implement-issue

name	implement-issue
description	Implement a GitHub issue step by step - ask about the branch, the PR target, and the phases first, then run the work and the review cycle with the review-pr skill. Use whenever the user asks to implement, work on, or execute a GitHub issue.
argument-hint	["issue-number"]

Implement a GitHub issue

Implement a GitHub issue by gathering a little configuration through questions, then doing the work step by step, with a PR and a review cycle for each step. ("Issue" here means a GitHub issue, the tracked unit of work.)

1. Determine the issue

• If $ARGUMENTS has an issue number, use it as ISSUE.
• If $ARGUMENTS is empty, ask via AskUserQuestion: "Which GitHub issue do you want to implement?"

2. Fetch and read the issue

gh issue view $ISSUE --json title,body,number,labels

Show the title so the user can confirm you have the right issue. Read the body for sub-issue references (#<number>) and any numbered phase or step structure. If the issue carries a waiting-for-* label (a label that marks it as not yet reviewed by a human), tell the user and ask whether to go ahead anyway.

3. Ask: working branch

Ask via AskUserQuestion: a new branch or the current one? If new, ask for the name, then create it with the upstream set at once (the create-branch skill): git checkout -b <branch> && git push -u origin <branch>. If it already exists: git checkout <branch> && git pull origin <branch>. Store it as WORK_BRANCH.

4. Ask: PR target branch

Ask via AskUserQuestion: master / the current branch / a custom one. Store it as PR_TARGET_BRANCH.

5. Analyze the steps

• If the issue has explicit phases or sub-issues: show them and ask which to implement (or all, in order). If a sub-issue depends on another that has not merged yet, stack the PRs: branch from the dependency's branch and target it, so GitHub retargets the PR automatically when the dependency merges.
• If it has no explicit steps: judge whether splitting into steps makes sense (separate changes, different areas, natural dependency boundaries). If yes, propose the split via AskUserQuestion; if no, implement it as a single unit.

6. Check the starting state

1. git checkout $WORK_BRANCH && git pull origin $WORK_BRANCH
2. Spawn the validate agent to confirm the repo's checks pass before you start. Do not build on a broken baseline; report it to the user instead.

7. Do the work

For each step (or the single unit):

1. Create the step branch (multi-step mode only; in single-issue mode you work directly on $WORK_BRANCH). Use the create-branch skill: git checkout -b <issue-number>-<short-slug> $WORK_BRANCH && git push -u origin <issue-number>-<short-slug>.

2. Explore first (preparation). As the orchestrator, launch the explore agents now and keep their reports for the next sub-step (the implementation agent below cannot spawn its own subagents, so this must happen here):

   • pattern-scout (always): how are similar things built in this codebase?
   • adr-checker in consult mode (only when the work touches an ADR-relevant area): which recorded decisions must the work follow?

3. Spawn the implementation agent (Agent tool, isolation: "worktree"), pasting the explore reports into its prompt:

   You are implementing GitHub issue # for the TRMNL Calendar + Weather Plugin.

   Issue

   Step to implement

   <the specific step, or "the full issue" in single-issue mode>

   Findings from the explore agents (follow these)

   <paste the pattern-scout report, and the adr-checker report when there is one>

   Instructions

   1. Read AGENTS.md (and the relevant src/AGENTS.md / src/middleware/AGENTS.md) for conventions, gotchas, and the check command.
   2. Diagnose first: find the exact files and locations to change. Explain the reasoning before writing any code.
   3. Plan if complex: if the change touches more than 2 files, write a checklist of every required change first.
   4. Red-green TDD, as AGENTS.md mandates: write the failing bun test that pins each behavior before the code that makes it pass. A bug fix starts with a test that reproduces the bug. This applies to the pure logic in src/lib/.
   5. Implement, following the explore findings and the issue.
   6. Keep the inline copies in sync (ADR 0006): if you changed a pure helper inline in full.liquid or the .gs, update the matching src/lib/*.js and its test, and vice versa; keep them behavior-identical. If you changed the .gs, bump MIDDLEWARE_VERSION.
   7. Run the repo's check yourself (bun test .; you cannot spawn the validate agent from inside here) and fix every failure you introduced before finishing.
   8. Make atomic conventional commits (the write-commit skill shape).
   9. Push your branch: git push origin HEAD.

   Branch

   Work on <branch>; the base branch is $WORK_BRANCH.

   Scope

   Implement only what the step describes. Do not touch code outside that scope. Do not change any published .../blob/master/... URL or the polling-URL contract.

4. Create the PR (always label and self-assign):

Write the PR description in the repo's Communicating with users style (AGENTS.md): a reviewer skims it, so lead with what changed and why, in short plain sentences.

gh label create "waiting-for-human-check" --description "No human has verified this yet -- direct AI output" --color "D93F0B" 2>/dev/null || true
gh pr create \
  --base $PR_TARGET_BRANCH \
  --head <branch> \
  --title "<conventional-prefix>: <short title>" \
  --assignee @me \
  --label "waiting-for-human-check" \
  --body "$(cat <<'PREOF'
## Summary

Closes #<ISSUE_NUMBER>

<1-3 bullet points on what was done>

## Test plan

- [ ] `bun test .` passes
- [ ] Manual verification via `trmnlp serve` (visual render) when the template or a rendered helper changed

🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)

PREOF
)"

5. Run the review cycle (Section 8) before moving to the next step.

8. Review cycle (uses the review-pr skill)

Use the review-pr skill in --no-verdict mode. That mode runs unattended (it never asks the user anything), posts a COMMENT-only review to the PR, and writes a local findings file .reviews/<PR_NUMBER>-review.md with a clear verdict: APPROVED or CHANGES_REQUESTED. Invoke it with the Skill tool: skill: "invoke", args: "review-pr <PR_NUMBER> --no-verdict".

1. Run review-pr <PR_NUMBER> --no-verdict, then read the verdict from .reviews/<PR_NUMBER>-review.md.
2. If CHANGES_REQUESTED: spawn an implementation agent on the same branch to fix every Required item, then run review-pr <PR_NUMBER> --no-verdict again (it re-reviews the whole current state and does not re-raise findings it already made). Repeat until APPROVED, at most 3 rounds; then stop and report to the user.
3. On approval, reply on every inline comment thread the cycle posted, so a human scanning the "Files changed" tab sees each comment's status without reading commits. Do not resolve threads (that is the human's call). List the comment ids with gh api repos/<owner>/<repo>/pulls/<PR_NUMBER>/comments --jq '.[] | {id, path, line}', then reply to each via the replies endpoint:

   gh api repos/$(gh repo view --json nameWithOwner -q .nameWithOwner)/pulls/<PR_NUMBER>/comments/<COMMENT_ID>/replies -f body="<reply>"
   

   • Addressed by a fix round: **Applied** in <short-sha> - <one sentence on the change>.
   • Left unapplied on purpose (optional suggestion, out of scope): **Not applied** - <one-sentence reason>.
4. Then finish: delete the review file (and .reviews/ if it is now empty) and tell the user.

Do not merge the PR. This repo uses the manual-review flow: wait for the user to review, approve, and merge.

9. Completion

Report which steps are done and which remain. If steps remain: "Run /implement-issue <ISSUE> to continue."

Important rules

• Never push to master directly. All work goes through branches and PRs.
• Scope discipline. Each agent works only on its assigned step; no cross-step changes.
• Verification is mandatory. The implementation agent runs bun test . before pushing, and the orchestrator confirms a clean state with the validate agent.
• Fresh reviewers. The review agent has no context from the implementation (the review-pr skill already spawns fresh agents).
• Bounded iteration. At most 3 review rounds; then report to the user instead of looping.
• Interactive first. Gather configuration via AskUserQuestion; never assume defaults silently.