Pull Request Review Requirements for the Awesome List: A Complete Guide

Contributors to the sindresorhus/awesome repository must review at least four other open pull requests and provide concrete, actionable feedback before their own contribution can be merged.

When contributing to the iconic sindresorhus/awesome repository—a curated list of awesome lists—maintainers enforce a mandatory peer review requirement to ensure quality and community sustainability. This rule, documented in the project's pull_request_template.md, requires every contributor to examine multiple pending submissions before their own changes are accepted. Understanding these specific pull request review requirements helps you avoid delays and contribute meaningfully to the ecosystem.

The Mandatory Review Rule

Review Four Open Pull Requests

The core requirement is straightforward: you must review at least four other open pull requests in the main repository. According to the pull_request_template.md file at line 18, this checkbox item is mandatory for all submissions. The PRs you select should be currently open (is:pr is:open), with priority given to those that have not yet received any review attention.

What Constitutes Valid Feedback

A review must go beyond superficial approval. You need to provide concrete feedback that identifies mistakes, suggests improvements, or discusses design decisions. Simply clicking "Approve" or commenting "LGTM" or "Looks good" does not satisfy the requirement. Similarly, merely noting lint violations does not count as a substantive review.

How to Document Your Reviews

Listing Reviewed PRs

The pull request template requires you to document which PRs you reviewed. Include a comment in your pull request description listing the specific pull request numbers you examined.

Reviewed PRs: #1234, #1250, #1265, #1272

Finding Open PRs to Review

Use the GitHub CLI or web interface to identify open contributions that need attention:

# List open PR numbers using GitHub CLI

gh pr list --state open --limit 10 --json number --jq '.[].number' | head -n 4

Writing Effective Review Comments

Structure Your Feedback

Valid reviews should be thoughtful, specific, and helpful. Address the following areas when reviewing:

• Description quality: Check if list entries have proper descriptions ending with periods
• URL formatting: Verify links point to #readme anchors where appropriate
• Title casing: Ensure entry titles use title case ("Awesome XYZ" not "awesome xyz")
• Compliance: Check against standards defined in awesome.md

Example of a substantive review comment:

### Review Summary

- **Issue 1:** The list entry for *XYZ* lacks a proper description. Consider adding a short sentence ending with a period.
- **Issue 2:** The URL points to the repository root instead of the `#readme` anchor. Update it to `https://github.com/user/awesome-xyz#readme`.
- **Suggestion:** Use title-case for the entry title (`Awesome XYZ` instead of `awesome xyz`).

> Overall, the contribution looks solid after these fixes.

Why This Requirement Exists

The review mandate serves a dual purpose: it distributes the quality assurance workload across all contributors rather than burdening maintainers alone, and it ensures contributors understand the project's standards deeply. By reviewing others' work, you help catch errors, enforce style guidelines defined in awesome.md, and share knowledge throughout the community.

Key Source Files

pull_request_template.md

The pull_request_template.md file explicitly lists the "review ≥ 4 other PRs" requirement as a mandatory checklist item. This is the primary source of the rule governing submission requirements.

awesome.md

The awesome.md file defines the overall contribution standards, badge usage, and formatting rules that your reviews should enforce when evaluating other contributions.

Summary

• Review at least four open PRs before submitting your own contribution to the sindresorhus/awesome repository
• Provide concrete feedback that identifies specific issues or suggests improvements—avoid generic approvals like "LGTM"
• Document your reviews by listing the PR numbers you reviewed in your own pull request description
• Prioritize unreviewed PRs to help distribute the review workload effectively
• Reference awesome.md to ensure reviewed content meets project standards

Frequently Asked Questions

How many pull requests do I need to review before my contribution is accepted?

You must review at least four other open pull requests. This requirement is hardcoded in the repository's pull_request_template.md at line 18 and is mandatory for all contributions to the main awesome list.

Can I just approve the PRs without leaving comments?

No. Simply clicking the GitHub "Approve" button or leaving brief comments like "Looks good" or "✅" does not satisfy the requirement. You must provide concrete, actionable feedback that helps improve the contribution according to the standards defined in awesome.md.

Where do I document which PRs I reviewed?

Add a comment to your own pull request listing the specific PR numbers you reviewed (for example: "Reviewed PRs: #1234, #1250, #1265, #1272"). The pull request template includes a dedicated section for this documentation.

Does noting lint violations count as a review?

No. According to the project guidelines implemented in the pull_request_template.md, merely pointing out lint violations does not constitute a valid review. You must provide substantive feedback on content quality, formatting, and adherence to the standards defined in awesome.md.

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "instagit": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "instagit@latest"]
    }
  }
}