Repository navigation
Bug, patch, and general forms use direct prompts - #21
Open
Marius Storhaug (MariusStorhaug) wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
Marius Storhaug (MariusStorhaug) wants to merge 2 commits into
Marius Storhaug (MariusStorhaug) wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🟢 Approved
No active review issues are blocking the issue-form instruction updates.
No open issues 🎉
What changed in this PR
Updates the bug, patch, and general issue forms with direct input instructions so reporters know what information to provide.
Changes:
- Replaces generic introductions with descriptions of each form’s purpose.
- Clarifies prompts for bug details, requested changes, and general issues.
- Preserves form fields, labels, required flags, and YAML structure.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/99-general.yml |
Clarifies the form’s scope and requests the issue subject and related information. |
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/02-patch.yml |
Requests existing content or behavior and the desired change. |
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/01-bug.yml |
Makes bug-report prompts direct and specifies the expected information. |
Review effort: Balanced
Open
5 tasks done
Marius Storhaug (MariusStorhaug)
marked this pull request as ready for review
November 4, 2026 14:41
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The bug, patch, and general issue forms name the information that reporters give. Their prompts use direct instructions without filler or a promise of a fast response. Existing fields and submission requirements do not change.
Changed: Issue forms use direct input instructions
The bug form identifies expected and actual behavior, the environment, reproduction steps, related information, and evidence. The patch form asks for the existing content or behavior and the desired change. The general form asks for the issue subject and related information.
All three forms retain their names, titles, labels, field IDs, field order, types, and required flags. The bug form keeps three required and two optional textareas. The patch and general forms each keep one required textarea. Repositories that use these shared forms need no configuration change.
Technical details
Source and plan: Repository baseline
0c67251812ea306543f3a14ab473ae357cfb76ac; final candidatedeb2e80d65c1334a140c2f8c15eae738329542fb. The draft opened after bug-form commite3e59ac00134eaec301506e2f01492d90faead9b. The second small commit completes the patch and general forms. Both commits are pushed, the working tree is clean, and all five implementation-plan steps in #16 are complete. The issue stays open until merge.Before and after: All three introductions asked for "as much information as possible" and promised that "we can help you quickly." Each introduction now states the information its form records. The field wording also becomes specific:
The pre-edit prose checks report 3 of 10 values passing and 7 failing. The final candidate passes all 10. Manual review confirms that the bug form retains its reproduction, related-details, and supporting-evidence intent. The environment prompt retains
or; it does not require every listed environment value.Complete contract comparison: An already installed PyYAML 6.0.3 parser compares the complete YAML tree against the captured baseline. It preserves mapping-key and field order, node types, scalar tags and styles, and every protected value. This includes top-level descriptions, all names and titles, IDs, labels, required flags, and routing. Only the three introduction strings and seven field-description strings are excluded. All three full non-prose contracts match, and the changed-file set contains exactly the three owned forms.
Local commands and results: The check script, original snapshot, and before/after logs remain in local session artifacts. They are one-time delivery evidence, not repository tests, validation tooling, or CI enforcement. PowerShell commands use:
python $check structurepython $check prosepython $check all --forms bugpython $check allpython -m yamllint --strict .github\ISSUE_TEMPLATE\01-bug.yml .github\ISSUE_TEMPLATE\02-patch.yml .github\ISSUE_TEMPLATE\99-general.ymlgit diff --checkgit diff 0c67251812ea306543f3a14ab473ae357cfb76ac --checkgit diff 0c67251812ea306543f3a14ab473ae357cfb76ac HEAD --checkgit diff --cached --checkgit ls-remote --heads origin msx-intake-writingdeb2e80d65c1334a140c2f8c15eae738329542fb.Standards and format: The final pass uses fixed MSXOrg/docs commit
1b0d4893c8fefabe604d04393068a8ff6f848082: Documentation Model, Natural Language, Writing Guide, Markdown, Documentation, YAML, Testing, and applicable issue/delivery/PR guidance. The Writing Guide preserves the native artifact format. The official STE overview, FAQ, and local Issue 9 rules and dictionary support manual review. The verified PDF and its extraction stay local. The checks do not prove full STE conformance.The domain reference is the native GitHub issue-form format, not a spec/design template. There is no separate framework-specific documentation for these forms.
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/01-bug.yml.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/02-patch.yml.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/99-general.ymlUnchanged areas: The feature form,
config.yml, tests, validation tooling, README, contribution guidance, PR template, agent instructions, profile, security, and support files remain unchanged. The repository's fallback role and central-standards link remain correct. No field, policy, linter, dependency, maintained phrase-freezing test, or capability scaffold is added.Convergence:
gh issue list --repo MSXOrg/.github --state open --search 'in:body ISSUE_TEMPLATE' --limit 50 --json number,title,body,urlreturns #16 and #14. The latter owns the feature form and is not satisfied by this diff. Only #16 receives a closing reference.Review and open readiness gate: The current-head Copilot review is
APPROVEDatdeb2e80d65c1334a140c2f8c15eae738329542fb, with no inline comments and zero review threads. The current-head check-run API reports one completed successfulcopilot-pull-request-reviewercheck; the commit-status API reports zero statuses. There is no repository-validation check at this head. The review check does not establish hosted validation.The baseline has no tracked validation scripts or lint configuration. Open #12 owns separate validation work; its files are not consumed here. The hosted-validation readiness gate remains open, not passed. All required writing sources are accessible, with no source or access blocker.
The PR remains in draft as requested. GitHub auto-merge is null. No merge or Agent merge action occurs.
Relevant issues (or links)