Skip to content

Review Process

Understanding what happens after you submit an issue helps set expectations and ensures a smooth contribution experience.

Timeline

Different types of contributions have different review timelines:

Type Expected Timeline Review Frequency
Quick fixes (typos, broken links) 1-3 days Reviewed as submitted
Resource suggestions 1-2 weeks Every 2 weeks
Best practice updates 1-2 weeks Requires maintainer consensus

Review Steps

1. Maintainer Review

A maintainer will:

  • Evaluate against our inclusion criteria
  • Test links and verify content quality
  • Check for duplicates with existing resources
  • Assess authority of the source and author
  • Verify recency (updated within 12 months, or foundational)

2. Discussion

If clarification is needed:

  • Maintainer adds needs-more-info label
  • Specific questions asked in comments

3. Decision

The maintainer will make one of three decisions:

  • Issue labeled approved
  • Maintainer creates PR to implement the change
  • Issue automatically closed when PR merges
  • You'll be notified and thanked!
  • Issue labeled needs-more-info
  • Specific feedback provided
  • You can update the issue with additional context
  • Re-reviewed after updates
  • Issue labeled declined
  • Specific reasoning provided based on criteria
  • Issue closed with documented explanation
  • You may appeal if you believe criteria were misapplied

4. Implementation

For approved issues:

  • Maintainer creates PR with the change
  • References the issue (e.g., "Fixes #123")
  • Self-reviews before merging
  • Automated checks validate links and formatting
  • Issue auto-closes when PR merges

You don't need to create PRs

Contributors use issues, maintainers handle implementation. This ensures quality control and consistent formatting.

If Your Issue is Declined

We provide specific reasons based on our curation criteria. You may:

Provide Additional Context

Sometimes we miss important details. Reply with:

  • Additional sources or credentials
  • Clarification on unique value
  • Evidence of content quality or authority

Resubmit After Updates

If the resource doesn't meet criteria yet:

  • Wait for more content history (for new authors)
  • Resubmit after the resource is updated
  • Address specific concerns mentioned in decline

Discuss the Decision

If you believe criteria were misapplied:

  • Comment on the issue explaining your perspective
  • Provide additional evidence
  • Lead curator will make final decision

Our goal is transparency, not gatekeeping. We document our reasoning to show consistency and fairness.

Transparency Principles

We believe in open, documented decision-making:

  1. All decisions are public - No private approvals/rejections
  2. Reasoning is documented - Clear explanation against criteria
  3. Criteria are consistent - Same standards for everyone
  4. Appeals are welcome - Second looks if you provide new context
  5. Process is evolving - We improve based on feedback

Questions During Review?

  • Comment on your issue - We'll respond within 3-5 days
  • Check similar issues - See how others were handled
  • Review our criteria - Understand the evaluation framework
  • Read full guidelines - CONTRIBUTING.md