| name | issue-creation |
| description | Structured workflow for drafting NEW GitHub issues with codebase research, duplicate detection, task breakdowns, and testing approach. Always asks clarifying questions and shows the draft for approval before creating. For searching, listing, viewing, or updating existing issues, use the "issues" skill instead. |
Issue Creation
Create well-researched, problem-focused GitHub issues for mckinsey/agents-at-scale-ark.
When to use this skill
Use when the user asks to create an issue, report a bug, request a feature, or track work. This skill enforces a research-first approach before creating any issue.
Process
Follow these steps in order. Do NOT skip steps.
Step 1: Ask clarifying questions
ALWAYS ask clarifying questions before doing any research or drafting. Never assume you have enough context. Use AskUserQuestion to gather:
- What exactly is the problem? (Get specifics, not just a vague description)
- Who is affected and how severely?
- How is the problem reproduced? (for bugs)
- What is the motivation or trigger? (for features)
- Is there any urgency or deadline?
- Are there any constraints the user already knows about?
Do NOT proceed to Step 2 until the user has answered your questions. If the user's initial description is detailed, still confirm your understanding by summarizing back and asking if anything is missing.
Step 2: Research the codebase
Before writing anything, investigate the relevant code:
- Find the files, modules, and components involved
- Understand the current behavior and architecture
- Identify the scope and blast radius of the problem
- Note relevant file paths and code references
Use Grep, Glob, Read, and the Explore agent as needed. Include key findings in the issue's Context section so reviewers can orient themselves without re-doing the research.
Important: The purpose of research is to understand the problem's scope and surface area — NOT to prescribe a solution. Do not let research findings leak into prescriptive implementation tasks. Knowing which files are involved helps the implementer orient; telling them what to change in those files anchors them on a path that may be wrong.
Step 3: Check for duplicates and dependencies
Search existing issues thoroughly in the main repo:
gh search issues --repo mckinsey/agents-at-scale-ark "<keywords>" --json number,title,state,labels --jq '.[] | "\(.number) [\(.state)] \(.title)"'
gh issue list --repo mckinsey/agents-at-scale-ark --state open --json number,title,labels --jq '.[] | "\(.number) \(.title)"' | grep -i "<keyword>"
If the issue relates to the marketplace (observability, community services, Phoenix, Langfuse, optional service integrations, or anything in the marketplace repo), also search and research mckinsey/agents-at-scale-marketplace:
gh search issues --repo mckinsey/agents-at-scale-marketplace "<keywords>" --json number,title,state,labels --jq '.[] | "\(.number) [\(.state)] \(.title)"'
gh issue list --repo mckinsey/agents-at-scale-marketplace --state open --json number,title,labels --jq '.[] | "\(.number) \(.title)"' | grep -i "<keyword>"
Also research the marketplace codebase for relevant patterns, existing implementations, and architectural context using the gh CLI or web fetch against https://github.com/mckinsey/agents-at-scale-marketplace. Include marketplace findings in the issue Context section when relevant.
- If a duplicate exists in either repo, tell the user and link to it instead of creating a new issue.
- If related issues exist in either repo, note them as dependencies or references in the new issue.
Step 4: Draft the issue
Use this template:
## Problem
[Clear description of what is broken, missing, or suboptimal. Focus on the problem, NOT the solution.]
## Context
[Codebase research findings: relevant files, current behavior, architecture context. Include file paths.]
## Impact
[Who is affected? What breaks or degrades? How severe is this?]
## Related Issues
- #N — [brief description of relationship]
## Task Breakdown
- [ ] [Problem-level task describing WHAT needs to change, not HOW]
- [ ] [Another problem-level task]
- [ ] ...
## Testing Approach
- [How to verify the problem is fixed]
- [What test types are appropriate: unit, integration, e2e]
- [Edge cases to cover]
Step 5: Show the draft and ask for edits
ALWAYS present the full draft (title + body) to the user before creating the issue. Use AskUserQuestion to ask:
- Does the draft look good?
- Any sections to add, remove, or reword?
- Is the task breakdown accurate?
Do NOT create the issue until the user approves. If they request edits, apply them and show the updated draft again.
Step 6: Create the issue
Only after the user approves the draft:
gh issue create --repo mckinsey/agents-at-scale-ark \
--title "<type>: <concise problem description>" \
--body "$(cat <<'EOF'
<issue body from step 5>
EOF
)" \
--label "needs grooming"
Title must use conventional commit prefix: feat:, fix:, docs:, chore:, refactor:, etc.
Rules
- Always ask clarifying questions first. Never skip straight to research or drafting. Confirm understanding before proceeding.
- Focus on the problem, not the solution. The issue author's job is to be the expert on the problem. Never propose a design, implementation approach, or specific code changes unless the user explicitly asks for one.
- Research informs scope, not implementation. Codebase research belongs in the Context section to help the implementer orient. It must NOT leak into the Task Breakdown as prescriptive implementation steps. Knowing which files are involved is useful context; telling the implementer what to change in those files anchors them on a path that may be wrong.
- Tasks describe WHAT, not HOW. Each task should describe a problem to solve or a behavior to achieve. Bad: "Add sanitization in
services/ark-api/handlers/query.go". Good: "Handle special characters in query input". The implementer — who will have deep context when they pick up the work — decides the how.
- No uninformed specificity. Implementation details written by someone without deep codebase knowledge create false confidence and anchoring bias. A vague-but-accurate issue is more useful than a specific-but-wrong one.
- Research first. Every issue must include codebase research findings.
- No duplicates. Always check existing issues before creating.
- Testing approach required. Suggest how to verify the fix/feature.
- Always add "needs grooming" label. Every issue created by this skill gets this label.
- Link dependencies. Reference related issues when they exist.
