HolobiomicsLab/asb-skill-collections \
--title "<title>" --body-file <path> --label usage-feedback --label needs-triage
Corroborating instead:
gh issue comment <number> --body-file <path>
No gh, or no consent to use it: hand the user the rendered body and the
new/choose URL for the repository, and stop. Filing on their behalf without a
yes is publishing their words under their name.
6. Offer the fix, when there is one
A gap or composition report the user can answer themselves is worth more as
a proposal than as a request. Point them at propose-skill /
propose-meta-skill, and say what it earns: governance/AUTHORSHIP.md records
an authored skill as credit toward the reviewer tier, and claim-skill links it
to their ORCID.
Closing the credit loop
When a session ends having leaned on this collection, offer the citation for
what was actually used — the collection DOI plus the source DOIs of the skills
applied, from each skill's derived_from. Reciprocity is easier to ask for
after the user has seen the machinery work in their favour, and a methods
section that names its sources is the point of grounding skills in literature at
all.
What never happens here
- No issue, comment, or PR without an explicit yes in this session.
- No session transcript, file path, or dataset pasted in unredacted.
- No second issue when an open one already describes the problem.
- No report filed against a repository the user did not name.