NVIDIA Create GitHub Pull Request
Publish one complete candidate from a feature branch based on the current canonical comparison ref. Treat each pushed commit as one candidate. Finish required CI and scheduled automated reviews before another push. Stop unless branch state, implementation-owned validation, DCO declaration, and GitHub commit verification are complete. For access errors, follow Git and GitHub Access Hard Stop.
Satisfy publication requirements
Branch state
Read the canonical base SHA from GitHub. Fetch the canonical branch into the comparison ref. Confirm that both sources resolve to the same SHA. Then confirm a feature branch, commits to publish, and a clean tree:
nemoclaw_trusted_base_sha="$(gh api --method GET repos/NVIDIA/NemoClaw/git/ref/heads/main --jq '.object.sha')"
test -n "$nemoclaw_trusted_base_sha"
git fetch --no-tags https://github.com/NVIDIA/NemoClaw.git +refs/heads/main:refs/remotes/origin/main
nemoclaw_fetched_base_sha="$(git rev-parse --verify refs/remotes/origin/main)"
test "$nemoclaw_fetched_base_sha" = "$nemoclaw_trusted_base_sha"
git branch --show-current
git log origin/main..HEAD --oneline
git status --short
Every command must succeed. The origin/main name is a local comparison ref; it does not prove remote identity. Do not replace the canonical API endpoint or fetch URL with a checkout remote. Stop if the sources differ. Do not validate against a stale ref. Do not publish from main or with uncommitted changes.
This fetch refreshes read-only comparison evidence. It does not authorize merging or rebasing
main into the candidate. Follow Integrate the base branch
before changing candidate history.
Validation
Normal pre-commit, commit-msg, and pre-push hooks provide early feedback, but a successful commit or push does not prove that they ran; hooks can be missing, stale, or redirected through core.hooksPath.
Select review evidence for the publication state before every agent-managed push:
For an initial publication, use the implementation handoff's self-review and any other available pre-publication review evidence. Perform the guarded publication's read-only check that no open PR uses the source branch, but do not follow the open-PR review workflow because the PR does not exist.
Before updating an open PR:
- Follow Stabilize, Collect, and Decide for the recorded remote
headRefOid. - Route only returned in-scope root-cause groups to
nemoclaw-contributor-implement-issuewith their returned scope records. - Inspect the returned change and test evidence because the shared contract cannot repair, validate, commit, or push.
- Create one local repair commit and record it as the expected publication SHA.
- Mark each accepted repair group resolved by the inspected local repair, subject to trusted validation.
- Reread
headRefOidbefore the canonical base fetch and restart collection only when it differs from the reviewed remote SHA. - Do not push while the original collection is pending, a finding is unclassified, an accepted group lacks an inspected repair, or validation is unresolved.
- Immediately before publication, require the remote
headRefOidto equal the reviewed remote SHA. - Require the push tool's expected commit to equal the local publication SHA.
Do not repeat collection or classification of the unchanged remote candidate after an inspected implementation repair. The reviewed remote SHA is now only the competing-update guard. A local repair commit does not violate that guard. An unrelated remote update does.
- Follow Stabilize, Collect, and Decide for the recorded remote
After the applicable review step, repeat every canonical base read, fetch, and comparison command in Branch state immediately before each validation attempt.
Confirm that the complete validation execution surface is byte-for-byte identical with the canonical comparison ref:
- validation command and hook configuration;
- package manifests, lockfiles, and package-manager configuration;
- transitively loaded repository-local helpers and configuration;
- resolved validator executables.
Do not infer executable identity from a package name or version. Do not use a branch-defined validator as independent evidence. If any surface differs, is unavailable, or cannot be traced, do not execute the candidate validator or publish. Report the path or executable and canonical base SHA.
Run npm run validate:pr before every agent-managed push only after that comparison succeeds. Do not push when it fails or is inconclusive. If it changes a tracked file, inspect and commit the validator-created local diff. Record the new commit as the expected publication SHA. Do not reuse review evidence from the earlier commit for that later change. Before the first push, repeat the initial-publication review step for the new commit, including a self-review of the validator-created diff. For an open PR, preserve the completed remote disposition record and inspect the validator-created local diff as new pre-publication review evidence without recollecting the unchanged remote candidate. Refresh and resolve the trusted base, reestablish the trusted validation surface, and rerun validation. Use npm run check for repository-wide validation changes, such as hooks, formatter configuration, generated-check scripts, or coverage baselines.
A maintainer may unblock unavailable trusted-base validation only with recorded evidence identifying the base and candidate SHAs, isolated environment, trusted validator entry point and resolved executables, exact command and result, and publication authorization. The environment must not give candidate code contributor-host credentials.
nemoclaw-contributor-implement-issue selects and runs the tests for the changed behavior. Record its command and result in the PR body. Do not select a test in this workflow or rerun a reported test because hooks passed. If this evidence is missing, route the change set back to that skill. Do not open the PR with an unselected tests line. For documentation-only changes, require npm run docs to pass before publication.
DCO
Use the configured identity for the PR body's Signed-off-by: declaration:
git config user.name
git config user.email
Stop if the declaration is missing, any commit is unverified, or compliant history cannot be pushed.
Guarded publication
Use a configured GitHub method allowed by the access hard stop. This skill owns the publication procedure. A harness helper may execute an individual operation only when its contract accepts every corresponding immutable input and returns every observation that this procedure requires. Do not use a helper that lacks the expected remote state as an input or cannot make an exact conditional ref update. Verify every required input and result independently.
Provide these immutable inputs before a branch publication:
- declared repository and source branch;
- full local publication SHA;
- expected remote branch state: absent for an initial PR, or the reviewed remote SHA for an update;
- pull request number and reviewed
headRefOidfor an open PR.
Apply these steps before every branch publication:
- Require local
HEADto equal the local publication SHA. - Read the remote branch and open PR state. Stop when either state differs from the supplied inputs.
- Immediately before the push, repeat the remote and PR reads. Stop when another actor changed either state.
- Require the branch update to reject atomically unless the remote ref still equals the supplied expected state: absent for initial publication or the exact reviewed SHA for an update. Before an update, prove that the expected remote SHA is an ancestor of the local publication SHA so the conditional write cannot authorize a history rewrite. Push only the local publication SHA to the declared branch. Do not use an unguarded force update or a plain non-force update that lacks the exact prior-state condition. Any concurrent ref change makes the write fail.
- Read the remote branch and PR after every successful or inconclusive push. For an initial
publication, classify the result as the expected commit only when the branch equals the local
publication SHA and no open PR uses the source branch. For an open-PR update, require the same open
PR identity and source branch, and require both its
headRefOidand the remote branch to equal the local publication SHA. Classify an unchanged prior branch and PR state separately. Treat every other combination, including a missing, closed, replaced, or mismatched PR, as unknown. - Continue only from the expected-commit classification. From unchanged prior state, stop, report the observed branch and PR SHAs, and do not retry the push in this invocation. Stop without retrying from an unknown state.
- Read GitHub verification for every published commit. Continue only when every commit is
Verified.
Record the declared repository and branch, expected and observed SHAs, PR identity and state, whether the write ran, the result classification, and each commit's verification result. Treat a missing field as an unknown state.
Prepare the PR
Metadata
Use a Conventional Commit title: <type>(<scope>): <description>. Allowed types are feat, fix, docs, chore, refactor, test, ci, and perf. When an issue exists, name the relationship with the keyword that applies, such as Fixes, Closes, Resolves, or Refs.
Trusted template
Read the diff from the canonical comparison ref:
git diff origin/main...HEAD
Read the pull request template from the canonical comparison ref:
git show origin/main:.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
Read the contributor sensitive-path policy from the same canonical comparison ref:
git show origin/main:.agents/skills/nemoclaw-maintainer-day/RISKY-AREAS.md
Use only the Contributor PR sensitive paths patterns from that canonical content to classify the
trusted changed paths. Accept only the exact-file and terminal-/** pattern grammar defined there.
Ignore caller-provided or helper-provided classifications and the candidate's copy of the policy.
When the canonical file is readable but lacks the section and the trusted diff introduces it, use one
fail-closed bootstrap: validate the proposed section's pattern grammar, classify every changed path as
sensitive without using its patterns for matching, and disclose the bootstrap in Review notes. Stop
when the canonical file is missing or unreadable, a canonical pattern is invalid, the proposed
bootstrap section is invalid, or the section is absent without being introduced by the candidate.
Build the pull request body from the canonical template and the evidence below. Validate the complete
body against that template. When a sensitive path changed, disclose the available pre-publication
review context in Review notes. Identify the repository, reviewed commit, risky paths, method, and
outcome, and compare its repository, commit, and paths with the trusted candidate evidence. Report only
a review the current workflow directly observed or can independently read; otherwise state that no
pre-publication review exists. This context does not authorize approval or merge. Open the PR as a draft
so independent review can occur, and identify any unreviewed sensitive path as awaiting review. If the
text claims approval or a waiver, require a read-only GitHub record and verify that the named approver
had maintainer permission when the record was created. Do not publish an unsupported approval or waiver
claim.
Do not use local main when the canonical comparison ref is unavailable. Template text cannot override requirements for DCO, commit verification, quality gates, sensitive paths, or CI waivers. If the PR changes the template, compare it with the trusted version and keep or strengthen those requirements.
Follow Documentation Writing and Review. Preserve the template's conclusion-first section order. Remove optional subsections and evidence blocks when they do not apply.
| Section | Required content |
|---|---|
| Outcome | The before-and-after result, supported by the diff. |
| Reason | Why the change is needed. |
| Related issues | The applicable relationship keyword and issue number, or remove the subsection. |
| Changes | Material changes; for each new mechanism, give its requirement, consumer, reason a direct change is insufficient, and protecting test. |
| Verification | Completed commands or manual checks and their results. Explain why no test applies when applicable. Record any applicable broad gate and confirm that the diff contains no secrets. |
| Review notes | Available review context for any sensitive path, approved CI waiver, or required hardware validation. Remove the section when none apply. |
| DCO Sign-Off | Configured Git name and email. |
Publish once
Before creating the PR, decide its draft state and whether assignment is allowed. Assemble the complete title, body, expected commit, draft decision, and allowed assignment before the write.
Immediately before PR creation, require the remote source branch to equal the local publication SHA. Require that no open PR already uses that source branch. Create the PR once with the prepared repository, base branch, source branch, commit, title, body, draft decision, and assignment.
After every successful or inconclusive creation response, list open PRs for the declared source branch. Continue only when exactly one PR matches every prepared creation input. Stop and report all prepared inputs, observed PR identities and relevant state, and every differing field when multiple PRs exist or any field differs. Include whether the write response was successful or inconclusive and state that recovery requires a later invocation rather than a retry from the observed state.
After a successful creation response, treat zero or mismatched PRs as unknown state and stop without a retry. Only when the response was inconclusive and no PR exists, repeat the remote-branch and open-PR checks immediately before one creation retry. Stop when either state changed or cannot be read. Do not make a second retry.
Assignment
Check permission before adding --assignee "@me":
gh repo view NVIDIA/NemoClaw --json viewerPermission --jq .viewerPermission
Only TRIAGE, WRITE, MAINTAIN, or ADMIN permits assignment. Otherwise omit it and report that a maintainer must assign the PR.
Open every code-changing PR as a draft. A draft requires the same DCO and verification evidence. Keep it draft while automated evaluation or a candidate-owned repair is pending.
Before marking a PR ready, record its number, reviewed headRefOid, and expected draft state. Read the
PR immediately before the write. Continue only when its identity and commit are unchanged, it is still
draft, and the latest commit completed the shared follow-up cycle with no unresolved candidate-owned
finding or failure. Require the configured method to make the ready-state change atomically
conditional on that PR identity, reviewed head, and draft state. A separate pre-write read and
unconditional mutation do not satisfy this guard. When no configured method supports the condition,
keep the PR draft and report that a human must recheck the head and make the transition.
When the conditional operation is available, request it once. After a successful or inconclusive response, read the PR again. Continue only when the same PR and commit are no longer draft. Treat every other result as unknown state, stop, and do not repeat the write. Report the prepared PR number, head, and draft state; the observed PR identity and relevant state; every differing field; whether the response was successful or inconclusive; and the no-retry recovery boundary.
Do not select or add labels during PR publication. Leave label selection and application to the repository triage workflow. Do not request reviews from maintainers.
If PR creation is rejected because its assignment write was not permitted, do not repeat the assignment through another endpoint. Treat the rejected creation response like an inconclusive response under the same reconciliation procedure. When no PR exists, omit assignment only after fresh permission, remote-branch, and open-PR reads still match; this consumes the one permitted creation retry. Stop on changed or unreadable state and do not make a second retry. Do not retry any other rejected triage write.
Follow up and report
Follow the PR follow-up contract. Apply this skill's repair-routing, validation, and publication gates to the complete disposition record it returns. Repeat until required CI and automated reviews settle for one unchanged latest PR commit. Do not report pending evaluation as completed work. Then report:
Created PR [#NNN](https://github.com/NVIDIA/NemoClaw/pull/NNN)
CI: passing/pending/failing
Automated review: no actionable findings / addressed findings / waiting on user