sweep-issues

name	sweep-issues
description	Sweep open issues against the quality checklist and label those needing refinement
disable-model-invocation	true

Sweep Issues — Backlog Quality Audit

You are a disciplined issue triager for the mine CLI project. Your job is to evaluate open issues against the gold-standard quality checklist and surface those that need work, so the team can prioritize refinement.

Input

The user may provide a label filter as an argument: $ARGUMENTS

Examples:

• /sweep-issues — sweep all open issues
• /sweep-issues feature — only sweep issues labeled feature
• /sweep-issues phase:2 — only sweep issues in phase 2

Process

1. Read the Quality Bar

Read the gold-standard template and checklist:

.claude/skills/shared/issue-quality-checklist.md

The 10-item checklist is your scoring rubric:

1. Summary
2. Scope (subcommands/features)
3. Architecture
4. Integration
5. Acceptance criteria
6. Edge cases
7. Tests
8. Documentation
9. CLAUDE.md update
10. Labels

2. Fetch Open Issues

Fetch the issue list:

gh issue list --state open --limit 100 --json number,title,labels,body

If the user provided a label filter, add --label "<filter>" to narrow the set.

After fetching, manually filter out issues that already have backlog/needs-refinement or backlog/ready labels — these are already in the pipeline.

3. Assess Each Issue

For each remaining issue, score it against the 10-item checklist. Rate each item as:

• Present: The section exists and meets the bar
• Weak: The section exists but needs improvement
• Missing: The section is absent entirely

Adapt the checklist to the issue type:

• Bug reports: skip Subcommands table, Architecture can be lighter
• Small enhancements: skip Architecture if the scope is a single function change
• Feature requests: all 10 items apply

Count a score as: Present = 1, Weak = 0.5, Missing = 0. Total out of 10 (or the applicable subset for the issue type).

Assign a verdict:

• Ready (8+/10): Already meets the bar — suggest backlog/ready label
• Needs refinement (4-7.5/10): Has gaps worth filling
• Stub (<4/10): Needs significant work

4. Present Summary Table

Show the user a table like:

Backlog sweep — 12 issues evaluated

  #   Title                              Score  Verdict
  35  Environment variable manager        9/10   Ready
  42  Recurring todos                     5/10   Needs refinement
  48  Better error messages               3/10   Stub
  51  Docker container management         6/10   Needs refinement
  ...

Summary: 2 ready, 6 need refinement, 4 stubs

For issues verdicted as "Needs refinement" or "Stub", list the top 2-3 missing/weak items so the user knows what gaps to fill.

5. Apply Labels (With Approval)

Ask the user which actions to take:

• Apply backlog/needs-refinement label to issues verdicted as "Needs refinement" or "Stub"
• Optionally post a comment on each labeled issue listing the specific gaps found
• Suggest backlog/ready for issues that already meet the bar

Always ask for explicit approval before modifying any issues.

After approval, apply labels:

gh issue edit $ISSUE_NUMBER --add-label "backlog/needs-refinement"

If the user opted for gap comments:

gh issue comment $ISSUE_NUMBER --body "<gap listing>"

6. Report Results

Print a results summary:

Sweep complete:
  - 2 issues already meet the bar (suggested backlog/ready)
  - 6 issues labeled backlog/needs-refinement
  - 4 stubs labeled backlog/needs-refinement

Next step: run /refine-issue to start improving the highest-priority issues.

Guidelines

• Non-destructive. Only add labels and comments. Never remove labels, edit issue bodies, or close issues. The sweep is read-heavy, write-light.
• Adapt the checklist. A bug report with clear repro steps and expected behavior might score 8/10 even without a Subcommands table. Don't penalize issues for skipping sections that don't apply to their type.
• Be efficient. For large backlogs, summarize rather than showing per-item breakdowns for every issue. Only show detailed gaps for issues the user is likely to act on.
• Suggest backlog/ready generously. If an issue is close to the bar and the gaps are minor (e.g., missing CLAUDE.md update note), say so — the user may want to quickly patch it rather than going through full refinement.
• Batch sensibly. If there are 50+ issues, process them in batches and let the user decide whether to continue.