[lavanyagoyal12]

This PR adds a agents/skills/particle/SKILL.md file to guide AI agents in using the Particle library effectively.
We plan to add scripts/sync.py to our combined skills repository in a future update to automate skill synchronization if new features are introduced in this repository.

[henryiii]

(We are developing a combined "marketplace" at https://github.com/lavanyagoyal12/Skills-Project at the HSF-India workshop in Delhi; we will likely propose moving that to scikit-hep/skills soonish.) This was inspired by / based on https://github.com/usatlas/marketplace/tree/main/plugins/atlas/skills by @kratsg)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 95.31%. Comparing base (9c259ef) to head (e5e1014).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #808   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.31%   95.31%           
=======================================
  Files          32       32           
  Lines        1410     1410           
=======================================
  Hits         1344     1344           
  Misses         66       66           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[eduardo-rodrigues]

Who are you? You did not introduce yourself, did not create an Issue to discuss, and come in with a "We plan to add ", which sounds as if you were an admin. This is just rude. Closing.

[henryiii]

@eduardo-rodrigues please see my comment right after the PR was opened, which had answers to your questions. This is from my group at the HSF-India hackathon. "We plan to add" refers to a different repository, not this one.

[eduardo-rodrigues]

I saw your comment just after. I now see where this is coming from. But you have to agree that it would be far more polite and natural to have some discussion beforehand rather than seeing this straight as a PR. After all, we have been collaborating on this and more for years. Your collaborator should learn how to, well, collaborate and, even more importantly, start contributing to a project.

Sorry for being so blunt but the number of not-asked-for PRs, all AI generated with likely zero knowledge, is getting bigger and bigger, and I'm no fan. @Saransh-cpp has been making some really clear and correct statements related to these issues on several occasions, and I intend to act a similar way.

In fact, if the grand idea is what you mention above, why not communicate it to all org admins via our list? That's actually a very nice and useful action IMO. It will profit everyone and will ensure we're all on the same page.

[henryiii]

This idea was discussed at PyHEP.dev a month ago.

I needed a project for a hackathon so I assigned a group working on adapting @kratsg’s ATLAS skills to be more generic. Once those have been tested a bit, we could propose moving the repository to Scikit-HEP via the mailing list. (The other two projects were uproot-browser and histoprint)

I don’t know if adding skills to the repo they are for is the correct direction; it might be best to keep the skills separate. But I thought this was a good place to investigate what an in-repo skill would entail.

has been making some really clear and correct statements related to these issues

I have already reached out to him privately. I do not believe people should be punished for disclosing AI usage. That causes people to hide AI usage. I consider not being able to respond with feedback or not including human written text to be a problem, but not using a tool that we use ourselves. Unless there’s an AI_POLICY.md that says otherwise.

(FWIW, the description of this PR is clearly human written.)

[eduardo-rodrigues]

Thank you @henryiii for the comments. I never said that this PR is not human written, nor that people should be punished for disclosing the usage of AI. Just to be clear there.

I think that my point of a discussion issue as a starting point would be the ideal course of action. But I also know you well enough that I know no mean was intended. No worries! Let's then go ahead with the investigation, and go ahead re-opening this PR.