> Could you elaborate on this? I'm still on the fence about even having independent dotfiles in a separate repo. I'm not quite sure what specifically you want

> Could you elaborate on this? I'm still on the fence about even having independent dotfiles in a separate repo. I'm not quite sure what specifically you want me to elaborate on, but I'll write about how similar my work and personal computers are. My USPTO computer is almost entirely independent of my personal computer. I run Linux on my personal computer, and the USPTO computer is Windows. The repository for my tool, plint, is on both my USPTO and personal computers. With that being said, I make all the commits to the GitHub repository on my personal computer. > If I may ask yet another question: if your tools make you more efficient, does that impact perception of other examiners' "KPI metrics?" plint doesn't seem to have any effect on how I am perceived or how other examiners are perceived. I've told some examiners about plint. Some don't seem to be interested, others like the idea. I don't know of anyone else using plint on a regular basis. Also, using a tool like this doesn't necessarily make an examiner more efficient in the KPIs that upper management cares about. The most "efficient" approach would be to ignore 112(b) problems unless they are particularly obvious. In fact, I think that's what the incentives encourage: doing the bare minimum and moving on to the next application. However, a tool like this makes quality examination more efficient. I'd like to do as high quality a job as I can given the absurd time restrictions on my work. USPTO upper management gives a lot of lip service to quality, but quality isn't rewarded like "production" is. (Again, all this is my opinion and I don't speak for anyone else.)