/contribution-workflow

name: contribution-workflow
description: "Design or document how new work enters a design system: contribution types, proposal criteria, review stages, sign-off and release. Triggers: contribution process, how should someone contribute, contribution guidelines, adding a new component. Not for audit findings to tickets (backlog-generator)."
allowed-tools: Read, Write, Grep, Glob, Bash(cat:*), Bash(ls:*), Bash(find:*)
references:
  - ../../knowledge-notes/component-governance.md
  - ../../knowledge-notes/design-to-code-contract.md
  - ../../knowledge-notes/output-discipline.md

Contribution workflow

A skill for creating a structured contribution workflow covering the full journey from proposal to release. Output is a document teams can actually follow — not a policy statement, but a process with named stages, decision criteria, and clear ownership at each gate.

Before you begin: verify references

Confirm that every path in this skill's frontmatter `references:` exists relative to this SKILL.md. If any is missing, stop: the install is incomplete, usually because a flattening installer (for example `npx skills install`) dropped the repo-root `knowledge-notes/` directory. Tell the user to reinstall by a method in `1-INSTALL.md` and run `verify-install.sh` from the install root. Proceed without the references only if the user explicitly says to, and then say in the output that it was produced without the pack's reference material.

Context

Most design systems have one of two contribution problems. Either there is no process, so contributions arrive inconsistently and the design systems team becomes a bottleneck because every request is a negotiation. Or there is a process that is so heavy it discourages contribution entirely, and teams build locally rather than bother.

The goal here is a workflow that is lightweight enough to not be a burden, structured enough to produce consistent quality, and honest enough to tell contributors what will and will not make it into the system.

The six-stage structure below reflects the full lifecycle of a contribution; it is the shape most published contribution models share (Nathan Curtis and Brad Frost have both written it up), not this pack's invention. Not every contribution needs all six stages at the same depth — a small enhancement to an existing component is lighter than a new foundational component. The workflow scales accordingly, and the output notes where the path diverges by contribution type.

---

Step 1: Understand the current state

Ask for or confirm:

• Does a contribution process already exist? If so, what is working and what is not?
• Who is responsible for design system maintenance — a dedicated team, shared responsibility, or a single person?
• What types of contributions are most common? (New components, enhancements, token changes, documentation, bug fixes)
• What is the team's capacity for reviewing and integrating contributions?

Capacity is the variable most contribution processes ignore. A six-stage review process designed for a four-person dedicated team will break immediately if there is only one part-time maintainer. So decide the shape before writing, from the answers above:

• **Lightweight** (one maintainer, or part-time ownership): Propose (a paragraph) → Build (maintainer review) → Ship (docs and a release note). Three stages, no SLAs beyond "the maintainer replies within [n] days".
• **Standard** (a small dedicated team, a handful of consuming teams): the six stages, with community review abbreviated to a release-note preview for all but new components.
• **Full** (a dedicated team, many consuming teams): all six stages at full depth, with the versioning and consumer-check sections.

Say which shape you chose and why in the document's header. Writing the full process and "calibrating it down" afterwards leaves a document nobody follows.

**If nobody owns the system** (the user can't name who would review a proposal), the workflow has no reviewer and there is nothing to write yet. Say so and stop: the first decision is ownership, and `decision-record` can capture it.

Read `CONTRIBUTING.md`, the PR template and `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/` before asking; if a process exists, this skill updates it and says what changed.

**Small-system note (fewer than 5 components):** For systems this size, the full six-stage workflow is almost certainly too heavy. Produce a lightweight three-stage workflow instead: Propose (async, one paragraph) → Build (with review from the maintainer) → Ship (documentation + release note). The community review stage and the detailed assessment stage add overhead that small teams cannot absorb. The contribution criteria should still be documented — but they can be a short checklist, not a policy document. Ask: "Is there one person maintaining this, or is it shared?" If one person, the workflow is essentially "talk to them first."

Step 2: Write the contribution workflow

---

Design system contribution workflow

**Version:** [version number or date] **Owner:** [who maintains this document] **Last reviewed:** [date]

---

Contribution types

Before the stages, establish the contribution types. Different types move through the process at different speeds.

**Type A: Bug fix or small enhancement** Scope: Correcting a documented error, adding a missing state, fixing a token reference. Path: Lightweight — skips proposal and community review, moves directly to build.

**Type B: Component enhancement** Scope: Adding a new variant, prop, or behaviour to an existing component. Path: Standard — proposal, design review, build, documentation, release.

**Type C: New component** Scope: A component that does not currently exist in the system. Path: Full — all six stages.

**Type D: System-level change** Scope: Token architecture changes, naming convention updates, governance policy changes. Path: Full, with extended community review. These changes have the widest blast radius.

---

####