The need
Branch setup, AI handoffs, CI review, releases, and pull-request finishing are easy to perform inconsistently, especially when I am working from a phone.
Back to all builds Back to all builds
Repository and workflow automation
Experimental Open source
Repo Automation Template
I was repeating the same branch, pull-request, test, and handoff decisions across repositories. I wanted the routine parts to be easier without hiding the consequential ones.
The helpers reduce repeated maintenance work while keeping important choices visible. They give me a consistent way to work from a phone or computer without treating every repository as identical or trusting an opaque automation layer.
What made it nontrivial
Repository automation crosses from read-only inspection into changes to files, branches, pull requests, and releases. The helpers need predictable output for people and agents, but they also need to stop when repository identity, scope, authentication, or review state is unclear.
What I took responsibility for
I created a documented library of shell helpers with plan-first checks, machine-readable metadata, shared configuration, focused contracts, and a test harness that exercises Git and GitHub behavior with temporary repositories and stubbed network calls.
I worked across the helper scripts, their public command contracts, documentation and routing, metadata that describes what each helper may do, downstream installation, CI, and the failure output needed to recover when a workflow stops.
Engineering choices
Decisions that shaped the work
Inspect and plan before mutating
Branch and pull-request flows confirm repository identity, working-tree state, base and head branches, and intended paths before they stage, push, merge, or clean up anything.
Keep the public surface explicit
A machine-readable helper inventory records each public command, its documentation, contract test, cost, file and Git behavior, GitHub use, and supported output modes.
Test risky paths without touching real repositories
The shared harness builds temporary Git fixtures and stubs GitHub CLI responses. It can exercise authentication failures, pull-request states, merge gates, cleanup, and artifact boundaries without creating real issues, pull requests, or merges.
Current substance
What exists now
- Guarded branch preflight, pull-request submission and finishing, repository health checks, and a standard test runner.
- Compact human output and structured JSON for status, diagnostics, CI inspection, and failure handoff.
- A downstream installer and managed-file inventory that can copy selected automation into another repository while preserving local overrides.
- Focused contract tests, documentation checks, portability checks, and a GitHub Actions workflow that runs the same core local checks.
Checks and demonstrations
How I checked it
- The reviewed public revision passed its GitHub Actions validate job.
- The standard audit path combines diff checks, Bash syntax, ShellCheck, portability checks, documentation checks, focused helper contracts, version consistency, and named smoke scenarios.
- Tests for GitHub-writing helpers use stubs and temporary repositories, so the test suite can check stop conditions and mutation boundaries without performing real merges or opening real pull requests.
Current limits
What this does not establish
- This is a public-alpha, terminal-first maintainer toolkit, not a fully packaged product.
- It does not yet provide package-manager installation, release bundles, Git subtree mode, automatic downstream commits or pull requests, or full non-GitHub provider support.
- It should not be used as an unattended release or deployment system, and arbitrary external hard-kills can still interrupt cleanup in some container environments.
Status and reuse
Where the project stands
Experimental Open source
Licensed under Apache-2.0. The public helper surface is still stabilizing.
View Repo Automation TemplateRelated conversations
Problems this work gives us a starting point for
This work gives us a concrete place to begin if a repository process is repetitive enough to waste attention, but consequential enough that blind automation would be dangerous.
- Guarded developer workflows that need clear stop conditions and recovery output.
- Shared automation that must adapt to several repositories without erasing local differences.
- Human and agent workflows that need the same commands to be understandable in a terminal and parseable by software.
A real conversation
Tell me what you have in mind
I read these emails myself. Tell me what you are making, changing, exploring, or trying to repair. It helps to include:
- what already exists and what is not working
- what you want to change or make possible
- the timing and approximate budget or exchange you have in mind
- whether location, travel, shipping, or access to a hardware bench matters
Reaching out does not commit either of us to working together. It simply gives us a place to begin.