Github Issue Intake
This is an OMH github-issue-intake workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
Why This Exists
github-issue-intake exists so a public support-chat report can become a verified GitHub issue through one bounded, confirmation-gated lane instead of ad hoc chat narration or an unscoped bot write.
Do Not Use When
- The report only wants classification or signal clustering; use feedback-triage instead.
- The event concerns an already-existing issue, PR, review, or CI run; use github-event-ops instead.
- The user wants implementation; coding stays a separate follow-up lane with its own maintainer authority.
- The report describes a security vulnerability; redirect to the private SECURITY.md path.
Examples
Good example:
- Prompt: please file this as an issue: omh setup fails on Windows
- Expected behavior: Classify the report, run the bounded interview, search duplicates, present the direction check, and prepare github_issue_intake/v1 for confirmation-gated connector handoff.
- Why: The request is an explicit pre-creation filing ask with a classifiable report and an explicit target.
Bad example:
- Prompt: github-issue-intake prove the issue was filed and labelled.
- Expected behavior: Report that creation, labeling, and any GitHub mutation stay unobserved until an authorized connector returns read-back evidence.
- Why: A prepared package is not issue creation, label application, or any GitHub mutation evidence.
Completion Checklist
- Confirm the workflow target, evidence boundary, and stop condition are named.
- Report which outputs are prepared, observed, blocked, or missing.
- Name the smallest next verification or handoff instead of claiming completion from narration.
Recovery Notes
- If required context is missing, ask one blocking question or route back to the narrower workflow.
- If runtime or wrapper evidence is unavailable, keep the status as not_observed and expose the next observable action.
Use When
Use when a public chat report should become a new GitHub issue: classify it, ask at most three decision-changing questions, search duplicates, confirm the direction, and hand the scoped creation to an authorized connector.
Strong routing signals: `github-issue-intake`, `github issue intake`, `issue intake`, `file this as an issue`, `file a github issue`, `open a github issue`, `create a github issue`, `submit a github issue`, `report a bug as an issue`, `new github issue`, `이슈로 올려줘`, `깃허브 이슈로 올려줘`, `이슈 등록해줘`, `깃허브 이슈 등록해줘`, `깃허브 이슈 만들어줘`, `깃허브 이슈 생성해줘`, `버그 리포트 올려줘`, `새 이슈 만들어줘`
Catalog Metadata
Category: github-ops
Phase: issue-intake
Quality tier: workflow-surface-gated
Reasoning demand: standard
Quality bar:
- Classify the report from supplied or observed facts and separate observation from inference.
- Ask at most three unresolved, decision-changing questions; stop with a specific missing-evidence request instead of filing a vague issue.
- Present the direction check, require confirmation, and keep prepared packages distinct from observed creation.
Required inputs:
- public report or summary
- source boundary
- explicit target repository
- desired outcome
- scope boundary
- missing evidence
Expert clarification questions:
desired outcome- English: What is the smallest user-visible outcome this issue should ask for?
- Korean: 이 이슈가 요구해야 할 가장 작은 사용자 관점 결과는 무엇인가요?
scope boundary- English: What is explicitly included in this issue, and what is explicitly out of scope?
- Korean: 이 이슈에 명시적으로 포함되는 범위와 명시적으로 제외되는 범위는 무엇인가요?
missing evidence- English: Which reproduction steps, versions, or logs are still missing and would change the issue direction?
- Korean: 이슈 방향을 바꿀 수 있는 재현 단계, 버전, 로그 중 아직 없는 증거는 무엇인가요?
Expected outputs:
- github_issue_intake/v1
- direction check
- duplicate status
- issue package or connector handoff
- read-back verification or explicit blocker
Artifact expectations:
- github_issue_intake/v1 metadata-only wrapper card when recorded
Safety rules:
- Investigation is read-only: repository and documentation exploration plus GitHub duplicate search; never mutate code, settings, branches, commits, PRs, releases, or deployments.
- No external mutation before the direction check and an explicit confirmation; a maintainer file-now requires authenticated-wrapper actor/evidence identity and never bypasses duplicate, template, security, or read-back gates.
- Confirmation requires a complete direction check - type, user-visible problem, source summary, smallest desired outcome, included and excluded scope, observed evidence versus inference, and duplicate status - plus a completed duplicate search; any blocker (security redirect, missing evidence, connector unavailable, or credentials missing) stops confirmation and handoff and cannot be cleared by a later observed result.
- A public reporter authorizes exactly one scoped create_issue against an explicit repository; code, configuration, branch, commit, PR, merge, deployment, and coding-executor mutations stay in their own maintainer-gated lanes.
- Security vulnerability reports redirect to the private SECURITY.md reporting path instead of a public issue.
- Core OMH never calls GitHub; only a checked-in issue-form builder can produce an authorized create_issue request. An authorized connector receives one stable idempotency-keyed request, must enforce that key externally, and returns observed result evidence bound to that request; dispatch consumes the core handoff, so dispatched or observed artifacts cannot hand off again.
- A prepared issue package is not creation evidence; only connector read-back of repository, author, title, body, labels, and URL is observed evidence.
- The target repository must be explicit or safely configured; never infer a cross-repository target from context.
- github_issue_intake/v1 persists bounded metadata, digests, and refs only: no raw title, body, transcript, platform event, credential, prompt, private log, or private content; the complete request remains transient for the connector.
Runtime Evidence
Use the current host's own tools and subagent/task mechanism when available;
otherwise run the same lanes sequentially or name the unavailable capability.
A prepared plan, handoff, checklist, or skill installation is not execution,
review, CI, merge-readiness, or merge evidence. Report actual tool results or
not_observed / not_available; never invent dispatch or host accounting.
Treat supplied context as advisory, not proof of hidden memory reads or writes.
State scope, constraints, verification, and the stop condition before work.
Supporting paths are relative to this skill directory; sibling skill paths are
relative to its parent. Resolve them from the host-provided skill base directory
({baseDir} on hosts that provide it), never a hardcoded install location.
A named workflow not installed here is unavailable, not permission to emulate
its host-specific capabilities. Verify through the real surface before done.
