| name | sdlc-story |
| description | Turn sparse GitHub or Jira bug reports and requests into OpenSpec-style change artifacts, scoped Petstore implementation, tests, and a human-reviewable PR for the SDLC Automation Demo. |
| triggers | ["openhands-build","open spec","open specification","bug to pr","story to pr","sparse issue"] |
SDLC Request To PR
Use this skill when OpenHands turns a GitHub or Jira issue into a small reviewable PR.
The customer-facing story is: a sparse business-language bug report becomes an OpenSpec-style change proposal, spec delta, design, and task list, then an implementation branch, then a PR that humans review and merge.
OpenSpec Lineage
This skill intentionally follows the Fission-AI/OpenSpec project:
- Project:
https://github.com/Fission-AI/OpenSpec
- Site:
https://openspec.pro
- Upstream pattern:
openspec/changes/<change-id>/proposal.md, design.md, tasks.md, and specs/.../spec.md
For live OpenHands Automations, do not run npm install, npm install -g @fission-ai/openspec, or openspec init/update inside the timed label-triggered run. Those steps add network and toolchain variance to a customer demo. Instead, create the OpenSpec-style artifacts directly from references/open-spec-template.md and validate them with scripts/validate_open_spec.py.
If the OpenSpec CLI is preinstalled and the operator explicitly asks to use it, it is acceptable to run read-only or already-installed CLI validation. Otherwise, keep the live automation deterministic and explain in the PR that the artifacts follow OpenSpec lineage without invoking the CLI during the run.
Inputs
- GitHub or Jira issue title, body, labels, and comments
- repository default branch
- target source branch
- acceptance criteria when present
- linked PRs or previous automation comments when present
Sparse issues are the primary demo path. The ticket should not need repo names, file paths, log codes, or implementation clues. For bug-shaped issues, first identify the violated behavior, repo-local docs, and any fixture/log evidence before editing code. Infer the smallest safe implementation, but write the assumptions, spec delta, task list, and human gates into the OpenSpec-style change folder before editing code.
GitHub Boundaries
- Trigger label:
openhands-build
- Status labels:
openhands:ready, openhands:in-progress, openhands:needs-human, openhands:done
- Use event context; do not poll GitHub.
- Avoid result comments that repeat the exact trigger text.
- Use runtime secret
GITHUB_TOKEN for GitHub API calls, gh, pushes, PRs, labels, and comments. Do not use GITHUB or GH_TOKEN; if auth is missing or returns 401, stop and report GITHUB_TOKEN is missing or invalid without printing it.
- Do not run
git remote -v, gh auth status, or any command that prints token-bearing remote URLs. Use GitHub tools or API calls for PR creation and label/comment updates, and never echo auth-bearing remotes, token previews, or authorization headers.
- Never merge, bypass review, change branch protection, or alter deployment settings.
Jira Boundaries
- Treat Jira Tasks as source issues when the automation starts from a Jira webhook.
- Use the Jira issue key and URL in artifacts and comments.
- Keep Jira comments concise: status, evidence waypoints, PR link, tests, and any human questions.
- Do not require the Jira ticket to mention logs, docs, repository names, file paths, or error codes.
Workflow
- Use
skills/sdlc-context-reuse/SKILL.md or scripts/build_context_reuse_report.py to reuse durable context before broad exploration.
- Read
README.md, AGENTS.md, and the issue context.
- Read
references/story-artifacts.md, references/open-spec-template.md, and references/petstore-implementation-map.md.
- Run
python3 skills/sdlc-story/scripts/extract_acceptance_criteria.py "<issue title>" with the issue body on stdin when useful.
- Create or update an OpenSpec-style change folder at
openspec/changes/github-issue-<number>-<slug>/ or openspec/changes/jira-<issue-key>-<slug>/.
- Include
proposal.md, design.md, tasks.md, and at least one specs/<capability>/spec.md file.
- Validate the change folder with
python3 skills/sdlc-story/scripts/validate_open_spec.py <change-folder>.
- Search docs, logs, app code, and tests to find the smallest safe code change.
- Implement the narrow change that satisfies the spec delta.
- Add or update focused tests.
- Run the narrowest useful validation first.
- Open a draft PR with OpenSpec change link, evidence, and human-review notes.
- After opening or updating the PR, add
openhands-review as the final GitHub mutation so code review starts as a separate conversation. Do not add openhands-qa; the review work cell owns that handoff. A parent-child supervisor may explicitly override this when it owns downstream orchestration itself.
Evidence Waypoints
For bug-first demos, make the reasoning path visible. The conversation, PR body, and final issue comment should include these waypoints:
Stop 1 - Ticket: the sparse issue and the business-language clues used.Stop 2 - Wiki/Docs: the wiki or docs checked, with paths such as docs/wiki/petstore-catalog-availability.md; if none are relevant or accessible, say so.Stop 3 - Logs: log attachments or fixtures checked, with paths such as docs/logs/pending-pet-visible.ndjson and error codes such as PENDING_PET_VISIBLE; if no logs are available, say so.Stop 4 - Repo/Files: the repo and files that explain the bug and fix.Stop 5 - Tests/PR: tests added or run, validation result, and draft PR link.
OpenSpec-Style Change Artifacts
Use references/open-spec-template.md and references/story-artifacts.md for the required folder shape, headings, and demo-friendly language. The artifacts are not ceremony; they are the contract that connects the request, implementation, QA, review, and human follow-up.
The change folder must include:
- source issue/comment link
- proposal with why, what changes, impact, assumptions, and non-goals
- spec delta with acceptance criteria expressed as requirements and scenarios
- design notes for the smallest safe implementation
- task checklist
- human gates
- validation plan
- evidence checklist
- evidence waypoints for wiki/docs, logs, repo/files, tests, and PR
If a request has unresolved product, security, data, or environment questions, post the partial OpenSpec-style change and label openhands:needs-human instead of guessing.
Petstore Map
- Catalog behavior:
app/petstore_app/catalog.py
- Adoption behavior:
app/petstore_app/adoptions.py
- Static UI:
app/web/
- Tests:
app/tests/
- OpenSpec-style changes:
openspec/changes/github-issue-<number>-<slug>/
- Jira OpenSpec-style changes:
openspec/changes/jira-<issue-key>-<slug>/
Sparse Bug Examples
Customers are seeing pets that are not available means:
- default available-pets search must exclude pets with
status="pending"
- correlate the symptom with
PENDING_PET_VISIBLE evidence when logs or fixtures are present
- inspect
app/petstore_app/catalog.py and existing tests before changing behavior
- add or repair focused tests proving pending pets stay out of default available results
- do not mutate deployment settings, secrets, auth, or unrelated UI behavior
Nova is showing up as adoptable means:
- map Nova to
pet-103 and confirm her status is pending
- preserve explicit pending searches when the caller asks for
status="pending"
- keep the default catalog path available-only
- add focused regression coverage
Sparse Feature Examples
Filter pets by max adoption fee means:
- add an optional max-fee filter to catalog search, using integer cents
- expose a simple static UI input only if the issue or PR scope includes UI
- add focused backend tests for match, exclusion, and invalid negative fees
- do not add payment processing, persistence, billing, auth, or dependencies
Let adopters search by age range means:
- add optional min/max age filters
- reject negative ages and inverted ranges
- keep default search limited to available pets
- add focused backend tests
Stop Conditions
Ask for human input if the issue requires a product decision, schema migration, auth change, new dependency, environment change, secret access, or production mutation.
PR Requirements
The PR body must show:
- OpenSpec change path
- evidence waypoints, including wiki/docs and logs checked
- assumptions and non-goals
- acceptance criteria status
- files changed
- tests run
- residual risks
- reminder that humans approve review and merge decisions
When the repo supports the chained automations, add openhands-review to the PR after it is created or updated. Code review then adds openhands-qa after posting its findings. These handoffs start bounded automation work only; they must not approve, merge, bypass branch protection, or remove human PR review.
