Hi, since this is recently came up in a PR, it appears that nf-co.re/docs/contributing/contributor-types#… is ambigous, and (presumably) not handled consistently across pipelines. I was made aware that e.g. PR reviews constitute a contribution (not disagreeing there), however, when I checked a bunch of pipelines to find entries to c&p into my manifest, I noticed that some pipelines seem to not record those contributions. I think this is something that is easily forgotten, and I was wondering if that is something that e.g. could be automated with #CE5LG7WMB?

I think this is very inconsistently used across all the pipelines (and don't like "author" at all)

Whats wrong with author in your view?

It generally just means who made the very first iteration of the pipeline. But the older pipelines have then been going for a long time after that, and often they have been modified much more than just that first commit

Sure, I think the first version carries some significance though: it is usually only possible to start iterating / incrementing after a first version exists

Yeah I think this one is very hand-wavey and is basically a recommendation of "do this if you find it helpful" rather than particularly hard and fast rules. As this thread proves very succinctly, these designations are extremely subjective.

The contributor graph thing looks very nice. The discussion I was referencing above was explicitly about non-code contributions though

I like the contributor graph, the only thing I'd like to have (maybe I'm missing it) is a way to sort based on specific metadata, like number of commits etc.

CleanShot 2026-08-28 at 15.54.56@2x.png

Thanks! neon cat spin