issue-analyzer
Skill0 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when decomposing a GitHub issue into atomic tasks for AI implementation, planning task breakdown, or preparing work for task-implementer agents.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- hu669293657/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 31, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- hu669293657/skills★ 2same 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 repository76 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- autodoc-analystSkill
- autodoc-architectSkill
- autodoc-assemblerSkill
- autodoc-orchestratorSkill
- autodoc-scannerSkill
- autodoc-writerSkill
- brainstormSkill
- brd-creatorSkill
- caveman-modeSkill
- changelogSkill
- claude-md-managementSkill
- code-ai-reviewSkill
- code-boss-reviewSkill
- code-mobx-store-reviewSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- code-style-reviewSkill
- code-verifierSkill
- commitSkill
- constraint-driven-developmentSkill
- context-collectorSkill
- db-migrateSkill
- dependency-updateSkill
- deploySkill
- doubt-driven-developmentSkill
- feature-analyzerSkill
- feature-devSkill
- fsd-creatorSkill
- gproject-consistency-checkerSkill
- gproject-discoverySkill
- gproject-orchestratorSkill
- gproject-patterns-researcherSkill
- gproject-plannerSkill
- gproject-problem-definerSkill
- gproject-spec-writerSkill
- gproject-stack-advisorSkill
- hookifySkill
- iagoSkill
- interviewerSkill
- interviewSkill
- job-documenterSkill
- job-orchestratorSkill
- perf-checkSkill
- plan-gatekeeperSkill
- prd-creatorSkill
- pr-issue-documenterSkill
- pr-review-commentsSkill
- prSkill
- pushSkill
- review-architectureSkill
- review-backendSkill
- review-clean-codeSkill
- review-core-boundariesSkill
- review-flow-graphSkill
- review-frontend-conventionsSkill
- review-frontendSkill
- review-greptileSkill
- review-highloadSkill
- review-logicSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
16 rules. About 0 are common, 10 are distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈10
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
6
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 92
If URLs point to GitHub files, fetch their content
- Distinctive: line 93
If URLs point to docs, fetch via WebFetch
- Distinctive: line 117
If no explicit AC — derive from description and expected behavior
- Distinctive: line 184
If task-2 imports types from task-1's new code → task-2 depends on task-1
- Distinctive: line 185
If task-3 tests code from task-2 → task-3 depends on task-2
- Distinctive: line 186
No circular dependencies allowed
- Very specific: line 259
When job-orchestrator dispatches task-implementer, it passes the task object directly as the subagent's context.
- Very specific: line 270
Every final response to the orchestrator MUST begin with STATUS: DONE or STATUS: BLOCKED.
- Very specific: line 279
Use STATUS: BLOCKED only if the issue cannot be fetched (404) or the codebase cannot be accessed.
- Very specific: line 287
All string arrays may be empty [] but not omitted
- Distinctive: line 334
DO NOT: ask the user any questions.
- Very specific: line 359
When dispatched by job-orchestrator, the prompt MAY include:
- Very specific: line 367
If CONTEXT_PATH is provided and the file exists, read it during Phase 2 (ANALYZE) to:
- Distinctive: line 370
Avoid duplicating research already captured in the context document
- Distinctive: line 371
Use the context to improve the quality of task decomposition (e.g., better target_files, richer module_patterns)
- Distinctive: line 373
If the file does not exist or is not provided, proceed normally — context is optional and non-blocking.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Issue Analyzer
Purpose
Analyzes a GitHub issue and decomposes it into atomic implementation tasks that can be dispatched to task-implementer sub-agents. Designed to run autonomously as a sub-agent — no user interaction required.
Input: GitHub issue URL (or repo + number) + codebase path(s) Output: JSON analysis object with one task entry per atomic task, each containing full context for implementation
When to Use
- Orchestrator needs to break an issue into implementable tasks
- Planning AI-driven implementation of a GitHub issue
- Understanding scope and affected areas before coding
Architecture: 4 Phases
Phase 1: COLLECT → Fetch all issue data from GitHub
Phase 2: ANALYZE → Extract intent, find affected code areas
Phase 3: DECOMPOSE → Break into atomic tasks with dependencies
Phase 4: FORMALIZE → Emit structured JSON analysis objectWorkflow
Issue Analyzer Progress:
- [ ] Phase 1: Collect issue data from GitHub
- [ ] Phase 2: Analyze intent and search codebase
- [ ] Phase 3: Decompose into atomic tasks
- [ ] Phase 4: Formalize as JSON outputPhase 1: COLLECT
Fetch all available data about the issue using gh CLI.
1.1 Core issue data:
gh issue view <NUMBER> --repo <OWNER/REPO> --json title,body,state,labels,assignees,milestone,comments,projectItems1.2 Timeline events (cross-references, linked PRs, assignments):
gh api repos/<OWNER>/<REPO>/issues/<NUMBER>/timeline --paginate1.3 Comments (full thread):
gh api repos/<OWNER>/<REPO>/issues/<NUMBER>/comments --paginate1.4 Sub-issues (if any, via GraphQL):
gh api graphql -f query='
query {
repository(owner: "<OWNER>", name: "<REPO>") {
issue(number: <NUMBER>) {
subIssues(first: 50) {
nodes { number title state url }
}
parent { number title url }
}
}
}
'1.5 Linked documents:
- Extract URLs from issue body and comments
- If URLs point to GitHub files, fetch their content
- If URLs point to docs, fetch via WebFetch
Output of Phase 1: Structured issue context object:
ISSUE_CONTEXT:
number: <N>
title: <string>
body: <markdown>
labels: [<string>]
assignees: [<string>]
comments: [{author, body, created_at}]
cross_references: [{source, type}]
sub_issues: [{number, title, state}]
parent_issue: {number, title} | null
linked_urls: [<url>]Phase 2: ANALYZE
2.1 Extract intent from issue body:
- Issue type:
bug|feature|enhancement|refactoring|chore - Expected behavior (from "Expected" / "Should" sections)
- Steps to reproduce (from "Steps" / "How to reproduce" sections)
- Acceptance criteria (from "AC" / "Criteria" / "Definition of Done" sections)
- If no explicit AC — derive from description and expected behavior
2.2 Search codebase for affected areas:
Using the codebase path(s) from input, search for relevant files:
For each keyword extracted from issue title + body:
1. Use `find_by_name` (or similar file search tool) to find files matching names.
2. Use `grep_search` to find files containing matching patterns (avoid using standard bash `grep` if the IDE provides a native tool).
3. Track: file path, line numbers, relevance scorePriority classification:
- P0 (must change): Files directly mentioned in issue, files containing the buggy behavior
- P1 (likely change): Files in the same module/directory, related types/interfaces
- P2 (may need update): Tests, stories, docs for P0/P1 files
2.3 Analyze module structure:
- Read P0 files:
- For small/medium files: read fully via
view_file. - For large files (> 500 lines): DO NOT read fully to avoid context exhaustion. Use
view_file_outlineorgrep_searchto locate specific relevant class/function signatures.
- For small/medium files: read fully via
- Identify: imports, exports, types, class/function signatures
- Map dependencies between files
- Identify existing tests and stories for affected components
Output of Phase 2: Analysis summary:
ANALYSIS:
issue_type: <bug|feature|enhancement|refactoring|chore>
intent: <1-2 sentence summary>
acceptance_criteria: [<string>]
affected_files:
p0: [{path, reason, key_symbols}]
p1: [{path, reason}]
p2: [{path, reason}]
module_map: {module_name: [files]}
existing_tests: [<path>]
existing_stories: [<path>]Phase 3: DECOMPOSE
Break the issue into atomic, implementable tasks.
3.1 Decomposition rules:
- Each task should be completable by a single agent in one session
- Each task should touch a minimal, cohesive set of files
- Tasks should follow the 3-layer architecture order when possible:
- Service/API layer changes first
- Store/logic layer changes second
- Component/UI layer changes third
- Tests and stories last (or inline with their layer)
- Maximum 7 tasks per issue (if more needed, the issue is too large)
3.2 Determine task type for each task:
| Task Type | Description | Required Outputs |
ui_component | New or modified React component | Code + Story + Screenshot test |
store_logic | MobX store changes | Code + Unit test |
service_api | API service / DTO changes | Code + Unit test |
refactoring | Code restructuring | Code + Verify existing tests pass |
fix | Bug fix | Code + Regression test |
mixed | Crosses multiple layers | Code + Tests appropriate to each layer |
3.3 Assign dependencies:
- If task-2 imports types from task-1's new code → task-2 depends on task-1
- If task-3 tests code from task-2 → task-3 depends on task-2
- No circular dependencies allowed
Output of Phase 3: Task list:
TASKS:
- id: task-1
name: <descriptive name>
task_type: <enum>
description: <what to do>
target_files: [<path>]
acceptance_criteria: [<string>]
dependencies: []
estimated_complexity: low | medium | high
- id: task-2
...Phase 4: FORMALIZE
Convert the task list into a structured JSON object for reliable machine parsing.
Output structure:
{
"issue": {
"number": "<issue_number>",
"title": "<issue_title>",
"type": "<bug|feature|enhancement|refactoring|chore>",
"repo": "<owner/repo>",
"intent": "<1-2 sentence intent summary>",
"labels": ["<label1>", "<label2>"],
"assignees": ["<user1>"],
"total_tasks": "<N>"
},
"tasks": [
{
"task_id": "task-1",
"task_name": "<Descriptive Task Name>",
"task_type": "<ui_component|store_logic|service_api|refactoring|fix|mixed>",
"complexity": "<low|medium|high>",
"dependencies": [],
"description": "<full description of what to implement>",
"target_files": ["src/path/file.ts"],
"acceptance_criteria": ["criterion 1", "criterion 2"],
"context": "<relevant code context, key types, function signatures>",
"existing_tests": ["src/path/file.test.ts"],
"existing_stories": [],
"module_patterns": "<how similar code is written in this module>",
"requires_tests_creator": true
},
{
"task_id": "task-2",
"task_name": "<Descriptive Task Name>",
"task_type": "<type>",
"complexity": "<low|medium|high>",
"dependencies": ["task-1"],
"description": "<description>",
"target_files": ["src/path/other.ts"],
"acceptance_criteria": ["criterion 1"],
"context": "<context>",
"existing_tests": [],
"existing_stories": [],
"module_patterns": "<patterns>",
"requires_tests_creator": true
}
],
"dependency_order": ["task-1", "task-2"]
}Each task object is the explicit context for task-implementer.
When job-orchestrator dispatches task-implementer, it passes the task object directly as the subagent's context. This means:
task.context,task.target_files, andtask.acceptance_criteriaare required fields — never omit or leave them empty when the information exists.task.contextmust contain enough information for the implementer to start without reading the full codebase: key types, function signatures, relevant patterns, and any design decisions.task.module_patternsmust describe how similar code is written nearby — the implementer uses this for style consistency.
Red Flag: "The implementer can figure out the context from the codebase"
→ It cannot — not reliably. An implementer with no context will make assumptions, produce inconsistent code, or ask questions. Every omitted field is a gap the implementer will fill with a guess.
Reporting Results
Every final response to the orchestrator MUST begin with STATUS: DONE or STATUS: BLOCKED.
STATUS: DONE
## Analysis
[structured JSON analysis object]Use STATUS: BLOCKED only if the issue cannot be fetched (404) or the codebase cannot be accessed.
IRON LAW: THE FIRST LINE OF YOUR FINAL RESPONSE IS ALWAYS "STATUS: DONE" OR "STATUS: BLOCKED". THE JSON ANALYSIS FOLLOWS AFTER.
Rules for JSON output:
dependency_ordermust be topologically sorted — tasks with no dependencies come firsttask_idformat:task-1,task-2, ... (sequential)dependencieslists task_ids that must complete before this task- All string arrays may be empty
[]but not omitted contextandmodule_patternsmay be empty string if not applicablerequires_tests_creatoris alwaystrue— orchestrator must dispatchtests-creatorbeforetask-implementerfor each task- Output the JSON block as the final message to the orchestrator, preceded by a brief summary (issue type, number of tasks, overall complexity)
Return format (final message to orchestrator):
Analysis complete.
- Issue type: <type>
- Total tasks: <N>
- Overall complexity: <low|medium|high>
- Dependency order: task-1 → task-2 → task-3
<json block>Automation Settings
This skill is designed to run fully autonomously. The following settings control behavior:
| Setting | Default | Options | Description |
max_tasks | 7 | 1-10 | Maximum number of tasks to decompose into |
search_depth | focused | shallow / focused / deep | How deeply to search codebase |
include_context | true | true/false | Include code context (types, signatures) in output |
timeout_strategy | partial | partial / abort | What to do if analysis takes too long |
gh_cli_fallback | skip_enrichment | skip_enrichment / abort | What to do if gh CLI is unavailable |
Error Handling
| Error | Action |
| Issue not found (404) | ABORT with error message |
| Issue body is empty | Analyze from title + comments only. Add note in output. |
| No codebase match found | Return empty task list with note "No matching code found" |
| gh CLI not available | Use provided issue data from input (title, description fallback) |
| Too many affected files (>50) | Filter to P0 only, cap at max_tasks |
| Issue is too large (>7 tasks) | Split into top-level tasks, note "consider splitting issue" |
Rules of Engagement
- DO NOT ask the user any questions. All input comes from the input contract.
- DO NOT modify any files. This is a read-only analysis skill.
- DO NOT make assumptions about implementation approach — describe WHAT, not HOW.
- DO include enough context in each task entry for a task-implementer to start without asking questions.
- DO respect the 3-layer architecture: Service → Store → Component ordering.
- DO identify existing tests and stories so implementer knows what to update.
- DO note module patterns (how similar code is written nearby) for consistency.
- Return the JSON analysis result as your final message to the orchestrator.
Red Flags — Stop and re-read this skill if you are thinking:
| Rationalization | Why it's wrong |
| "The issue title is clear enough, I'll skip reading the full body" | Acceptance criteria, repro steps, and constraints live in the body — the title is just a label |
| "I know this codebase, I don't need to search for affected files" | Prior knowledge drifts; the search step catches files that have changed since you last looked |
| "I'll create one big task instead of decomposing — simpler to track" | A monolithic task cannot be parallelized or independently verified; it defeats the whole system |
| "The dependencies between tasks seem obvious, no need to map them" | Untracked dependencies cause agents to overwrite each other's work or build on stale code |
| "The issue body is mostly boilerplate, I've got the gist" | Edge cases and acceptance criteria are often buried in what looks like boilerplate |
IRON LAW: ALWAYS READ THE FULL ISSUE BODY AND SEARCH THE CODEBASE BEFORE DECOMPOSING INTO TASKS.
Job Context Awareness
When dispatched by job-orchestrator, the prompt MAY include:
JOB_NAME: <job-name>
JOBS_ROOT: <JOBS_ROOT>
CONTEXT_PATH: <JOBS_ROOT>/<job-name>/ai/context.mdIf CONTEXT_PATH is provided and the file exists, read it during Phase 2 (ANALYZE) to:
- Understand existing project conventions and patterns
- Identify relevant library documentation and best practices
- Avoid duplicating research already captured in the context document
- Use the context to improve the quality of task decomposition (e.g., better target_files, richer module_patterns)
If the file does not exist or is not provided, proceed normally — context is optional and non-blocking.
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.

