Sprr

SPRR: Single PR Reviewer

Review one pull request that adds entries to README.md.

Hard Rules

1. Review only the PR number the user requested. If no PR number is given, ask for one.
2. Use GitHub MCP tools for PR operations. Do not use gh for PR review, comments, labels, closing, or merging.
3. Do not modify the PR until the user explicitly approves that action.
4. Always present findings before asking whether to comment, label, close, or merge.
5. Always ask before merging.
6. Enforce CONTRIBUTING.md and AGENTS.md strictly for new entries, using the sentence-count interpretation in the Validation Checklist below.
7. Both Validate PR and PR Review must pass before returning APPROVE.

If GitHub MCP tools are unavailable, report that PR operations are blocked and point the user to docs/codex-setup.md.

Workflow

1. Fetch PR details, current head SHA, files changed, labels, comments, and diff with GitHub MCP.
2. Confirm whether the reviewed label or prior maintainer comments exist, then proceed with full validation anyway.
3. Fetch the latest Validate PR workflow/check attempt for the current head SHA and apply the CI evidence rules below.
4. Fetch the latest PR Review workflow/check attempt associated with the pull request and apply the required workflow rules below.
5. Focus on added lines in README.md. Flag any other changed files as unusual for a normal contribution.
6. When mechanical validation is not established by current-head CI, save or reconstruct the PR diff locally only if needed, then validate added README entries with:

uv run python scripts/validate_readme.py --diff-from <base-ref>

If a base ref is not locally available, apply the same checks manually from the fetched diff.

CI Evidence Rules

Use only the latest attempt whose commit SHA exactly matches the PR's current head SHA. A newer queued or pending attempt supersedes an older successful attempt for the same SHA.

CI never replaces inspection of the diff or the manual checks below. A successful check confirms only mechanical rules; it does not establish tag meaning or concision, description quality, relevance, semantic section suitability, commercial classification, repository quality, commercial free-tier eligibility or transparency, URL tracking, cross-PR uniqueness, or multi-project relatedness. CI cannot establish any of these manual criteria. Search open PRs and PRs closed within the last 365 days for duplicate names and URLs.

PR Review runs on pull_request_target, so use the latest attempt associated with the pull request without applying the current-head SHA rule used for Validate PR. A successful attempt is required but does not prove that current-head mechanical validation passed. If the latest attempt fails, inspect its failing job or step. Return NEEDS CHANGES when the review reports a PR defect; otherwise report the review as incomplete. If it is queued, pending, cancelled, skipped, or missing, report the review as incomplete and do not return APPROVE.

Validation Checklist

For every added entry:

• It matches ^\s*- \[(.*)\]\((.*)\) - (.*)$.
• New non-commercial entries include one or more backtick tags followed by -. Treat these as a compact tag cloud: accept concise languages, runtimes, protocols, interfaces, data types, and domain terms.
• Separate concepts use adjacent tags, such as `Python` `C++` `MCP`; do not reject a tag merely because it is not a programming language.
• Description ends with a period before optional [GitHub](...).
• Treat CONTRIBUTING.md's "one sentence" wording as concision guidance, not a sentence-count gate. Accept two or more short sentences when the overall description remains concise, factual, relevant, and non-promotional. Never return NEEDS CHANGES solely because of sentence count; request wording changes only for actual quality problems such as verbosity, repetition, unsupported claims, promotional language, or poor readability.
• URLs use https://.
• Optional GitHub link uses [GitHub](https://github.com/owner/repo).
• Section placement matches the project's purpose.
• Distinguish repositories containing substantive implementation from thin SDK, integration, examples, generated-data, or marketing repositories.
• Hosted proprietary products without substantive public source are under Commercial & Proprietary Services, even when a thin repository exists.
• For repository-less commercial entries, verify a useful permanent free tier for quantitative finance that requires no payment information and is not a trial, demo, or waitlist.
• Treat a commercial service with only a thin SDK, integration, examples, generated-data, or marketing repository as repository-less for every eligibility check.
• Verify that these commercial entries publish pricing and free-tier limits plus public documentation, methodology, or usage examples; use a stable HTTPS URL without affiliate or tracking parameters; and have a concise, factual, non-promotional description.
• Project name and URLs are not duplicates of existing README entries.
• A verifiable GitHub repository containing substantive implementation, mentioned as the main URL or exact [GitHub](...) suffix, is a strong positive relevance signal. Repository existence alone does not establish commercial eligibility or functional-section placement.
• GitHub projects are checked for source availability, activity, archived status, documentation, and community evidence. GitHub relevance does not waive duplicate, format, or quality checks.
• Multiple projects in one PR are closely related and explained in the PR body.

Repository Substance and Linked Services

For every added entry with a repository, investigate what the public source actually provides:

1. Inspect representative implementation files behind the advertised functionality. A README, license, tests, file count, or stars alone do not establish substance.
2. Trace whether core functionality is implemented publicly or depends on a proprietary service. Identify code that only calls a vendor API, integrates a service, downloads generated output, or provides examples or marketing. External dependencies alone do not make a project thin; assess where the advertised functionality is implemented.
3. Follow linked service websites, public documentation, and pricing/free-tier pages. Establish the repository's relationship to the service and verify eligibility under CONTRIBUTING.md, including useful permanent free access without payment information.
4. Report concrete evidence: representative source-file links, API dependencies, and relevant service/pricing/documentation links. State unavailable or inconclusive evidence explicitly. Small size, few stars, or recent creation alone do not imply poor quality or commercial status.

When a repository mainly supports a qualifying commercial service, place the entry in Commercial & Proprietary Services. Use the service name and stable service website as the main link, and retain the repository only as the exact [GitHub](...) suffix:

- [Service Name](https://service.example) - Factual service description with relevant free-tier limits. [GitHub](https://github.com/owner/client)

Describe the service, not merely its SDK. An open-source client license does not make the hosted service open source. Substantive public implementation can qualify for a functional section even when its maintainers also sell a hosted service.

• Qualifying service with incorrect placement or a thin repository as its main link: NEEDS CHANGES, with a proposed corrected README entry.
• Confirmed paid-only, trial-only, demo-only, waitlist-only, or otherwise non-qualifying free access: REJECT; moving the entry does not fix eligibility.
• Insufficient evidence of repository substance or service eligibility: NEEDS CHANGES, naming the missing evidence without claiming that the service qualifies.

Verdicts

Use these verdicts:

• APPROVE: both required workflows pass and the entry is ready to merge after manual review.
• Sentence count alone does not affect the verdict; evaluate description quality using the criteria in the Validation Checklist.
• Commercial submissions without a qualifying permanent free tier—including paid-only, trial-only, demo-only, and waitlist-only offerings—are REJECT.
• Reserve NEEDS CHANGES for correctable evidence or disclosure, wording, URL, documentation, or placement defects when the underlying offering can qualify.
• Other REJECT cases include duplicates, unrelated multi-project PRs, empty PR descriptions, archived or abandoned projects, and other hard rejections.

Output Shape

Report:

PR #<number>: <title>
Author: <author>
Prior review: YES/NO
Files changed: <files>
Entries reviewed: <count>

Automated validation:
- Validate PR: PASS | FAIL | PENDING | UNVERIFIED
- PR Review: PASS | FAIL | PENDING | UNVERIFIED
- Commit: <checked-sha> (CURRENT | STALE)
- Mechanical checks: accepted from CI | reproduced manually | incomplete

Findings:
- <entry>: <status and reason>

Verdict: APPROVE | NEEDS CHANGES | REJECT
Recommended action: <merge/comment/close/no action>

Then ask for explicit approval before doing the recommended action.

Approved Actions After User Consent

• If approved and user says to merge: merge with squash unless user requests otherwise.
• If needs changes and user says to comment: leave one concise comment with all requested fixes, then add reviewed if available.
• If rejected and user says to close: leave a polite rejection comment and close the PR.