File Issue

Draft a GitHub issue body that follows the user's conventions, show the draft for approval, then file via gh.

Conventions

Apply the rules in gh-body-conventions to the title and body. One issue-specific rule on top of them:

• Omit empty sections. If a heading's content would be empty (no bullets, no prose), drop the heading entirely. No TBD placeholders, no empty bullet lists, no synthesized filler.

Length

A typical issue body is 5–25 lines. Longer is fine when warranted (e.g., a design proposal with alternatives), but every paragraph should earn its place. Aim for: problem statement, minimal reproduction or evidence, proposed direction (if any).

Variants

Umbrella sub-issue

When the new issue is a phase / sub-issue of an existing umbrella tracking issue, the body shape and title convention differ from a standalone issue.

• First body line. Parent: #<umbrella#>. Always included so tooling can detect the umbrella linkage.
• Title. Phase N: <topic> when the umbrella uses phase naming; otherwise mirror the umbrella's sub-task naming convention.
• Body shape. Goal / Scope / Out of scope / Acceptance (in place of the default problem-statement shape). When the leaf research has produced a full research plan, that plan IS the body — the sub-issue body is the canonical contract surface, not a thin pointer to a comment elsewhere.
• "Out of scope" extraction. When inheriting from an umbrella with a Phases table: list only unspawned sibling phases later than the chosen one, formatted as <topic> (Phase <id>). The point is to pin scope-creep boundaries against work the umbrella has already promised to a future sub-issue. Do not copy umbrella-wide deferrals shared across all phases (e.g. "1-site DMRG", "opsum DSL"). Already-completed earlier phases are also not listed (the boundary is forward-looking).
• Frozen-contract discipline. The sub-issue body is written at file time and not edited during implementation. Drift discovered during implementation goes to the PR's Plan-vs-actual delta (and, when a reader genuinely needs it, a Notes caveat in the PR body framed as the code's own limitation), never back to the issue body. Editing the body rewrites history that PR titles, commit messages, and Closes #N references already point to.

After filing, append the new sub-issue's number to the umbrella's Phases table row. This is the only umbrella-body edit performed at sub-issue spawn time; deeper umbrella drift (decisions captured, out-of-scope changes) is handled later at sub-issue close, not at spawn.

Procedure

1. Confirm scope

Before drafting, identify:

• Target repo (gh repo view if unclear).
• Whether this is a bug, feature, design discussion, or umbrella sub-issue. The default body shape covers the first three; umbrella sub-issues use the shape defined in Variants > Umbrella sub-issue above.
• Any related issues/PRs to link.
• Premise type (rot exposure). Is the premise an absence (a capability / perf / test not built yet) or coupled to current code state (a specific construct is wrong / missing a test / a stopgap with a known expiry)?
  • Absence → it stays valid until built.
  • Code-coupled → step 6 decides whether the issue takes the perishable label. If a known issue/refactor would obviate or reshape it, link that trigger in the body (or fold it in there as a checklist item).

2. Draft

Produce a title and body following the conventions above.

Title — a single descriptive line under ~70 characters. No leading type prefix unless the repo's existing issues use one.

Body — typical structure (adapt as needed):

<one-paragraph problem statement using semantic line breaks>

## Context  (optional — only if the reader needs background to follow the body)

<minimal context>

## Reproduction / Evidence  (for bugs)

<commands, inputs, observed vs expected, with code blocks where appropriate>

## Proposal  (optional)

<direction, not full implementation>

Section headings are optional for short issues — a 5-line body often needs no headings at all.

3. Discharge evidence claims

Discharge every evidence claim in the draft, as gh-body-conventions § Evidence claims defines one — across all sections, not only the ## Reproduction / Evidence slot that asks for commands run and results observed. Run this in main context: the record the rule compares against is the drafting session's own, which a subagent does not have.

Editing the body here is expected; the laundering pass runs on the result.

4. Laundering pass — run gh-body-audit

Run gh-body-audit against the drafted body with artifact kind issue. It returns a ✅ / ⚠ status. Mandatory before every gh-post issue create / gh-post issue comment. Any ⚠ blocks step 5 on gh-body-audit step 4's terms.

See gh-body-audit/SKILL.md for the procedure.

5. Show for approval

Present the laundered draft to the user verbatim before filing. Do not file without confirmation.

If the user requests changes, revise, re-discharge its evidence claims, re-run the laundering pass, and re-show. Do not file partially — the next step runs only after explicit approval.

6. File

Write the laundered body to a temp file, then invoke the wrapper:

gh-post issue create \
  --repo <owner>/<repo> \
  --title "<title>" \
  --body-file /tmp/<descriptive-name>.md

Add a --label flag to gh-post issue create for each of these, and no other labels:

• perishable, when the premise is code-coupled by step 1's premise-type classification and the target repo has a label named perishable. When the premise is code-coupled and the target repo has no such label, offer to create it there; if the user accepts, create it and add it.
• Each label the user asked this issue to carry, and each label the target repo states this issue must carry.

7. Report

After filing, show the user:

• The issue number and URL.
• Any follow-up actions (e.g., linking from a parent umbrella issue, mentioning in a PR).