respond-to-issue

name	respond-to-issue
description	Triage a GitHub Issue (add-cert / update-cert / add-source / evaluation) and dispatch to the right skill, ending with a draft PR or a clarifying comment.

respond-to-issue

When to use

A maintainer pastes a GitHub Issue URL or number, or an automated dispatch hands you the Issue body. You triage and either run the matching skill or ask the user to disambiguate.

Process

1. Fetch the Issue via gh issue view <n> --json number,title,body,labels.
2. Route by label:
   • add-cert → invoke add-cert skill with the form fields.
   • update-cert → invoke update-cert skill with the cert id.
   • add-source → invoke add-source skill with the agency fields.
   • evaluation → produce a structured response (see below); do NOT just edit the tier. Propose either a scoring_factors change in the cert JSON or a rubric change in evaluate-roadmap-3-personas.
   • No matching label, or multiple → comment on the Issue asking the user to pick the right template.
3. For data-modifying actions, after the underlying skill writes files:
   • git checkout -b issue-<n>-<short-slug>
   • Commit with a message that references the issue (Refs #<n>).
   • gh pr create --fill --body "Closes #<n>"
4. Comment back on the Issue with the PR URL or with the reason work is blocked.

Evaluation-issue special handling

For evaluation-labelled issues:

• Read the user's claim and evidence.
• Re-read the cert's current scoring_factors.
• Decide which of these is the right fix:
  1. A new plus / minus factor with the user's evidence URL.
  2. A change to an existing factor's weight_hint.
  3. A rubric change in data/tiers.json or .claude/skills/evaluate-roadmap-3-personas/SKILL.md.
• Open a PR with the chosen change. Never patch evaluation.computed_tier directly; let the next eval run reflect the underlying change.

Never

• Do not close the Issue without a PR or an explanation comment.
• Do not respond by editing files on main.
• Do not invent fields not in schema/certification.schema.json.