create-issue
Skill4 starsChanged 59 days agoMITView on GitHub
Create a fully-seeded GitHub issue — not a bare `issue-create` call: template-compliant, carrying a brainstorm → spec → implementation-plan trail so a contributor can pick it up cold. ALWAYS reach for this whenever the user wants to open, file, add, raise, log, or track a NEW issue / feature request / idea / ticket / backlog item — "track this idea", "make a ticket", « ouvre une issue pour X », « crée un ticket pour ça », or batches of several ideas at once. Also PLANS AN EXISTING raw issue via `--seed #N` ("give issue 42 a plan"). Does NOT apply to otherwise managing existing issues (commenting, closing, listing), or to standalone brainstorming with no issue to file.
63 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- neko3cs/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- dsifry/metaswarmtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- alexander-kastil/copilot-harnesstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- nateslabach/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- blamechris/chroxytheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- javierbrea/eslint-plugin-boundariestheir own version, first seen Nov 2, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use native-nostalgia-stack, software-engineering-excellence and 7 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
frostneySkillnative-nostalgia-stack
Applies the user's FreePascal toolchain and its build, formatting, hook, and test contracts while leaving project-specific mechanics local. Use when scaffolding or working in a FreePascal project that follows this toolchain.
Also in 3 projects that use this
frostneySkillsoftware-engineering-excellence
Applies the user's engineering standards during substantial technical work: preserve scope, use current evidence, delegate independent parts, and complete authorized outcomes. Use during substantial implementation, debugging, refactoring, or multi-part delivery work.
Also in 3 projects that use this
withpiperSkillroadmap-review
Audit roadmap health — issues, dependency order, spec coverage, doc freshness. Use when speccing a new initiative. Use when /phase-plan output looks suspicious. Use before /roadmap-create reruns.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Microsoft AzureSkillcreate-release
Use when creating a new ASO release, including pre-checks, release notes generation, draft GitHub release creation, documentation updates, and ROADMAP changes.
Also in 4 projects that use this
MicrosoftSkillupdate-pr
Update the pull request for the current session. Use when the user wants to push new changes to an existing PR.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Model Context ProtocolSkillproject-structure
Where things live in the Inspector repo — which client owns which surface, what is in core/ versus clients/web, and what each top-level directory is for. Use when locating code, deciding where a new module belongs, or answering which package owns or contains a given area of the codebase.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions63 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- phmatray/tagout★ 4100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 62
- penpot/penpot★ 62ksame name
- videojs/video.js★ 40ksame name
- yugabyte/yugabyte-db★ 11ksame name
- antiwork/gumroad★ 10ksame name
- gitkraken/vscode-gitlens★ 10ksame name
- camunda/camunda★ 4.4ksame name
- robustmq/robustmq★ 1.9ksame name
- aws-powertools/powertools-lambda-typescript★ 1.8ksame name
- classroomio/classroomio★ 1.7ksame name
- tikv/pd★ 1.2ksame name
52 more not listed
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 repository15 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .claude/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- .cursor/rules/tagout.mdcCursor rule
- auto-devSkill
- create-prSkill
- debug-issueSkill
- deliver-issueSkill
- implement-issueSkill
- initSkill
- merge-prSkill
- migrate-legacySkill
- review-followupsSkill
- review-sessionsSkill
- triage-backlogSkill
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 52 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
- Very specific: line 39
Large work does not leave here as one issue: When the plan Step 6 writes would earn the profile's largest effort size, the idea files as a …
- Distinctive: line 103
Create a task per item and complete in order.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 52 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
Create a GitHub issue (template-compliant, auto-seeded)
What this does
Turns a raw idea into an issue a future contributor can pick up cold: one self-contained description that obeys the project's issue template, then walks the idea from fuzzy to actionable —
- Brainstorm — frames the problem, lays out 2-3 approaches with trade-offs, recommends one.
- Spec — the formal design doc for the chosen approach.
- Implementation plan — bite-sized, testable tasks an engineer (or
implement-issue) can execute.
Brainstorm, spec and plan follow the kit's own shared doctrine —
../_shared/brainstorm-and-spec.md and
../_shared/plan-shape.md — so the artifacts match how the project plans
work on every machine, with no third-party plugin installed (#324).
Large work does not leave here as one issue. When the plan Step 6 writes would earn the
profile's largest effort size, the idea files as a parent plus tracer-bullet children — the
parent a plan-less tracking body auto-dev never dispatches, each child a vertical slice with its own
plan and its blockers wired as native GitHub dependencies (Step 6's decompose branch;
references/decomposition.md, the parent's body per
references/tracking-issue.md). --no-split keeps today's single
large issue.
Everything lives in the issue body, not comments — deliberately. GitHub's task-list progress
meter (the 3 of 8 bar on issue lists / project boards) counts checkboxes in the body only, and
implement-issue reads the plan straight from the description. So the trackable plan belongs in the
body, where ticking a task moves the needle.
Autonomy contract
Run hands-off. See
ADR 0005 for the
decision and its scope. The doctrine in _shared/brainstorm-and-spec.md descends from an interactive
process (ask one question at a time, stop at approval gates); here you run it in one-shot
autonomous mode. Whenever the process would ask or wait for sign-off, pick the most reasonable default, state the assumption inline (a short
"Assumptions" note), and keep going. Only stop for a genuine blocker you can't assume past (gh not
authenticated, or an idea too vague to even name). Decide; don't hold up the line.
--grill is the single sanctioned exception, and only when the user passed it. The contract above
is right because nobody is usually watching — merge-pr Step 6 and the auto-dev workers file issues
into an empty room, and a question asked there is the never-wait failure (#187). Passing the flag is
the evidence that somebody is there to answer, so it buys exactly one round of questions and nothing
more: see ../_shared/grilling.md. Without the flag, nothing about this
contract changes — never invent a pause because the idea felt underdetermined.
Inputs
Everything below runs from one default inlet: an idea in the user's own message. Two opt-in inputs change where the idea comes from and whether Step 5 pauses; both are off unless the user typed them, so every unattended caller keeps today's behaviour byte for byte.
| Input | Effect | Default |
<idea…> | today's path — file a NEW issue from the idea in the request | — |
--seed #N | plan the existing issue #N in place instead of filing a new one; Steps 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 take their seed branch | off |
--grill | one interview round on the frontier of design decisions, before Step 5 writes the Spec | off |
--force | with --seed only: re-seed an issue that already carries a ## 🛠️ Implementation plan | off |
--no-split | file a plan that would earn the largest effort size as ONE issue, exactly as before, instead of taking Step 6's decompose branch | off |
Parse these from the request as prose — the skill reads its own arguments, the same way
triage-backlog reads --dry-run; there is no argument-parser script. Anything on the line that is
not one of these flags is idea text.
A flag is a standalone token at the start or the end of the request, separated by whitespace,
never a word inside the idea's own sentence. --grill add X and add X --grill pass the flag;
add a --grill mode to X does not — that --grill is idea text, because it sits inside the
sentence rather than at either edge. Same test for --seed: a bare --seed with no #N token in
that position is not a seed either. This is what keeps an unattended caller (merge-pr Step 6, the
auto-dev workers, deliver-issue) from misreading an idea that happens to quote a flag's spelling
in its own prose — "let triage-backlog accept --grill the way create-issue does" carries no flag;
"do it like --seed #40 does for issues" carries no flag either, since --seed #40 there sits
mid-sentence, not at an edge.
The two compose: --seed #N --grill puts the decisions #N leaves open to the user first, then seeds
#N with the answers fixed. --force is meaningless without --seed — say so and carry on rather than
stopping.
Checklist
Create a task per item and complete in order. For a batch of ideas, run steps 2-8 once per idea.
- Preconditions — confirm
ghworks and you're in the repo. - Capture the idea(s) — from the user's message; don't interrogate.
- Check for duplicates, root causes & related issues — don't refile what exists, fold a symptom into the issue that owns its cause, link what's adjacent.
- Build the template-compliant body fields — read the live issue template and fill it.
- Brainstorm + Spec — collapsible
<details>sections (per_shared/brainstorm-and-spec.md). - Implementation plan (per
_shared/plan-shape.md) — a visible section whose- [ ]checkboxes feed the progress meter; never inside a<details>. If the plan would earn the largest effort size (and no--no-split): decompose it into a parent plus vertical-slice children instead. - Assemble the description, choose labels, create the issue — one body, one
"<kit>/scripts/tracker.sh" issue-create(or, with--seed #N, one"<kit>/scripts/tracker.sh" issue-edit-bodyonto the existing issue and never a create), labels (type + priority + effort + area, plus any sub-area the profile defines) from the profile, then read the issue back. Decomposed: parent first, children in dependency order, thenscripts/wire-edges.shwires the edges in a second pass (still directgh, per The decomposed variant). - Recap — the shared closing shape (
../_shared/recap.md, with its Boundary findings block); list each issue with its URL, point the user at/implement-issue. Decomposed: name then number, and hand off to the first frontier child, never the parent.
How to read this skill
One step file at a time, when you reach it — never all up front. Every token loaded here is
re-read on every later turn (skills/auto-dev/references/token-economics.md: ~83% of a run's
spend is context re-read), so the step bodies live under references/steps/ and the checklist
above is the whole of what loads with the skill. Open a step when its checklist item starts; the
shared references it names load the same way, from inside that step.
- Step 1 —
references/steps/01-preconditions.md· reads_shared/preconditions.md - Step 2 —
references/steps/02-capture-the-idea.md· reads_shared/untrusted-input-boundary.md - Step 3 —
references/steps/03-duplicates-and-root-causes.md· reads_shared/filing-bar.md,_shared/prior-rejections.md,_shared/untrusted-input-boundary.md - Step 4 —
references/steps/04-template-fields.md - Step 5 —
references/steps/05-brainstorm-and-spec.md· reads_shared/brainstorm-and-spec.md,_shared/grilling.md,_shared/test-seams.md - Step 6 —
references/steps/06-implementation-plan.md· reads_shared/plan-shape.md,_shared/test-seams.md - Step 7 —
references/steps/07-assemble-and-create.md - Step 8 —
references/steps/08-recap.md· reads_shared/recap.md
Notes on quality
- Stay template-driven — read the live issue-template YAML each run (location from the profile's Issue templates section; the kit's own
templates/issue-forms/feature_request.ymlwhen it names none); don't hardcode fields that drift. - Ground content in the repo — reference real files, the actual architecture, and the roadmap; generic boilerplate is worthless.
- Respect the architecture invariant — shape specs/plans to the profile's Architecture grain so a plan reads like it belongs here.
- The plan is a tracked checklist, not an essay — preserve
plan-shape.md's- [ ]checkboxes into the body and keep the section visible; flattened-to-prose or hidden-in-<details>loses its job and its place in the progress meter. - A tracking parent has no plan, on purpose. Zero
- [ ], no### Task, noImplementation planstring — that absence is the mechanism that keepsauto-devfrom dispatching a job no single context can hold. Step 7's readback refuses a parent that trips it; never "help" by adding a checklist to the parent. - The Spec's contract is a promise, not decoration — acceptance criteria are numbered (never
- [ ], which the checkbox readback andtick-plan.shwould count), each is checkable without reading the diff, and "Out of scope" names something quotable rather than staying empty. See../_shared/test-seams.mdfor the seam doctrine theTesting decisionsheading and the plan'sSeams under test:line both draw on.
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.

