Add copilot custom instructions#591
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Dependency Review✅ No vulnerabilities or license issues or OpenSSF Scorecard issues found.Scanned FilesNone |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Adds repository-specific contributor/reviewer guidance by introducing a Copilot instructions document and a Rootstock-focused coding principles document, aimed at improving security-awareness, reviewability, and consistency in this security-critical codebase.
Changes:
- Added
docs/coding-principles.mdwith Rootstock-oriented coding, testing, and refactoring guidelines. - Added
.github/copilot-instructions.mdwith repository context, security-sensitive areas, CI expectations, and build/test commands.
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
docs/coding-principles.md |
Introduces coding principles and Java guidance intended to standardize readable, safe changes. |
.github/copilot-instructions.md |
Provides Copilot/human reviewers with repo context, security-critical guidance, CI gates, and build/test/run instructions. |
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
| * Use intention-revealing names. | ||
| * Prefer names that reveal intent without requiring comments. | ||
| * Names should describe domain concepts, not implementation details. | ||
| * Include units in names when working with monetary values, time values, or measurements, such as amountInSatoshis, amountInWeis, amountInRBTC, timeoutMillis, and blockHeight. |
|
|
||
| * Code is read more often than written. Optimize for readability and maintainability. | ||
| * Use intention-revealing names. | ||
| * Include units in monetary and time-related names, such as amountInSatoshis, amountInWeis, amountInRBTC, and timeoutMillis. |
julia-zack
reviewed
Jun 4, 2026
julia-zack
left a comment
julia-zack
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
looking very good, left some minor suggestions
| * Eliminate duplication when practical. | ||
| * Prefer self-explanatory code over explanatory comments. | ||
| * Tests should be readable, independent, and cover boundary/error cases. | ||
| * AI-generated refactorings must improve clarity, maintainability, or correctness. Do not introduce abstractions, indirection, or code movement without a clear benefit. |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| * AI-generated refactorings must improve clarity, maintainability, or correctness. Do not introduce abstractions, indirection, or code movement without a clear benefit. | |
| * Refactorings must improve clarity, maintainability, or correctness. Do not introduce abstractions, indirection, or code movement without a clear benefit. |
prob all refactors should follow this :)
| * Clarity is more important than cleverness. | ||
| * Avoid introducing unnecessary dependencies. | ||
| * Prefer boring, obvious code over surprising code. | ||
| * Code should look like it was written by someone who cared. |
| * Do not add journal-style comments describing historical changes. | ||
| * A useful comment should be accurate, clear, and maintained with the code. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Testing |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
wdyt about adding a "prefer TDD approach when possible" point?
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure it can be detected in a PR if tests were written first or afterwards
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i guess only if tests are committed first. But nevermind, it'd make sense for a copilot coder eventually
| * Do not mix formatting-only changes with behavioral changes. | ||
| * If a cleanup would significantly obscure the purpose of a PR, perform it separately. | ||
| * AI-generated suggestions are not automatically improvements. Evaluate them critically. | ||
| * AI-generated refactorings must improve clarity, maintainability, or correctness. |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
same here
Suggested change
| * AI-generated refactorings must improve clarity, maintainability, or correctness. | |
| * Refactorings must improve clarity, maintainability, or correctness. |
julianlen
reviewed
Jun 4, 2026
julianlen
left a comment
julianlen
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great! Here are more instructions to consider
- Avoid having more than one unnecessary blank space.
- Never assign a constant to a variable
- Always leave one blank line at the end of every file.
- Remove anything that is not used: variables, functions, imports.
- Use functional style whenever possible, but avoid large-scale refactoring to functional code in a single PR.
- Keep consistency with the rest of the codebase whenever possible
Perhaps having a Codestyle section?
| * Avoid names that differ only in small or unclear ways. | ||
| * Prefer searchable names over overly short names. | ||
| * Prefer pronounceable names. | ||
| * Use one word for one concept and use it consistently. |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
also to keep consistency with what is already written
Co-authored-by: Copilot Autofix powered by AI <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
marcos-iov
force-pushed
the
copilot-instructions
branch
from
30d46b6 to
7e17ac5
Compare
|
julia-zack
approved these changes
Jun 5, 2026
julianlen
approved these changes
Jun 5, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This pull request introduces comprehensive documentation to guide contributors and reviewers working on the powpeg-node project. It adds a Copilot custom instructions file tailored to the repository and establishes a set of Rootstock-specific coding principles. These documents emphasize security, reviewability, and maintainability, especially in critical code paths.
The most important changes are:
Repository guidance and security practices:
.github/copilot-instructions.mdto provide Copilot and human contributors with detailed repository context, security-critical areas, PR review priorities, build/test commands, and sensitive areas requiring extra scrutiny.Coding and style standards:
docs/coding-principles.md, documenting Rootstock-specific coding principles for naming, functions, classes, abstractions, error handling, comments, and testing. These guidelines prioritize clarity, maintainability, and correctness, especially for blockchain and money-handling code.Testing and PR process: