networktocode.nautobot

Ship a `changelogs/changelog.yaml` — the structured form `antsibull-changelog` generates and the `ansible` package consumes — rather than only a hand-maintained `CHANGELOG.md`, and write a fragment into `changelogs/fragments/` as each change lands rather than reconstructing release notes at release time. Both have to be inside the published tarball to be observable: a changelog that lives only in your Git repository is one we cannot read. This is the single highest-leverage change for most collections, because the same missing file is what holds down both changelog rules in this rubric. If you already publish `changelog.yaml` with fragments, this rule is answered.

Declare a machine-readable SPDX identifier in `galaxy.yml`’s `license` field rather than relying on a `LICENSE` file alone: an identifier is what a consuming organisation’s policy tooling reads without a human opening the file. A `LICENSES/` directory following REUSE ranks above a bare root licence file and below the identifier. One exception worth stating: we record the identifier you publish rather than validating it against the SPDX list, so a wrong identifier will earn these marks and mislead your users at the same time — if no SPDX identifier fits your licence, publish the file instead.

Publish your test evidence inside the artifact: `molecule/` scenarios for a role collection, and `tests/unit/`, `tests/integration/` and `tests/sanity/` for a plugin collection. Ansible’s own packaging documentation suggests excluding `tests/` through `build_ignore`, so if you follow that advice we simply cannot see them — their absence from your tarball is a limit on what we read and never a claim that you have no tests. In this scoring version this rule can only add points: when we observe no test evidence the rule leaves your calculation entirely rather than scoring zero, so publishing tests can raise your score and withholding them cannot lower it.