Curation Standards
This page is a compact restatement of CONTRIBUTING.md. It is not a new policy layer.
What makes something worth adding
The repository asks contributors to add only resources they have personally used or can genuinely recommend. The guide then suggests four checks:
- active maintenance
- unique value relative to entries already present
- practical usefulness to robotics researchers or practitioners
- reasonable accessibility through documentation, open-source code, or a public demo
Category-specific quality bar
| Category | Standard from CONTRIBUTING.md |
|---|---|
| Software / Tools | Actively maintained within the last 12 months, documented, and ideally above 100 GitHub stars. |
| Papers | Peer-reviewed venue papers or influential arXiv preprints with more than 50 citations. |
| Hardware | Commercially available, or open-source with reproduction guides. |
| Courses | From recognized institutions or with substantial community adoption. |
| Companies | Public products, demos, or research output. |
Formatting rules
- [Name](URL) - Description ending with a period.
The guide also requires:
-list markers- concise one-sentence descriptions
- uppercase first letter in descriptions
- a period at the end of descriptions
- proper capitalization for product and framework names
- no trailing slash on URLs
Placement rules
- Add a resource to the most specific applicable category.
- Keep entries alphabetically ordered within the category.
- If a resource could fit multiple categories, place it in the primary one only.
- New categories should arrive with at least three quality entries.
Pull request checklist
The contribution file includes a checklist for duplicates, quality, formatting, ordering, working links, and a clear explanation of why the submission belongs in the list.
Practical reading of the policy
The contribution guide gives the repository a real editorial bar. It does not prove that every current link still meets that bar today, but it does make the intended maintenance standard explicit.