Contributor Guide

Write a CONTRIBUTING guide that helps people contribute to an open-source project without friction. Use when asked to write a CONTRIBUTING.md, set up contribution guidelines, or make a repo welcoming to contributors. Produces a clear guide: how to set up, the contribution workflow, standards, PR expectations, and how to get help — lowering the barrier to a first PR.

Contributor Guide Skill

Most would-be contributors give up at setup friction or unclear expectations. A good CONTRIBUTING.md removes the guesswork: how to get the project running, how to propose a change, what a mergeable PR looks like, and where to ask. This skill writes that guide — welcoming, specific, and aimed at getting someone to a successful first PR.

Required Inputs

Ask for these only if they aren't already provided:

• Project & stack — what it is, language/framework, repo layout basics.
• Dev setup — how to clone, install, run locally, and run tests.
• Workflow — branch model, commit/PR conventions, where issues live, who reviews.
• Standards — linting/formatting, test requirements, the Code of Conduct (link).
• Norms (optional) — how decisions are made, response times, good-first-issue process.

Output Format

A CONTRIBUTING.md:

Contributing to [Project]

A warm one-liner: contributions are welcome, here's how to make it smooth.

Ways to contribute — issues, docs, code, triage — not everyone writes code.

Development setup

text

# clone, install, run, test — the exact commands

…so a contributor can get the project running and tests passing locally.

Finding something to work on — point to good first issue / help wanted; ask people to comment before starting larger work.

Making a change (the workflow)

1. Branch from … with naming convention …
2. Make the change; follow the standards below.
3. Add/update tests; run the linter/tests locally.
4. Open a PR — what the PR description should include; link the issue.

Standards — formatting/linting, test expectations, commit/PR conventions, the Code of Conduct link.

What happens next — who reviews, rough turnaround, how feedback works.

Getting help — where to ask (Discussions, chat, issue) — make it explicitly OK to ask.

Quality Checks

• Setup commands actually get the project running and tests passing
• The contribution workflow is numbered and unambiguous (branch → change → test → PR)
• Standards (lint, tests, commit/PR conventions, CoC) are stated and linked
• It points to good-first-issues and welcomes non-code contributions
• It's encouraging in tone and tells people exactly where to get help

Anti-Patterns

• Do not assume the contributor knows the setup — spell out the exact commands
• Do not leave PR expectations implicit — say what a mergeable PR includes
• Do not be gatekeep-y or cold — friction and tone both lose contributors
• Do not omit how to get help or who reviews — uncertainty stalls first PRs
• Do not forget the Code of Conduct link — it sets the community standard

Based On

Open-source contribution best practices (clear setup, defined workflow, good-first-issues, welcoming tone, CoC).