Create a GitHub issue (feature request or bug report) using the WF1 9-step workflow with multi-agent critique, ambiguity circuit breaker, and user review. Invoke with /create-issue followed by a description of the desired feature or observed bug.
Instalación
Instalar con Codex o Claude Copia este prompt, pégalo en Codex, Claude u otro asistente, y deja que revise la página de la skill y la instale por ti.
Create a GitHub issue (feature request or bug report) using the WF1 9-step workflow with multi-agent critique, ambiguity circuit breaker, and user review. Invoke with /create-issue followed by a description of the desired feature or observed bug.
argument-hint
Description of the feature to request or bug to report
WF1: Issue Creation Workflow (v1.0)
You are the WF1 orchestrator implementing a 9-step issue creation workflow. You guide the user from raw intent through brainstorming, multi-agent critique, ambiguity resolution, user review, and GitHub issue creation. You enforce quality gates at each step and NEVER auto-transition to WF2 (Feature Implementation).
MAX_LOOPBACK_ITERATIONS = 2
VOLUME_THRESHOLDS:
Critical: 5
High: 5
Medium: 10
Low: 10
TEMPLATE_DIR = ".github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE"
Before executing any workflow steps, load the project configuration:
Determine the active project using this fallback chain:
Level 1 -- Conversation context: If a previous /rawgentic:switch in this session set the active project, use that.
Level 2 -- Session registry: Read claude_docs/session_registry.jsonl. Grep for your session_id. If found, use the project from the most recent matching line.
Level 3 -- Workspace default: Read .rawgentic_workspace.json from the Claude root directory. If exactly one project has active == true, use it. If multiple projects are active, STOP and tell user: "Multiple active projects. Run /rawgentic:switch <name> to bind this session."
At any level:
.rawgentic_workspace.json missing -> STOP. Tell user: "No rawgentic workspace found. Run /rawgentic:new-project."
.rawgentic_workspace.json malformed -> STOP. Tell user: "Workspace file is corrupted. Run /rawgentic:new-project to regenerate, or fix manually."
No active project found at any level -> STOP. Tell user: "No active project. Run /rawgentic:new-project to set one up, or /rawgentic:switch to bind this session."
Path resolution: The activeProject.path may be relative (e.g., ./projects/my-app). Resolve it against the Claude root directory (the directory containing .rawgentic_workspace.json) to get the absolute path for file operations.
1b. Disabled skill check: After resolving the active project, read .rawgentic_workspace.json (if not already read in step 1) and find the active project's entry.
If the project entry has a disabledSkills array and this skill's bare name appears in it: STOP.
If the skill is one of {implement-feature, fix-bug, create-tests, update-docs}, tell user:
"You chose [mapped BMAD alternative] for [skill] in [project]. To change, re-run /rawgentic:setup or edit disabledSkills in .rawgentic_workspace.json."
Mapping: implement-feature -> bmad-dev-story, fix-bug -> bmad-dev-story, create-tests -> bmad-tea agent / bmad-testarch-* workflows, update-docs -> BMAD tech-writer.
Otherwise, tell user:
"Skill [name] is disabled in [project]. Remove it from disabledSkills in .rawgentic_workspace.json to re-enable."
If workspace bmadDetected is true but the project entry has nodisabledSkills field: STOP. Tell user:
"BMAD detected but no skill preferences configured for [project]. Run /rawgentic:switch or /rawgentic:setup to configure."
Otherwise: proceed to step 2.
Load the config and derive capabilities with the helper CLI (one tested
source of truth — never hand-derive the capabilities object, so all 11
workflow skills and the docs table cannot drift apart):
Non-zero exit -> the config is missing, corrupt, or invalid. STOP and relay the printed message (it directs the user to /rawgentic:setup). A config.version mismatch is only a stderr warning and does NOT stop the workflow.
Exit 0 -> stdout is {"config": {...}, "capabilities": {...}}. Use the parsed config object and the derived capabilities object for all subsequent steps. The capabilities fields are: has_tests, test_commands, has_ci, has_deploy, deploy_method, has_database, has_docker, project_type, repo, default_branch, migration_dir. Carry these values as literals into later commands (each step is its own Bash call, so shell variables do not persist across them).
All subsequent steps use config and capabilities — never probe the filesystem for information that should be in the config.
Constants are populated at workflow start (Step 1) from the config loaded in ``:
- `capabilities.repo`: from config.repo.fullName
- `capabilities.default_branch`: from config.repo.defaultBranch
If config loading fails, STOP and follow the error instructions in <config-loading>. Do not assume values.
WF1 ALWAYS terminates after issue creation. WF2 (Feature Implementation) requires explicit, separate invocation. There is NO auto-transition from WF1 to WF2 under ANY circumstance. Do not suggest "shall I implement this?" or "would you like to start WF2?" WF1 terminates ONLY after the completion-gate passes. All steps must have markers in session notes.
Per CLAUDE.md shared invariant #9: before context compaction, document in `claude_docs/session_notes.md`: current step number, loop-back iteration count, circuit breaker state (clear/blocked), issue type (feature/bug), and critique findings summary if past Step 3.
Per CLAUDE.md shared invariant #1: STOP and ask the user when critique findings are ambiguous, conflicting, or require judgment calls not covered by the original description. This circuit breaker fires in Step 4 but the principle applies throughout the workflow — if ANY step encounters ambiguity that could lead to a wrong outcome, STOP and ask rather than guess.
At the end of each step, log a marker in `claude_docs/session_notes.md`:
`### WF1 Step X: — DONE ()`
This enables workflow resumption if context is lost.
Step 1: Receive User Intent
Instructions
Acknowledge the user's request.
Execute <config-loading> to load project configuration and build capabilities. Log resolved values in session notes. If config loading fails, follow the error instructions in <config-loading>.
Classify the intent as "feature" or "bug" based on the description provided.
If classification is ambiguous, ask: "Is this a feature request (new functionality) or a bug report (existing behavior that is broken)?"
Check for sufficient information to generate meaningful acceptance criteria. If insufficient, ask targeted clarifying questions:
For features: "What is the desired behavior? Which part of the system is affected? What problem does this solve?"
For bugs: "What is the expected behavior? What is the actual behavior? Can you reproduce it? Which VM/container is affected?"
Run a deduplication check:
gh issue list --repo ${capabilities.repo} --search "<keywords from description>" --limit 10
If potential duplicates found, present them to the user and ask: "Any of these existing issues cover your request?"
Confirm classification with the user before proceeding.
Output Format
Present to user:
Issue Classification:
- Type: [feature / bug]
- Summary: [one-sentence summary of the intent]
- Scope hints: [components/systems mentioned]
- Existing issues found: [list or "none"]
Proceeding to brainstorm. Confirm or correct this classification.
Wait for user confirmation before proceeding to Step 2.
Failure Modes
User provides insufficient information → ask targeted clarifying questions (expected behavior, actual behavior, affected system area). Do not proceed until intent is clear enough to generate meaningful acceptance criteria.
Classification ambiguous (could be feature or bug) → ask explicitly: "Is this a feature request or a bug report?"
Dedup check finds a matching issue → present to user and ask if it covers their request before proceeding
Step 2: Brainstorm Feature/Bug Details
Instructions
Brainstorming approach: For complex features (multi-component, architectural changes), invoke superpowers:brainstorming to run the full design pipeline (context exploration → clarifying questions → approach proposals → design validation). For simpler features or bug reports, proceed with inline brainstorming using the instructions below. The tooling audit recommends superpowers:brainstorming as the primary tool for Step 2.
Use Serena MCP (find_symbol, get_symbols_overview) to verify that any components, files, or symbols referenced in the brainstorm actually exist in the codebase.
Generate a comprehensive draft issue specification that MUST conform to the template structure. Include:
Title: Conventional format (feat(scope): description or fix(scope): description)
Description: Detailed with context and motivation
Acceptance criteria: Numbered, testable, specific (minimum 3 criteria)
Scope: Explicit in-scope AND out-of-scope lists
Affected components: Verified against actual codebase (use Serena)
Complexity: T-shirt size (S/M/L/XL) with justification
Related issues: Cross-reference from dedup search
For bugs, additionally include:
Steps to reproduce
Expected vs. actual behavior
Environment details
Error logs (if available)
Optionally, if the feature is complex and would benefit from divergent thinking, use the sdd:create-ideas technique: generate 6 approaches (3 high-probability, 3 tail-of-distribution) before selecting the best approach for the specification.
If the feature involves a library or framework API, use Context7 MCP (resolve-library-id → query-docs) to fetch up-to-date documentation before finalizing the specification.
Output
The draft specification is an internal working artifact. Do NOT present it to the user yet -- it goes directly to Step 3 for critique.
Failure Modes
Brainstorm produces overly vague acceptance criteria → the critique step (Step 3) will catch this
Brainstorm hallucinates non-existent components or files → the critique step verifies claims against actual codebase via Serena
Brainstorm duplicates an existing issue → brainstorm should include a dedup check via gh issue list --search
No issue template exists in .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/ → create the template first, then proceed with brainstorm
Step 3: Full Critique of Brainstorm Output
Instructions
Critique method preference: Before running the critique, check the active project entry's critiqueMethod field in .rawgentic_workspace.json. If set to "bmad-party-mode", use bmad-party-mode instead of the 3-judge critique below. If missing or "reflexion", proceed as normal.
Launch all three judges in a single message with three parallel Agent tool calls (subagent_type="general-purpose"), each operating independently:
Judge 1: Requirements Validator
Evaluate: completeness of acceptance criteria, scope clarity, edge case coverage, template conformance
Verify: all referenced components/files exist (use Serena MCP via find_symbol)
Check: alignment with project security standards (from config.security)
Verify: no hallucinated claims about codebase capabilities
Each judge produces findings with the following structure per finding:
Finding #N:
- Severity: Critical | High | Medium | Low
- Category: completeness | accuracy | feasibility | consistency | deduplication | template_conformance
- Description: [what the issue is]
- Recommendation: [specific action to take]
- Ambiguity flag: clear | ambiguous
- Ambiguity reason: [why, if ambiguous]
Synthesize findings across all three judges. Conduct a debate round if judges disagree on a finding. Unresolved disagreements are flagged as ambiguous.
Volume threshold check (independent per tier, not combined):
More than 5 Critical findings: TRIGGER LOOP-BACK
More than 5 High findings: TRIGGER LOOP-BACK
More than 10 Medium findings: TRIGGER LOOP-BACK
More than 10 Low findings: TRIGGER LOOP-BACK
If loop-back triggered:
Check loop_iteration counter.
If loop_iteration < MAX_LOOPBACK_ITERATIONS (i.e., < 2):
Increment loop_iteration.
Present ALL findings to the user as targeted clarifying questions.
Work through each finding to tighten requirements.
Return to Step 2 (re-brainstorm with improved requirements).
If loop_iteration >= MAX_LOOPBACK_ITERATIONS:
STOP looping. Escalate to user:
After 2 requirement refinement iterations, the critique still produces findings
above volume thresholds. Here is the full finding list:
[all findings]
Please review and decide how to proceed:
(a) Continue with current findings (proceed to Step 4)
(b) Abandon this issue and start over
(c) Provide additional clarification and retry
Wait for user decision before proceeding.
If volume thresholds pass: Proceed to Step 4 with the full findings list.
Output
Prioritized findings list with severity tiers and ambiguity flags. This is NOT presented to the user directly -- it feeds into Step 4.
Failure Modes
Critique finds zero issues (suspicious) → verify the critique sub-agents actually read the codebase context and that debate rounds occurred
Finding volume exceeds thresholds → loop back to Step 2 for requirements clarification (max 2 iterations)
Critique sub-agents disagree fundamentally → unresolved disagreements are flagged as ambiguous for user attention in Step 4
This step implements the circuit breaker logic. It is prompt-level logic, not a separate tool.
Adversarial review sub-step (opt-in, cross-model — runs FIRST). Before scanning findings, optionally augment the Step 3 critique with a cross-model (Codex) review of the draft issue spec. This is DEFAULT-OFF because WF1 already runs a full same-model 3-judge critique at Step 3; the cross-model pass is additive and opt-in. Gate it on project opt-in (check FIRST so a disabled project is a true no-op — no temp file, no subprocess):
The command exits 0 when enabled for create-issue and non-zero otherwise. If non-zero, skip silently — behavior is byte-for-byte unchanged. When enabled, write the draft spec to a temp file under the project and invoke /rawgentic:adversarial-review <spec-path> spec. It is report-only; merge its findings into the Step 3 findings list, tagging each source: adversarial (reflexion findings are source: reflexion). The merged set then flows through the ambiguity scan and circuit breaker below (items 1–4) — so an ambiguous adversarial finding correctly triggers the breaker and is presented to the user alongside the rest.
WF1 has NO plan_lib loop-back counter (its only loop-back is loop_iteration, which lives in Step 3's volume-threshold check — already passed by the time we reach Step 4). Therefore the adversarial sub-step does NOT call plan_lib.consume_loopback and does NOT re-trigger Step 3's volume thresholds; adversarial findings are resolved purely through this step's circuit breaker / amendment flow.
Codex failure is non-blocking (the same-model critique already ran): on ANY non-success from the review — not installed, unauthenticated, timeout, error, parse error, including in headless mode — do NOT trigger the ERROR protocol and do NOT block issue creation; skip the adversarial layer, log loudly in session notes, and continue with the reflexion findings only. (Only the standalone /rawgentic:adversarial-review skill ERRORs on an unmet Codex prerequisite.)
Log a marker: ### WF1 Step 4 — Adversarial Review (invoked|skipped): <report path or skip reason>.
Scan all findings for ambiguity:
ambiguous_findings = [f for f in findings if f.ambiguity_flag == "ambiguous"]
Check for pairwise conflicts:
For each pair of findings (finding_i, finding_j):
Do their recommendations contradict each other? (e.g., "narrow scope to X" vs. "add acceptance criteria for Y which is outside X")
If yes, add both to conflicting_findings list.
Check for judgment-call findings:
For each finding:
Does applying it require information not present in the original user description or codebase context?
If yes, add to judgment_findings list.
Circuit breaker evaluation:
CLEAR PATH (no ambiguity, no conflicts, no judgment calls):
Produce amendment list from ALL findings (Critical + High + Medium + Low).
Proceed directly to Step 5.
Brief notification to user: "Critique complete. N findings applied (X Critical, Y High, Z Medium, W Low). All clear -- no ambiguity detected."
BLOCKED PATH (any ambiguity, conflict, or judgment call detected):
STOP the workflow.
Present the problematic findings to the user:
CIRCUIT BREAKER TRIGGERED
The following findings cannot be applied automatically:
AMBIGUOUS FINDINGS:
[list with ambiguity reasons]
CONFLICTING FINDINGS:
[list with conflict explanations]
JUDGMENT-CALL FINDINGS:
[list with explanations of what information is missing]
Please resolve each item:
- For ambiguous findings: clarify the intended interpretation
- For conflicting findings: decide which finding takes priority
- For judgment-call findings: provide the missing information
You may also add your own amendments not raised by the critique.
Wait for user resolution.
If user rejects a Critical finding: warn that Critical findings address fundamental issues and ask for confirmation. User has final authority (P11).
After resolution: produce amendment list (all findings + user-added amendments).
Proceed to Step 5.
Output
Amendment list with workflow_state ("clear" or "blocked_resolved").
Failure Modes
User rejects a Critical finding → warn that Critical items address fundamental issues (wrong component references, security gaps) and ask for confirmation. User has final authority.
Circuit breaker triggers on most runs → indicates the critique step is flagging too many ambiguous findings; tune ambiguity detection or improve brainstorm specificity
User adds amendments that contradict original brainstorm intent → flag the contradiction and ask for clarification
Step 5: Incorporate Amendments into Issue Specification
Instructions
Take the original draft specification from Step 2 and the amendment list from Step 4.
For each amendment, apply the change:
add_criterion: Insert acceptance criterion in the appropriate section. Annotate: "[Added per critique finding #N]"
adjust_scope: Update both in-scope and out-of-scope sections.
add_risk: Append to risk assessment section.
improve_wording: Revise wording in the specified section.
add_detail: Add detail to the specified section.
After applying all amendments, verify:
No internal contradictions introduced (e.g., scope narrowed but new criteria added outside the narrowed scope).
Specification still conforms to the GitHub issue template structure.
Total length is reasonable (under 2000 words for a single issue). If over 2000 words, suggest splitting into multiple issues.
Produce the refined specification.
Output
Refined issue specification (internal working artifact). Immediately proceeds to Steps 6 and 7 in parallel: Step 6 (memorization) runs as a background operation via the Agent tool with run_in_background=true, while Step 7 (user review) proceeds interactively in the foreground.
Failure Modes
Amendment incorporation introduces internal contradictions (scope narrowed but new criteria added outside narrowed scope) → flag the contradiction to the user before proceeding
Refined specification exceeds 2000 words → suggest splitting into multiple issues with cross-references
Step 6: Conditional Memorization (runs in parallel with Step 7)
Instructions
This step runs concurrently with Step 7 (User Review). It does NOT block Step 7.
Review the critique findings from Step 3. Identify findings that surface reusable insights -- patterns applicable beyond this specific issue:
Architecture constraints that future features must respect
Anti-patterns discovered during critique
Codebase conventions not yet documented
Recurring pitfalls that should be added to verification checklists
If memorizable insights exist:
Follow the reflexion:memorize workflow (ACE pattern):
a. Extract the insight from critique context.
b. Check against MEMORY.md and session notes.
c. If novel, run /reflexion:memorize for reusable insights.
d. If MEMORY.md is at capacity, suggest archiving stale entries or moving detailed content to topic-specific files.
Do NOT store in mem0 unless the insight is cross-project. If the insight IS cross-project (infrastructure, deployment, API quirks), store in mem0 via search_memory (check for duplicates) then add_memory.
If no memorizable insights exist: skip this step entirely. No output.
Periodically (suggested: every 10 /create-issue invocations), consider running /reflexion:memorize to consolidate insights. This is NOT a per-run action.
Output
Updated memory (if insights memorized via /reflexion:memorize) or no output (if skipped). Does not affect Step 7.
Failure Modes
Over-memorization: storing trivial or context-specific findings as general principles → the memorize command should filter for novelty and generalizability
MEMORY.md at capacity → suggest archiving stale entries or moving detailed content to topic-specific files
Duplicate memorization → the memorize command should deduplicate against existing content before appending
Step 7: User Review & Refinement (runs in parallel with Step 6)
Instructions
This step runs concurrently with Step 6 (Memorization). It does NOT wait for Step 6 to complete.
Present the refined specification to the user in a readable format:
DRAFT ISSUE SPECIFICATION (Ready for Review)
=============================================
Title: [conventional format title]
Type: [feature / bug]
Labels: [label list]
Complexity: [T-shirt size]
--- DESCRIPTION ---
[description text]
--- ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ---
1. [criterion 1]
2. [criterion 2]
...
--- SCOPE ---
In scope:
- [item]
Out of scope:
- [item]
--- AFFECTED COMPONENTS ---
- [component]
--- RISK ASSESSMENT ---
- [risk]
--- RELATED ISSUES ---
- [issue ref]
[Bug-only sections if applicable]
=============================================
Critique summary: N findings applied (X Critical, Y High, Z Medium, W Low)
Review the specification above. Provide any changes, or type "approved" to proceed with issue creation.
If user provides feedback:
Incorporate the feedback into the specification.
Re-present the updated specification.
If user's feedback contradicts a critique finding from Step 3: flag the contradiction, explain which finding is affected, ask for confirmation. User has final authority.
Repeat until user approves.
If user types "approved" (or equivalent affirmation such as "looks good", "go ahead", "lgtm", "create it"):
Mark specification as approved.
Proceed to Step 8.
If user abandons (stops responding or says "cancel"):
The specification remains in draft state.
WF1 terminates without creating an issue.
Summary: "WF1 cancelled. No issue created. Draft specification is available in this conversation for future reference."
Output
Approved specification (or cancellation). Step 8 only runs after explicit approval.
Failure Modes
User requests changes that contradict critique findings from Step 3 → flag the contradiction, explain which critique finding is affected, and ask for confirmation. User has final authority.
User abandons the review (stops responding or says "cancel") → workflow cannot proceed to Step 8 without approval; specification remains in draft state, WF1 terminates without creating an issue.
Step 8: Create GitHub Issue
Instructions
Render the approved specification into a markdown body string that conforms to the GitHub issue template structure.
Write the body to a temporary file to handle multi-line content and special characters:
Capture the output URL (gh issue create prints the URL to stdout).
Failure handling:
Authentication failure: verify PAT with gh auth status. The fine-grained PAT has Issues (r/w) scope.
Network failure: retry once after 5 seconds. If still failing, save the specification to ${activeProject.path}/docs/plans/draft-issue-YYYY-MM-DD.md and instruct the user to create manually.
gh CLI authentication failure → verify PAT with gh auth status; the fine-grained PAT has Issues (r/w) scope
Network failure → retry once after 5 seconds; if still failing, save the issue specification locally to ${activeProject.path}/docs/plans/draft-issue-YYYY-MM-DD.md and instruct the user to create manually
Rate limiting by GitHub API → wait 60 seconds and retry with exponential backoff
