PR and Commit Workflow
Last Verified: 2026-05-03PR and commit conventions vary across the Equa repositories. The equabot-gateway repo has the most formalized workflow. equa-web and equa-server follow informal conventions that have not been standardized. This document describes what is currently practiced.
Workflow Overview
Source: GitHub Actions workflow trigger configs across repos
Branch Naming
equabot-gateway (Formalized)
Follows a descriptive prefix pattern:
Source:
equabot/CLAUDE.md commit and PR guidelines
equa-web
Observed patterns from branch history:issue-*for issue-driven branches (e.g.,issue-35-thread-detail-view)feat/**,fix/**,docs/**,chore/**,ci/**, andphase-*for active workmainas the current PR target in the primary CI workflow
equa-web/.github/workflows/ci.yml)
equa-server
stagingas the primary development branchmainas the stable branchprod-deployas a legacy CI trigger tied to the Cloud Build / Cloud Run path that still exists in the repo
.github/workflows/ci.yml)
Commit Messages
equabot-gateway (Formalized)
Uses concise, action-oriented messages following Conventional Commits style:- Start with the affected area/module (e.g.,
CLI:,Gateway:,Auth:) - Use imperative mood (“add”, “fix”, “update” — not “added”, “fixed”)
- Keep the first line under 72 characters
- Group related changes; avoid bundling unrelated refactors
equabot/CLAUDE.md “Commit & Pull Request Guidelines”
equa-web / equa-server (Informal)
No documented commit message format. Observed patterns include freeform descriptive messages. No enforced convention.Creating a Pull Request
When creating a PR, include:- Summary of scope — What does this PR change and why?
- Testing performed — How was this tested? (manual, unit tests, E2E)
- User-facing changes — Does this affect what users see? New flags, UI changes, API changes?
- Screenshots — If the change has UI impact, include before/after screenshots
equabot-gateway PR Process
The equabot-gateway repository has the most detailed PR process:- Create a feature branch from
main - Make changes, commit with scoped messages
- Run the full gate locally:
pnpm lint && pnpm build && pnpm test - Push and open a PR
- PR reviewed — goal is to merge, not to block
- Prefer rebase when commits are clean, squash when history is messy
- After merging, add a changelog entry with PR number
equabot/CLAUDE.md “PR Workflow (Review vs Land)“
Other Repositories
No formal PR template or process documented. Follow the general checklist above and request review from a team member familiar with the affected code.Code Review
What Is Known
- equabot-gateway: Reviews aim to merge. Reviewers check via
gh pr view/gh pr diff. When merging PRs from external contributors, add them as co-contributors and update the changelog. - equa-web / equa-server: Code review practices are not formally documented. Reviews happen on an ad-hoc basis.
What Needs Standardization
- Number of required approvals per repo
- Branch protection rules (currently not documented)
- Review turnaround expectations
- Automated review checks beyond CI
Merge Strategy
equabot-gateway Merge Details
Fromequabot/CLAUDE.md:
- Rebase when commits are clean and tell a coherent story
- Squash when the commit history is messy or contains WIP commits
- When squashing, add the PR author as a co-contributor
- After merging, add a changelog entry including the PR number and a thank-you to the contributor
- If a new contributor, add their avatar to the README contributors section
Recommendations
- Create PR templates for equa-web and equa-server (
.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md) with a standard checklist - Adopt a commit message convention across all repos (Conventional Commits or the scoped format used in equabot-gateway)
- Document branch protection rules and required review counts
- Standardize merge strategy — consider rebase-first across all repos for cleaner git history
- Add pre-commit hooks to equa-web and equa-server (equabot-gateway already uses
prek installfor pre-commit checks)