[sreekanthreddyu]

Pull Request Checklist

• I have read and followed the [CONTRIBUTING.md](https://github.com/github/awesome-copilot/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md) guidelines.
• I have read and followed the [Guidance for submissions involving paid services](Guidance for submissions involving paid services #968).
• My contribution adds a new instruction, prompt, agent, skill, workflow, or canvas extension file in the correct directory.
• The file follows the required naming convention.
• The content is clearly structured and follows the example format.
• I have tested my instructions, prompt, agent, skill, workflow, or canvas extension with GitHub Copilot.
• I have run npm start and verified that README.md is up to date.
• I am targeting the main branch for this pull request.

---

Description

This PR adds Hands-On Learning Lab Builder, a reusable GitHub Copilot skill for creating structured, hands-on technical learning repositories.

The goal is to help users learn technologies by implementing solutions themselves, understanding the concepts behind them, and troubleshooting failures rather than simply following tutorials or copying completed code.

The skill guides users through:

• Understanding their learning goals, experience, available time, tools, and budget.
• Reviewing requirements and recommending improvements where needed.
• Creating a structured curriculum and obtaining approval before generating the repository.
• Building hands-on lessons with explanations, implementation exercises, validation steps, and troubleshooting scenarios.
• Providing progressive hints rather than immediately giving complete solutions.
• Generating reusable instructor guidance for GitHub Copilot, Codex, and Claude Code.
• Allowing learners to control their progress, skip lessons, and override recommendations.

The learning approach follows:

Understand → Deploy → Run → Modify → Break → Recover → Explain

The skill is technology-agnostic and can support learning repositories for programming, cloud infrastructure, data engineering, DevOps, and other technical subjects.

Validation

• npm run skill:validate — Passed, all 446 skills valid.
• npm run build — Completed successfully.
• Reviewed all 19 contribution files for personal information and recognizable secrets.
• Verified the bundled reference documents and templates.

---

Type of Contribution

• New instruction file.
• New prompt file.
• New agent file.
• New plugin.
• New skill file.
• New agentic workflow.
• New canvas extension.
• Update to existing instruction, prompt, agent, plugin, skill, workflow, or canvas extension.
• Other (please specify):

---

Additional Notes

The contribution includes the skill instructions, supporting reference documents, and reusable templates.

It is self-contained and does not depend on the original development repository or any paid cloud services.

---

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution abides by the [Code of Conduct](../CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md) and will be licensed under the MIT License.

[Copilot]

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has insufficient remaining quota.

[github-actions]

🔒 PR Risk Scan Results

Scanned 19 changed file(s).

Severity	Count
🔴 High	0
🟠 Medium	0
ℹ️ Info	0

✅ No matching risk patterns were detected in changed files.

This is an automated soft-gate report. Findings indicate review targets and do not block merge by themselves.

[github-actions]

🚦 Submission status: 🛠️ Requires submitter fixes

Risk tier: merge-risk:medium — New or substantially changed resource without privileged execution
Required to merge: passing submission-gate checks plus 1 approval from reviewers with write access.

Why this tier

• Adds 19 file(s), e.g. skills/hands-on-learning-lab-builder/SKILL.md
• Changes 407 lines (low-risk limit is 40)

Automated checks

Check	Status	Details
Line endings	✅ Passed	Passed · logs
Spelling	✅ Passed	Passed · logs
Generated README consistency	✅ Passed	Passed · logs
Skill validation	✅ Passed	Passed · logs
Skill lint (vally)	✅ Passed	Passed · logs
Risk scan	✅ Passed	Passed · logs
Contributor reputation	✅ Passed	Passed · logs
Duplicate resource scan	✅ Passed	Passed · logs
PR quality signal	⏭️ Skipped	Skipped by its workflow · logs

Action needed

• Address the changes requested by aaronpowell, then push an update.

Review

• Approvals: 0/1
• Assigned reviewer: not assigned yet — comment /request-review to ask for one
• Review target date: not set
• Still needed: 1 more approval(s); resolution of changes requested by aaronpowell
• No staffed reviewer pool owns these files yet; any reviewer with write access counts as the domain reviewer.

Commands

Command	Who	What it does
/rerun-checks	PR author, maintainers	Re-runs failed or incomplete checks and re-evaluates this gate
/request-review	PR author, maintainers	Asks the review rotation to assign a reviewer (adds needs-reviewer)

_{Updated for 127e18d · gate run · This comment is maintained automatically — see submission gate docs.}

[github-actions]

🔍 Vally Lint Results

✅ All checks passed

Scope	Checked
Skills	1
Agents	0
Total	1

Severity	Count
❌ Errors	0
⚠️ Warnings	0
ℹ️ Advisories	0

Summary

Level	Finding
ℹ️	✅ hands-on-learning-lab-builder (2/2 checks passed)
ℹ️	✓ [spec-compliance] All 1 skill(s) are spec-compliant.
ℹ️	✓ spec-compliance: All spec checks passed.
ℹ️	✓ [valid-refs] All file references across 1 skill(s) are valid.
ℹ️	✓ valid-refs: All file references resolve to existing files within the skill directory.
ℹ️	1 skill(s) linted, 1 passed

Full linter output

### Linting skills/hands-on-learning-lab-builder
✅ hands-on-learning-lab-builder (2/2 checks passed)
    ✓ [spec-compliance] All 1 skill(s) are spec-compliant.
        ✓ spec-compliance: All spec checks passed.
    ✓ [valid-refs] All file references across 1 skill(s) are valid.
        ✓ valid-refs: All file references resolve to existing files within the skill directory.

1 skill(s) linted, 1 passed

[Copilot]

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has insufficient remaining quota.

[sreekanthreddyu]

/request-review

[github-actions]

🙋 Added needs-reviewer. Reviewer routing is assigning a reviewer now.

[aaronpowell]

Please resolve the reference in references/acceptance-criteria.md to tests/scenarios.md. That file is not included in this skill, and references/packaging.md says the published skill must not depend on the development repository’s tests/ directory. Either bundle the scenarios file and add it to the package layout, or revise the acceptance criteria so they do not depend on a missing file.

[sreekanthreddyu]

Thanks for the review, @aaronpowell I’ve resolved the missing tests/scenarios.md reference.

The acceptance criteria now describe representative validation scenarios directly, without depending on files outside the published skill package.

Please take another look when convenient.

[Copilot]

🟡 Changes recommended

The generated instructor contract omits the required approval safeguard for production operations and leaves duplicate progress records without defined precedence or synchronization, risking conflicting resume state.

7 open issues

• Require authorization for production operations · New
• Use a neutral heading for approval status · New
• Define one authoritative progress record and synchronization rules · New
• Keep maintainer evaluation scenarios out of runtime guidance · New
• Make publication checks portable and lab-neutral · New
• Link the bundled templates in the generation step · New
• Document manual Copilot exercise testing in the PR · New

_{Review effort: Max}

[Copilot]

🟡 Changes recommended

Learner progress edits may be discarded on resumption, and the authoritative YAML lacks the lesson entries and shared status/preference fields needed for consistent synchronization.

3 open issues

• Seed lesson progress and define shared preference fields · New
• Warn that direct progress-view edits may be overwritten · New
• Document manual Copilot exercise testing in the PR

1 previously missed issue

In code that hasn't changed since last review

Include evidence from a real generation run

skills/​hands-on-learning-lab-builder/​references/​packaging.md:48

The validation section reports structural checks but does not describe the Copilot usage scenario or its observed results. Document one real generation run, including the learner brief, environment, approval gate, unfinished starter assets, verification results, and any untested assistant handoffs. This provides evidence for the workflow beyond file inspection.

6 resolved since last review

• Require authorization for production operations
• Make publication checks portable and lab-neutral
• Keep maintainer evaluation scenarios out of runtime guidance
• Define one authoritative progress record and synchronization rules
• Use a neutral heading for approval status
• Link the bundled templates in the generation step

_{Review effort: Max}