| name | create-issue |
| description | Conventions for creating GitHub issues in this repository - body structure, title prefixes, the label taxonomy and cross-linking rules. Use whenever filing new issues or turning analysis/review findings into backlog items. |
Creating issues in shopsys/helm
Language & self-containment
English (public shopsys repo). Issues must be self-contained: never reference internal
or local documents — inline the relevant facts instead. Reference code as repo paths and
upstream material as full links (shopsys/deployment#74, kubernetes/ingress-nginx#6340).
Title
[area] Imperative summary — area prefixes in use: [app], [infra], [ingress],
[security], [secrets], [hooks], [deploy], [ci], [release], [docs],
[monitoring], [availability], [hygiene], [proposal], [bug]. Investigations get
(investigation) suffix.
Body structure
## Context
What is true today and why it is a problem. Facts, file paths, upstream links.
## Proposal
Concrete design - values sketches, template names, commands. For investigations: options
to compare, evaluation criteria, and "decision record" as the deliverable.
## Tasks
- [ ] checklist the implementer can follow
- [ ] include "regenerate golden snapshots" and "deviations entry" when rendering changes
Related: #N (cross-links); Reference: upstream links
Labels (all exist in the repo)
- exactly one of
priority/high|medium|low
- area:
area/app-chart, area/infra-chart, area/deploy, area/ci (multiple allowed)
- type:
enhancement (default), bug, documentation, investigation, security
behavior-change — rendered manifests change ⇒ DoD includes golden regen + deviations docgood first issue — small, well-bounded
gh issue create -R shopsys/helm -t "[area] Title" -F body.md -l "enhancement,area/app-chart,priority/medium"
Hygiene
- Cross-link related issues bidirectionally (edit or comment the older one).
- When an issue supersedes/overlaps another (e.g. supercronic #3 vs CronJobs #19), state the
relationship explicitly so the work is not done twice.
- Scope decisions made later (deferrals, rejected review findings) go back into the issue as
comments — see the
implement-issue skill's retrospective step.
