docs: point contribution steps at the develop branch

[saime428]

Description

The contribution guide tells contributors to open pull requests against main, which contradicts the pull request template:

Confirm the pull request base before submitting. Target develop for all contributions. The release/3.0.0-beta2 branch is a frozen stable landing snapshot and is not used for ongoing maintenance.

docs/source/refs/contributing.rst step 6 still reads:

6. Submit a pull request to the `main branch <https://github.com/isaac-sim/IsaacLab/compare>`__.

This is not a cosmetic mismatch. main receives only occasional docs and CI commits, while develop takes essentially all contributions — of the last 60 merged pull requests, 58 targeted develop, 2 targeted release/3.0.0-beta2, and none targeted main. A pull request opened against main therefore gets no CI and no review attention, and the author has no signal that anything is wrong.

I hit this myself: I followed this step for #6440, which then sat for a month with labeler as the only check that ever ran.

This changes the single word so the guide agrees with the template.

Fixes # (no issue opened — happy to file one if you would prefer that first)

Type of change

• Documentation update

Checklist

• I have read and understood the contribution guidelines
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• My changes generate no new warnings
• I have added a changelog fragment under source/<pkg>/changelog.d/ for every touched package — not applicable, this PR touches no package under source/
• I have added my name to the CONTRIBUTORS.md or my name already exists there

[isaaclab-review-bot]

Isaac Lab Review Bot

The contribution guide now names develop as the pull-request target, but its linked GitHub comparison page still defaults to the repository’s default branch rather than explicitly selecting develop.

• Design and architecture: The change is limited to one contribution-workflow instruction and does not affect code architecture, package layout, or documentation build integration.
• API: No public API, CLI, export, or configuration surface changes. No package changelog fragment is required for this documentation-only edit.
• Implementation: The visible branch name was updated, but the unchanged /compare URL does not encode develop, leaving the actionable link inconsistent with the revised instruction. The comparison URL should explicitly select develop as the base branch.

Minor fixes needed. Posted 1 actionable finding inline.

Automated review; human maintainers own approval decisions.

[greptile-apps]

Greptile Summary

The PR updates the contribution guide to tell contributors to target develop instead of main.

• Changes the branch name in the pull-request submission step.
• Leaves the compare URL unqualified, so the linked GitHub page can still use main as its base.

Confidence Score: 4/5

The pull request should be corrected before merging because its link can still send contributors to a compare page based on main.

The wording changes to develop, but the bare GitHub compare URL continues to derive its base from the repository’s default main branch, leaving the documented workflow internally inconsistent and the original misrouting path reachable.

Files Needing Attention: docs/source/refs/contributing.rst

Important Files Changed

Filename	Overview
docs/source/refs/contributing.rst	Updates the documented PR target to develop, but does not update the compare URL to preselect that branch.

_{Reviews (1): Last reviewed commit: "docs: point contribution steps at the de..." | Re-trigger Greptile}

[saime428]

Good catch on the link — fixed in d66d9ab. Two corrections to the analysis, though, for whoever reviews this next:

The suggested URL does not exist. https://github.com/isaac-sim/IsaacLab/compare/develop... returns 404 (trailing ... with no head is not a valid compare ref).

/compare/{X} puts X in the head slot, not the base. I checked what each form actually selects:

URL	base	head
/compare	release/3.0.0-beta2	release/3.0.0-beta2
/compare/develop	release/3.0.0-beta2	develop
/compare/develop...	404	404
/compare/develop...develop	develop	develop

So /compare/develop would have left the base wrong while looking correct. I used /compare/develop...develop, which pins the base to develop and leaves the head for the contributor to switch to their fork branch.

Also, both review comments describe the repository default branch as main; it is currently release/3.0.0-beta2, which is what the bare /compare link was actually resolving to. That does not change the conclusion — the link was mis-targeted either way — but the specific branch named in the findings is wrong.

[saime428]

The labeler job failed before any repository step ran because GitHub Actions could not download the action (Service Unavailable). I do not have permission to rerun it. Could a maintainer rerun the failed job?

[AntoineRichard]

Thanks for correcting the compare URL. I verified that /compare/develop...develop selects develop as both the base and placeholder head. The change is still relevant today: the current develop contribution guide still says main, while ongoing merged PRs target develop.

Before merging, I think the PR should also address these consistency points:

• Current develop now declares docs/source/refs/contributing.rst the source of truth for the contributor skills and says affected skills must stay synchronized. Please add the target-branch check to skills/developer/pr-workflow/SKILL.md; its maintenance section also requires synchronization with the contribution guide, PR template, and AGENTS.md.
• AGENTS.md currently says only not to commit directly to main. If develop remains the integration branch, that wording should cover develop and protected release branches too.
• CONTRIBUTORS.md asks for individual or organization names, but this PR adds the GitHub handle saime428. Please use an individual name or omit that edit.
• The branch is now behind current develop, so it should be refreshed before the final checks.

@kellyguo11, could you confirm what the intended contribution guidance will be after the Isaac Lab 3.0 release?

1. Should normal contributions continue targeting develop, or will they target main after 3.0?
2. Should release/* branches be used only when a maintainer explicitly requests it?
3. Once confirmed, should we repeat that rule in the contribution guide, PR template, isaaclab-preparing-pr-workflow skill, and AGENTS.md so changes to the repository default branch do not make the workflow ambiguous again?

If the target branch is expected to change shortly after 3.0, it may be better to document the lifecycle explicitly instead of introducing another hard-coded instruction that will soon become stale.

Verification: I applied the current PR to the latest develop in an isolated checkout. It merged cleanly, the full pre-commit run passed, and the warning-as-error documentation build passed. The current labeler failure is an external GitHub Actions download error (Service Unavailable), not a failure in this patch.

[saime428]

Thanks for the review. Addressed the three actionable points and merged current develop into the branch.

• skills/developer/pr-workflow/SKILL.md: added the base-branch check as step 10 (a4ad730).
• AGENTS.md: the feature-branch bullet now names develop, main, and release/* instead of only main (a4ad730).
• CONTRIBUTORS.md: dropped that edit (9a8c1db), so the PR no longer touches the file.

One thing I ran into on the synchronization point: the develop copy of .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md carries no "Target develop for all contributions" callout at all. That text exists only on release/3.0.0-beta2, which is what contributors actually see when they open a PR, since it is the repository default branch. So on develop there is currently nothing in the template for the guide and the skill to line up against. I left the template alone rather than widen this PR, but I am happy to port the callout over if you want it here.

On the lifecycle question, I agree that hard-coding a branch name is what let this drift in the first place. If @kellyguo11 confirms the post-3.0 target, I would rather rewrite step 6 to state the rule (contributions go to the active integration branch, release/* only when a maintainer asks for it) than name another branch that can go stale. I will hold off on that until there is an answer.

Verification on the refreshed branch: pre-commit passes on the changed files, and tools/skills/cli.py check validates all 21 skills. No files under docs/ changed in this round, so the documentation build was not rerun.

[saime428]

@AntoineRichard following up — the three points from your 2026-08-10 review are addressed and the branch has been quiet since.

• skills/developer/pr-workflow/SKILL.md: base-branch check added as step 10 (a4ad730)
• AGENTS.md: feature-branch bullet now names develop
• compare URL corrected in d66d9ab

Re-checked today: still MERGEABLE against develop, labeler green, current develop merged in. The premise still holds — the contribution guide on develop still says main.

Anything else you want changed before this can go in?