[allxsmith]

Pull Request Checklist

• I have read and followed the CONTRIBUTING.md guidelines.
• I have read and followed the Guidance for submissions involving paid services.
• 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

Adds instructions for Bulma v1, the CSS framework. Models still write Bulma 0.9: variables set before @import "bulma", tile layouts that v1 removed, and fixed colors that break its dark mode. The file covers what changed in v1 and how to use it, and points React and Vue projects at a Bulma component library, Bestax or Buefy.

I maintain Bestax. Buefy is a separate project.

---

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

I added the row in docs/README.instructions.md by hand to match what eng/update-readme.mjs writes, without installing the repo's dependencies. If the README check disagrees I'll fix it.

---

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution abides by the Code of Conduct and will be licensed under the MIT License.

[github-actions]

🚦 Submission status: 💬 Review in progress

Risk tier: merge-risk:high — Privileged execution, automation, or review-policy change
Required to merge: passing submission-gate checks plus 1 approval from reviewers with write access, including a maintainer with admin or maintain permission.

Why this tier

• Label needs-review:HIGH flags a high contributor-risk signal

Automated checks

Check	Status	Details
Line endings	✅ Passed	Passed · logs
Spelling	✅ Passed	Passed · logs
Generated README consistency	✅ 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

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); an approval from a maintainer with admin or maintain permission
• The core-maintainers pool is not staffed yet; an approver with admin or maintain permission is required instead.

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 80ae73f · gate run · This comment is maintained automatically — see submission gate docs.}

[github-actions]

🔒 PR Risk Scan Results

Scanned 1 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]

🔴 Contributor Reputation Check: HIGH risk

Check	Risk
Profile	HIGH
Credential audit	NONE

Maintainers: please review this contributor before merging.
See the workflow run for full details.
Automated check powered by AGT.

[allxsmith]

/request-review

[github-actions]

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

[aaronpowell]

Thanks — the Bulma 0.9 → v1 material is exactly the kind of version-specific correction that helps Copilot, and there's nothing on Bulma in the repo yet.

Something I do wonder is whether this would be better as a plugin which splits into the different Bulma targets (React vs Vue) so they can provide a mcp.json which enables the appropriate MCP server.

This would mean that the "decision tree" within the instructions on which MCP server to go down the route of isn't required, since you'd have the "Bulma React" or "Bulma Vue" plugin installed.

[allxsmith]

@aaronpowell Thanks, that makes sense. I cut the component library section, so the file is just Bulma v1 now. The MCP setup and the which-library branching are gone, and one line in the no-JavaScript section still points React and Vue projects at Bestax or Buefy.

Bestax already packages its skills and MCP server as a plugin in allxsmith/bestax-skills, so that can go through the external plugin form on its own. A Vue plugin would be up to the Buefy maintainers, since I don't run that project.

[aaronpowell]

Thanks for narrowing this to Bulma v1. The Sass-module, removed-tile, grid, and dark-theme corrections now stand on their own, and the previous MCP decision tree is gone. The generated README check passes. A short example of Copilot correcting a 0.9-style stylesheet would be useful validation, but I do not see a remaining content blocker in this revision.