Lightning contributions inherit Bitcoin’s review culture plus interop risk across implementations. Use the same meaningful-PR bar, with extra weight on reproduction notes.
Complete Step 1 // Required reading in the study plan above, then continue here.
Step 2 — Context: the ship bar
| 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 for Pull / maintainers:
- Issue / PR URLs
- Rubric self-score
- Polar/regtest or unit test notes
- Interop note if behavior could differ across LND/CLN/LDK
Done when: You can recite the five rows and the ≥ 8/10 ship bar.
Step 3 — Practice: score your plan (lab)
Pick a real issue. Write a one-page approach. Score each row 0–2. Draft the issue comment or PR body.
Checklist / anti-patterns
- No untested protocol tweaks
- No ignoring macaroon / permission surfaces in examples
- No demanding merge timelines
Done when: Lab evidence (issue + score table + draft) is complete.
Next lesson
First Lightning PR — reproduce, test, open, and iterate with CI.