magpie/docs/contributors.md

Community PRs: what is closed unreviewed, and who is blocked

magpie merges community PRs through agents. Two things keep that from wearing the project down: a PR that could harm users is caught before any review of what it does, and an author who keeps sending work that costs more to review than it gives is stopped.

Look for harm first

Before running a PR, read its diff for anything that reaches past its stated goal. Any one of these stops the review until the maintainer has looked:

• It changes .github/ (workflows, actions, permissions, secrets), a release or publish script, the Dockerfile, or site/.
• It adds a network address, an upload, telemetry, or sends a credential, token, cookie or file anywhere it didn't go before.
• It reads or writes a credential file, keychain entry or agent config the goal doesn't need.
• It adds a dependency, a replace in go.mod, an npm install script, a binary, a minified or encoded blob, or code built from a string at run time.
• It adds a relay, reseller or affiliate address, or a vendor the maintainer removed (DimAgent).

Say which line stopped it in the review. Don't run the PR's code on a machine with real accounts until the maintainer has cleared it.

Close without a full review

Close with a short reason, without running it, a PR that:

• changes what the maintainer has ruled on (see "Don't reverse deliberate decisions" in code standards), such as the Codex prompt files, which are kept byte for byte;
• is a resubmission of a PR closed for its idea, with nothing new to answer the reason it was closed;
• is one of several near-identical PRs opened seconds apart.

Blocking an author

An author is proposed for the block list when any one of these holds:

1. They have 3 or more PRs closed by a maintainer as low-value (wrong, untested, unrelated, machine-made filler), and fewer than 30% of their PRs merged.
2. They resubmitted a PR after an explicit rejection, twice.
3. They did anything deceptive: hid a change outside the PR's stated goal, faked a test or a verification, or anything from "Look for harm first" done on purpose.
4. They open PRs in machine bursts (several within a minute) that are low-value as in 1.
5. They re-add a removed vendor, a relay or an advertisement after being told no.

An agent only proposes. It writes the evidence (PR numbers, dates, what was wrong) to the maintainer; the maintainer decides. A blocked author's new PRs and issues are closed with: "Thanks — this account's contributions aren't accepted in this repository." Nothing more is argued.

An author being watched (one or two low-value PRs, no pattern yet) gets a normal review; the reviewer notes the PR here if it is low-value too.

Lists

Blocked: none yet.

Reviewed with extra care

The maintainer chose not to block these authors, so their PRs are still reviewed, but more strictly than others:

• Read every line of the diff, not only the part the description talks about. Compare the files it touches with its stated goal; anything outside the goal is a reason to close it.
• Run "Look for harm first" in full, even on a PR that looks like a typo fix.
• Run it yourself on current main; don't rely on the PR's claims or its CI. Never merge it in the same tick it was opened, and use --match-head-commit.
• A PR that repeats one already closed is closed with a link to the first.

Author	Evidence
lunar-me	#233, #234, #235 opened within 12 seconds, all rewriting codex_prompt.md, which is kept byte for byte. #590 resubmitted after the rejection. #592 broke a path in AGENTS.md. #590, #592 and #593 opened within 51 seconds. The same template across many repositories.

Watched: none yet.