issue-writer
Skill5 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Turn a rough bug report, idea, or complaint into an actionable issue by investigating the codebase first for reproduction steps, expected vs actual behaviour, suspected location, and acceptance criteria, then filing it with gh or emitting paste-ready markdown. Use when asked to file or write up an issue, or when a bug mentioned in passing should be tracked.
4 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- edloidas/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- NatanGer97/nautinktheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- phalbohr/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- NVIDIA/container-canarytheir own version, first seen Jul 31, 2026
Other versions4 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 4
- NVIDIA/container-canary★ 309same name
- edloidas/skills★ 2same name
- NatanGer97/nautink★ 2same name
- phalbohr/skills★ 1same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository89 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- site/llms-full.txtllms.txt
- site/llms.txtllms.txt
- improveSkill
- academic-writingSkill
- benchmark-reportingSkill
- bibtex-managerSkill
- citation-graphSkill
- citation-verifierSkill
- design-science-methodologySkill
- docx-thesisSkill
- experiment-reproducibilitySkill
- latex-toolkitSkill
- literature-searchSkill
- lit-review-synthesisSkill
- paper-readerSkill
- proofread-academicSkill
- research-figuresSkill
- research-methodologySkill
- research-questionSkill
- statistics-advisorSkill
- supervisor-updateSkill
- systematic-reviewSkill
- thesis-proposalSkill
- coolify-image-appSkill
- coolify-vps-baselineSkill
- deploy-verificationSkill
- express-prisma-coolify-imageSkill
- ghcr-coolify-pipelineSkill
- live-domain-cutoverSkill
- nextjs-coolify-imageSkill
- proxy-client-addressSkill
- vps-ops-toolkitSkill
- adr-writingSkill
- openapi-specSkill
- readme-writingSkill
- technical-writingSkill
- adversarial-reviewerSkill
- api-design-reviewSkill
- code-review-responseSkill
- create-agentSkill
- create-commandSkill
- create-hookSkill
- create-skillSkill
- db-migration-safetySkill
- dependency-upgradeSkill
- dockerfile-best-practicesSkill
- error-handling-patternsSkill
- executing-plansSkill
- explain-codebaseSkill
- fix-ciSkill
- github-actions-pipelineSkill
- grill-with-docsSkill
- incident-postmortemSkill
- logging-and-observabilitySkill
- parallel-agentsSkill
- performance-optimizationSkill
- refactoring-recipesSkill
- solid-principlesSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.
1
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 13
The one-sentence problem: If you cannot state it in one sentence, you do not understand it yet.
- Very specific: line 22
Duplicates: when gh is available, search first - gh issue list --search "<keywords>" --state all --limit 10.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
An issue is a work order for someone with none of this conversation's context. Write it so that a developer who picks it up cold can reproduce the problem, knows when they are done, and starts in the right file - and do the investigating now, while the context exists, rather than leaving it to them. A two-minute look at the code turns "the export is broken" into an issue with a suspected cause and a pointer.
Step 1: Extract and classify
From the user's description (and the current conversation - the bug being discussed right now is usually the subject), pin down:
- Type: bug, feature request, or task/chore. This decides the template below.
- The one-sentence problem. If you cannot state it in one sentence, you do not understand it yet; ask the one or two questions that resolve it. Do not interrogate - two questions maximum, then write with what you have and mark the gaps.
- Severity signals for bugs: data loss, wrong results, crash, cosmetic? Who hits it and how often?
Step 2: Investigate before writing
Spend a short, bounded pass in the repo making the issue concrete:
- Bugs: find the code path involved (
grepthe error message, the feature name, the route). Note the suspected file/function. If reproduction is cheap - a failing command, a curl, a unit test - actually run it and record the real output. Checkgit logon the suspect file for a recent change that correlates. - Features: find where the change would land, what patterns exist to follow, and any related prior art (an existing similar feature, an old TODO, a closed issue).
- Duplicates: when
ghis available, search first -gh issue list --search "<keywords>" --state all --limit 10. A duplicate found now saves a triage round-trip; link it instead of filing twice.
Everything found goes in the issue as fact ("reproduced on main at abc1234, output below"), everything guessed goes in clearly marked as hypothesis ("possibly introduced by #118 - unverified").
Step 3: Write it
Title: specific and searchable - symptom plus context, under ~70 chars. "CSV export drops rows with embedded newlines", not "Export broken".
Bug body:
## Summary
<one sentence: who hits what, under which conditions>
## Reproduction
1. <exact steps, commands, or failing test - copy-pasteable>
**Expected:** <what should happen>
**Actual:** <what happens - real output/stack trace in a collapsed block if long>
## Environment
<version/commit, OS/browser/runtime - only the ones that matter>
## Notes
<suspected location (file:line), correlated change, workaround if any - hypotheses labelled as such>Feature body: Problem (the need, not the solution), Proposed solution (concrete but open to alternatives), Acceptance criteria (checkboxes a reviewer can verify), Out of scope (the line that stops creep).
Respect the repository's own conventions: if .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/ exists, fit its structure and answer its fields; reuse the labels the repo actually has (gh label list) instead of inventing new ones.
Step 4: File or hand over
With gh and a confirmed target repo: show the final title and body, then file with gh issue create --title ... --body ... plus appropriate labels, and report the URL. Filing is outward-facing - show before sending unless the user already said to file directly.
Without gh or when the tracker is elsewhere (Jira, Linear): emit the finished markdown in a code block, ready to paste, with the labels/priority suggestion noted at the top.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

