tiny-pattern-ts/CONTRIBUTING.md

Contributing

This document is for maintainers and contributors working on the project itself. End-user documentation is in README.md. The machine entry point for AI coding agents is AGENTS.md; keep this file as the prose home for the rules below so agents and humans don't diverge.

Rules the tools don't enforce

CI and review will bounce these even though npm run check and the linters don't catch them. They're the high-frequency things a contributor (or an agent) reaches for by default:

• Source imports use .ts extensions, never .js. node --strip-types resolves the .ts form at test time; rewriteRelativeImportExtensions emits .js in dist/. "Pre-fixing" an import to .js breaks the inner loop. (rationale: README § Tooling decisions)
• A new npm run script must reuse an existing prefix (check: / fix: / test: / watch: / maintain: / publish:). If none fits, that's a signal the script doesn't belong in the pipeline — not a reason to invent a new prefix. (see Script prefix convention)
• oxlint-disable directives live in source, not .oxlintrc.json. The trade-off must sit next to the code it silences. This is a human last-resort convention; agents must not add these — see AGENTS.md § Never do. (rationale: README § Tooling decisions)
• Don't put slow / network / whole-project scans in check or pre-commit. Advisory scans are not correctness gates; they belong under maintain:. (see Feedback tiers and Script prefix convention)
• New work starts with npm run branch, never a hand-written git switch -c/git checkout -b. The command carries the branch precondition; branching around it skips the clean-tree, current-main and green-baseline checks, and the skip is invisible until a failure can no longer be attributed. (see Branching model)
• There is no local npm run publish, and publish:publint / publish:attw don't go in check. (see Publishing workflow)

Commit messages

Gitmoji subject, imperative mood, 50/72 wrapping. The template is commit-message-template; run npm run use:git-commit-message once after cloning to register it as git's commit.template.

Examples from history: :sparkles: Add watch tier with watch:test child, :recycle: Move type-aware config to .oxlintrc.json; use source-level disable directives, :memo: Restore unique maintainer content as CONTRIBUTING.md. The body explains what and why, not how; link issues with Resolves #....

Script prefix convention

Script names in package.json use a prefix that signals when the script is intended to run. A <prefix>:<name> script is implicitly aggregated by a <prefix> script (if one exists) and run by the corresponding lefthook hook or CI step. Picking the right prefix documents the script's intended lifecycle:

• check:* — read-only verification; never modifies files. Aggregated by npm run check.
• fix:* — mutating counterpart of a check:* script. Aggregated by npm run fix; the diff is the review surface.
• test:* — test scripts. test is the canonical entry point (check:tsc + unit tests); test:unit skips the typecheck for fast local iteration; test:ci adds c8 coverage.
• watch:* — long-running watchers for the manual inner dev loop. Aggregated by watch; currently a single child (watch:test), and a future watch:oxlint / watch:tsc would run concurrently under that umbrella.
• maintain:* — advisory repo-maintenance scans: read-only, but whole-project and/or network-bound, so never a correctness gate. Aggregated by npm run maintain.
• publish:* — validates the publishable artifact (e.g. dist/) rather than the source, so it needs a fresh build. (see Rules the tools don't enforce and Publishing workflow)

A new script should pick the prefix that matches its lifecycle, not invent a new one. If no existing prefix fits, that's a signal the script doesn't belong in the standard pipeline.

Separately, some top-level scripts are bare (no prefix): the entry points that either run a single tool (build, clean) or aggregate a prefix:* family (check, fix, test, watch, maintain), plus conveniences that compose across tiers: verify — composing check + test:unit into one whole-project correctness gate (it deliberately uses test:unit rather than test because check already runs check:tsc, so the type checker runs exactly once); and the two scripts that bracket a unit of work and own its git state — branch — assert the precondition the branching model assumes, then create the branch (see Branching model); and release — the maintainer-only release front-door (see Publishing workflow). Bare commands are how you invoke a tier; the prefix:* scripts are what those tiers are made of.

Feedback tiers

The tools are organized into a feedback ladder. Each tier catches different things at different costs; the rule of thumb is "earlier tiers fire more often, faster tiers catch less, slower tiers are more thorough":

Tier	When	What it runs	Time
npm run watch	manual	watch:test — re-runs tests on file save	~0.1s
Pre-commit (auto)	on stage	tsc + oxlint + oxfmt + cspell (staged files only)	~1.3s
Pre-push (auto)	on push	npm test (full tsc + unit tests)	~3.5s
npm run check	manual	Correctness gates: tsc + oxlint + oxfmt + cspell (whole project)	~3s
npm run verify	manual	Definition of done: npm run check + unit tests, one shot	~6s
npm run fix	manual	Auto-resolve fixable issues (lint, format)	~3s
npm run maintain	manual / CI (advisory)	maintain:knip + maintain:outdated (whole-project + network scans)	~10s
CI build (auto)	on push to main	npm run check + npm run test:ci	~30s+
CI maintain (auto, non-blocking)	on push to main	npm run maintain — reports, never fails the build	~10s
CI publish (auto)	on tag	publish:publint + publish:attw, then npm publish	~10s

Why these splits?

• watch:* is a manual tier, not a hook. The developer starts it on demand (it has to be killed with Ctrl-C) and it runs in a dedicated terminal pane. It sits as the earliest tier in the feedback ladder, catching failures the moment a file is saved — before staging, before commit.
• check:tsc, check:oxlint, check:oxfmt, check:cspell are in pre-commit because they are fast (~0.2–0.5s each), fully offline, and naturally scope to staged files via the LEFTHOOK_FILES env var convention. They give instant feedback on what you typed.
• test (and the tsc it includes) is in pre-push because it runs the whole test suite across the whole project. The pre-commit LEFTHOOK_FILES convention doesn't apply to the test runner, so pre-commit isn't the right home. Pre-push runs after all commits are made but before the push leaves the machine, catching regressions that span multiple commits.

Before pushing

Run npm run verify — the one-shot correctness gate in the table above. Run npm run maintain only on a maintenance / update-deps branch.

Testing discipline (type-driven)

For this library the types are the feature — narrowing, exhaustive() returns, the Matcher<T> contract — so a runtime-only test loop would verify the wrong thing. New behavior follows type-driven development (in Edwin Brady's sense): treat the type as the plan for a program, and use the compiler and type checker as your assistant, guiding you to a complete program that satisfies the type (idris-lang.org). Here that plan is the expectTypeOf assertion, written first. The loop is type → red → green → refactor:

1. Type — write the compile-time expectation first (expectTypeOf(...).toEqualTypeOf<…>()) and let npm run check:tsc fail on the type. The type error is the spec you want to hit before the runtime logic exists.
2. Red — add the matching runtime assertion (assert.*) so npm run test:unit now fails on behavior.
3. Green — implement in src/*.ts until both the type check and the test pass.
4. Refactor — with the type system and the tests as the safety net, then npm run verify as the definition-of-done gate.

This is why every test in the suite pairs an expectTypeOf(...) with an assert.* — keep them together. Type-first is also enforced structurally: npm test runs check:tsc before the test runner, so a wrong type can never be papered over by a passing assertion. Per AGENTS.md § Never do, reach green honestly — fix the types so both the type check and the runtime assertion pass, never suppress the ones you can't make pass.

Branching model

GitHub Flow (single-developer). Every change — feature, fix, refactor — branches off main and is merged back via a local commit (no PR workflow on Gitea yet). Collaborative review via Gitea UI is not in place — Gitea is the lab; when something is tested and ready for production it will be promoted to GitHub.

• Base branch: main
• Branch naming: feature/<desc> / fix/<desc> / chore/<desc>
• Starting work: npm run branch -- <prefix>/<desc>. It refuses, without changing anything, unless the working tree is clean (untracked files included), no merge/rebase/cherry-pick is in progress, main matches its upstream, and npm run test is green on main — so a later failure is always attributable to your edits. The prefix is still your call, inferred from the task; the script validates it rather than guessing it.
• Merging: git checkout main && git merge --no-ff <branch> (local PR — review the diff yourself before closing the branch).
• CI runs npm run check + npm run test:ci on every push to main — this is the authoritative gate.
• Releases are NOT triggered by pushes. Only the maintainer triggers a release (see Publishing workflow).

Publishing workflow

Publishing is CI-only by policy. Local npm publish is not supported. The maintainer triggers releases from main:

1. All intended changes are merged to main and passing CI.
2. The maintainer runs npm run release — an interactive prompt suggests a version (based on the latest CHANGELOG entry); the maintainer confirms or edits it.
3. scripts/release.sh creates a single release commit (changelog + package.json bump, amended into one commit), tags it, and pushes everything to Gitea.
4. CI runs on the push: npm run check + npm run test:ci on the commit; then the publish job fires on the tag: build → publish:publint → publish:attw → npm publish --access public. The publish-tier checks must pass before the artifact is published.