Contributions must adhere to [Effective Go](https://go.dev/doc/effective_go). Linting rules should

be preferred over documenting styles (run ours with `make lint`); humans are error prone!

Read [Go's Code Review Comments Wiki](https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/CodeReviewComments) to find

common comments made during reviews of Go code.

Coders write packages that are used during implementation. It's difficult to validate whether an

abstraction is valid until it's checked against an implementation. This results in a larger

changeset but provides reviewers with an educated perspective on the contribution.

Coders value thorough reviews. Think of each review comment like a ticket: you are expected to

somehow "close" it by acting on it, either by implementing the suggestion or convincing the reviewer

otherwise.

After you update the change, go through the review comments and make sure to reply to every one. You

can click the "Done" button to reply indicating that you've implemented the reviewer's suggestion;

otherwise, click on "Reply" and explain why you have not, or what you have done instead.

It is perfectly normal for changes to go through several round of reviews, with one or more

reviewers making new comments every time and then waiting for an updated change before reviewing

again. All contributors, including experienced maintainers, are subject to the same review cycle;

this process is not meant to be applied selectively or discourage anyone from contribution.