Contribution Rubric

Shared bar for a meaningful first Lightning contribution — scope, tests, and maintainer-ready communication.

intermediate3 days

Public lesson — sign in to track progress on this roadmap.

Learning objectives

Score a Lightning contribution attempt against an explicit meaningful-PR rubric
Prefer docs, tests, and tooling issues before consensus-adjacent changes
Write maintainer-ready issue comments and PR descriptions for LND/CLN/LDK

study // plan

Lessons are primers. Depth comes from required reading, interactive labs, reflection, and a hands-on check with evidence — the BOSS study pattern.

Research on Bitcoin Search

Required reading

Reflection prompts

Which rubric rows would your planned Lightning PR fail today?
What Polar/regtest evidence would you attach so reviewers can reproduce?
How will you handle a request to shrink scope or add integration tests?

Lab // Rubric self-score

Pick a real issue on LND, CLN, LDK, or a Lightning tool. Write a plan and self-score 0–2 on each rubric row before coding.

evidence required

Issue URL and approach doc
Rubric score table with notes
Draft first comment or PR body

Lightning contributions inherit Bitcoin’s review culture plus interop risk across implementations. Use the same meaningful-PR bar, with extra weight on reproduction notes.

Rubric (score each 0–2)

Row	0	1	2
Problem fit	Vague / wrong daemon	Plausible issue	Confirmed issue + skill match
Scope	Kitchen-sink	Slightly wide	Minimal diff for one problem
Correctness	Untested	Manual only	Test, Polar repro, or scripted check
Communication	Drive-by	Basic description	Context, risks, and review guide
Citizenship	Ignores project norms	Skims guide	Follows CONTRIBUTING + CI expectations

Ship bar: total ≥ 8/10 before requesting review.

Evidence pack

progress // sign in

Reading is public. Sign in to mark lessons complete, sync across devices, and unlock your roadmap.

./sign-in-to-track

prevContribution Discovery nextFirst Lightning PR