Ship and explain the evaluation pull request

A shippable lab artifact includes: how to run it, the metric result (gh pr view shows base=main, head=improve-evaluation, and check summary), the failure you can still reproduce (pushing straight to main, or opening a PR with failing checks ignored), the security gate for force-pushing rewritten history on a shared branch or leaking tokens in PR body, and a rollback note. The user decision it supports remains: propose a reviewed evaluation change for merge only after checks pass.

printf 'proved: PR+checks visible\nunproved: production impact\nrollback: revert merge commit\n'

Expected evidence: GitHub ship note. Store this beside the fixture version so scores remain meaningful after content changes in github-basics.

State operating limits for the evaluation pull request in plain language: fixture size, offline vs live dependencies, and what would require a new eval set. Shipping github-basics is honest scoping, not maximal confidence language.

Fill this table in your notes for the evaluation pull request:

• Proved on feature branch improve-evaluation with one commit: …
• Unproved beyond the fixture: …
• Metric that blocks release: gh pr view shows base=main, head=improve-evaluation, and check summary
• Failure still reproducible: pushing straight to main, or opening a PR with failing checks ignored
• Security gate: force-pushing rewritten history on a shared branch or leaking tokens in PR body
• Rollback: …

Ship the narrative only when the unproved list is honest. Reviewers trust narrow claims that support propose a reviewed evaluation change for merge only after checks pass more than maximal language that collapses under the first production oddity.

Hand your ship note to a peer and ask them to recreate a proved/unproved ship note with rollback without watching you type. If they cannot, your evidence is still tribal knowledge. Tighten the run command and the metric line until a stranger can validate the evaluation pull request against feature branch improve-evaluation with one commit.

At the mastery and shipping stage for github-basics, the job is narrower than finishing a product demo. You are creating one progressive evidence piece about feature branch improve-evaluation with one commit that later pages inherit without redefining success. Keep that fixture small enough to inspect by hand, keep outputs copy-pasteable as text, and refuse to narrate this baseline as if it were a production SLA: branch protection / required checks listed before opening the PR.

For this page specifically, success looks like a proved/unproved ship note with rollback while still centering the user decision to propose a reviewed evaluation change for merge only after checks pass. If you cannot point to a file, command, or assertion that proves that for the evaluation pull request, stay on this page instead of advancing.

GitHub glossary

Previous