I can help you, if you want. Already requested to be assigned to this package.  But I'm not sure this is the correct way, through Bugzilla.

1) Lose the Group tag.

2) Source0 should look like this:
https://github.com/baskerville/%{name}/archive/%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Git_Tags

(In reply to Filip Szymański from comment #2)
> 1) Lose the Group tag.
i agree
> 2) Source0 should look like this:
> https://github.com/baskerville/%{name}/archive/%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-
> %{version}.tar.gz

or 

https://github.com/baskerville/%{name}/archive/%{version}/%{name}- %{version}.tar.gz

> See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Git_Tags


have time for this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366845 ?

other issues:
missing BuildRequires: gcc or gcc-c++
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequires_and_Requires
missing license file
please, add
%license LICENSE
%doc README.md
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
     license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
     license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 11 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/gil/1377038-sxhkd/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[!]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
 ./contrib/systemd/sxhkd.service
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 8 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in sxhkd-
     debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: sxhkd-0.5.6-1.fc26.i686.rpm
          sxhkd-debuginfo-0.5.6-1.fc26.i686.rpm
          sxhkd-0.5.6-1.fc26.src.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: sxhkd-debuginfo-0.5.6-1.fc26.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.



Requires
--------
sxhkd-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

sxhkd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    libc.so.6
    libxcb-keysyms.so.1
    libxcb.so.1
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
sxhkd-debuginfo:
    sxhkd-debuginfo
    sxhkd-debuginfo(x86-32)

sxhkd:
    sxhkd
    sxhkd(x86-32)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/baskerville/sxhkd/archive/0.5.6.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 72366eea4d7ed17a3a9eab5257e59edf9a7cd63b926af1dca2d895dfefaff995
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 72366eea4d7ed17a3a9eab5257e59edf9a7cd63b926af1dca2d895dfefaff995


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1377038 --plugins C/C++ -m fedora-rawhide-i386
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

issues:
missing BuildRequires:	gcc
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequires_and_Requires
missing license file
please, add
%license LICENSE
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

One more thing, this package has a systemd unit file.

See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Packaging

Thank you Gil and Filip.

In my previous spec files I always used the Group tag, I know that is not used anymore, but it doesn't hurt having it either (it was never a problem).
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RPMGroups


Changelog:
- removed Group
- fixed Source0
- added BuildRequires: gcc
- added %license LICENSE and %doc README.asciidoc
- added systemd service according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd

The spec and srpm files from my first comment have been updated.

T(In reply to Oles Pidgornyy from comment #8)
> Thank you Gil and Filip.
> 
> In my previous spec files I always used the Group tag, I know that is not
> used anymore, but it doesn't hurt having it either (it was never a problem).
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RPMGroups
> 
> 
> Changelog:
> - removed Group
> - fixed Source0
> - added BuildRequires: gcc
> - added %license LICENSE and %doc README.asciidoc
> - added systemd service according to
This is useless "Source1:	%{url}/raw/%{version}/contrib/systemd/%{name}.service". this file "contrib/systemd/sxhkd.service" is already present in the source archive
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd
> 
> The spec and srpm files from my first comment have been updated.

 ...and are missing these scripts:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets?rd=Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd

OK, the file is in ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/sxhkd-0.5.6/contrib/systemd/sxhkd.service, but how do access this in the spec? It is OK to use %{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}/contrib/systemd or is that too "hacky"? Is there a better way?

(In reply to Oles Pidgornyy from comment #11)
> OK, the file is in
> ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/sxhkd-0.5.6/contrib/systemd/sxhkd.service, but how do
> access this in the spec? It is OK to use
> %{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}/contrib/systemd or is that too "hacky"? Is
> there a better way?

usual should be:
install -p -D -m 0644 contrib/systemd/%{name}.service %{buildroot}/%{_unitdir}/

run "koji build --scratch --nowait rawhide path/to/file.src.rpm" for check the changes

and maybe you lost my request to review in exchange https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366845

Seem all ok now, approved

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/sxhkd

sxhkd-0.5.7-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-aef46593b7

sxhkd-0.5.7-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-824d1161bd

sxhkd-0.5.7-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-71f21cedb9

sxhkd-0.5.7-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-824d1161bd

sxhkd-0.5.7-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-71f21cedb9

sxhkd-0.5.7-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-aef46593b7

sxhkd-0.5.8-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-0fe63e931c

sxhkd-0.5.8-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-26bd56d311

sxhkd-0.5.8-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-0fe63e931c

sxhkd-0.5.8-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-9c4a3ece9c