github-triage
GitHub Triage - Read-Only Analyzer
Architecture
1 ISSUE/PR = 1 task_create = 1 quick SUBAGENT (background). NO EXCEPTIONS.
| Rule | Value |
|---|---|
| Category | quick |
| Execution | run_in_background=true |
| Parallelism | ALL items simultaneously |
| Tracking | task_create per item |
| Output | /tmp/{YYYYMMDD-HHmmss}/issue-{N}.md or pr-{N}.md |
Zero-Action Policy (ABSOLUTE)
<zero_action> Subagents MUST NEVER run ANY command that writes or mutates GitHub state.
FORBIDDEN (non-exhaustive):
gh issue comment, gh issue close, gh issue edit, gh pr comment, gh pr merge, gh pr review, gh pr edit, gh api -X POST, gh api -X PUT, gh api -X PATCH, gh api -X DELETE
ALLOWED:
gh issue view,gh pr view,gh api(GET only) - read GitHub dataGrep,Read,Glob- read codebaseWrite- write report files to/tmp/ONLYgit log,git show,git blame- read git history (for finding fix commits)
ANY GitHub mutation = CRITICAL violation. </zero_action>
Evidence Rule (MANDATORY)
A permalink is a URL pointing to a specific line/range in a specific commit, e.g.:
https://github.com/{owner}/{repo}/blob/{commit_sha}/{path}#L{start}-L{end}
How to generate permalinks
- Find the relevant file and line(s) via Grep/Read.
- Get the current commit SHA:
git rev-parse HEAD - Construct:
https://github.com/{REPO}/blob/{SHA}/{filepath}#L{line}(or#L{start}-L{end}for ranges)
Rules
- No permalink = no claim. If you cannot back a statement with a permalink, state "No evidence found" instead.
- Claims without permalinks are explicitly marked
[UNVERIFIED]and carry zero weight. - Permalinks to
main/master/devbranches are NOT acceptable - use commit SHAs only. - For bug analysis: permalink to the problematic code. For fix verification: permalink to the fixing commit diff.
Phase 0: Setup
REPO=$(gh repo view --json nameWithOwner -q .nameWithOwner)
REPORT_DIR="/tmp/$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S)"
mkdir -p "$REPORT_DIR"
COMMIT_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
Pass REPO, REPORT_DIR, and COMMIT_SHA to every subagent.
Phase 1: Fetch All Open Items (CORRECTED)
IMPORTANT: body and comments fields may contain control characters that break jq parsing. Fetch basic metadata first, then fetch full details per-item in subagents.
# Step 1: Fetch basic metadata (without body/comments to avoid JSON parsing issues)
ISSUES_LIST=$(gh issue list --repo $REPO --state open --limit 500 \
--json number,title,labels,author,createdAt)
ISSUE_COUNT=$(echo "$ISSUES_LIST" | jq length)
# Paginate if needed
if [ "$ISSUE_COUNT" -eq 500 ]; then
LAST_DATE=$(echo "$ISSUES_LIST" | jq -r '.[-1].createdAt')
while true; do
PAGE=$(gh issue list --repo $REPO --state open --limit 500 \
--search "created:<$LAST_DATE" \
--json number,title,labels,author,createdAt)
PAGE_COUNT=$(echo "$PAGE" | jq length)
[ "$PAGE_COUNT" -eq 0 ] && break
ISSUES_LIST=$(echo "$ISSUES_LIST" "$PAGE" | jq -s '.[0] + .[1] | unique_by(.number)')
ISSUE_COUNT=$(echo "$ISSUES_LIST" | jq length)
[ "$PAGE_COUNT" -lt 500 ] && break
LAST_DATE=$(echo "$PAGE" | jq -r '.[-1].createdAt')
done
fi
# Same for PRs
PRS_LIST=$(gh pr list --repo $REPO --state open --limit 500 \
--json number,title,labels,author,headRefName,baseRefName,isDraft,createdAt)
PR_COUNT=$(echo "$PRS_LIST" | jq length)
if [ "$PR_COUNT" -eq 500 ]; then
LAST_DATE=$(echo "$PRS_LIST" | jq -r '.[-1].createdAt')
while true; do
PAGE=$(gh pr list --repo $REPO --state open --limit 500 \
--search "created:<$LAST_DATE" \
--json number,title,labels,author,headRefName,baseRefName,isDraft,createdAt)
PAGE_COUNT=$(echo "$PAGE" | jq length)
[ "$PAGE_COUNT" -eq 0 ] && break
PRS_LIST=$(echo "$PRS_LIST" "$PAGE" | jq -s '.[0] + .[1] | unique_by(.number)')
PR_COUNT=$(echo "$PRS_LIST" | jq length)
[ "$PAGE_COUNT" -lt 500 ] && break
LAST_DATE=$(echo "$PAGE" | jq -r '.[-1].createdAt')
done
fi
echo "Total issues: $ISSUE_COUNT, Total PRs: $PR_COUNT"
LARGE REPOSITORY HANDLING: If total items exceeds 50, you MUST process ALL items. Use the pagination code above to fetch every single open issue and PR. DO NOT sample or limit to 50 items - process the entire backlog.
Example: If there are 500 open issues, spawn 500 subagents. If there are 1000 open PRs, spawn 1000 subagents.
Note: Background task system will queue excess tasks automatically.
Phase 2: Classify
| Type | Detection |
|---|---|
ISSUE_QUESTION |
[Question], [Discussion], ?, "how to" / "why does" / "is it possible" |
ISSUE_BUG |
[Bug], Bug:, error messages, stack traces, unexpected behavior |
ISSUE_FEATURE |
[Feature], [RFE], [Enhancement], Feature Request, Proposal |
ISSUE_OTHER |
Anything else |
PR_BUGFIX |
Title starts with fix, branch contains fix//bugfix/, label bug |
PR_OTHER |
Everything else |
Phase 3: Spawn Subagents (Individual Tool Calls)
CRITICAL: Create tasks ONE BY ONE using individual task_create tool calls. NEVER batch or script.
For each item, execute these steps sequentially:
Step 3.1: Create Task Record
task_create(
subject="Triage: #{number} {title}",
description="GitHub {issue|PR} triage analysis - {type}",
metadata={"type": "{ISSUE_QUESTION|ISSUE_BUG|ISSUE_FEATURE|ISSUE_OTHER|PR_BUGFIX|PR_OTHER}", "number": {number}}
)
Step 3.2: Spawn Analysis Subagent (Background)
task(
category="quick",
run_in_background=true,
load_skills=[],
prompt=SUBAGENT_PROMPT
)
ABSOLUTE RULES for Subagents:
- ONLY ANALYZE - Never take action on GitHub (no comments, merges, closes)
- READ-ONLY - Use tools only for reading code/GitHub data
- WRITE REPORT ONLY - Output goes to
{REPORT_DIR}/{issue|pr}-{number}.mdvia Write tool - EVIDENCE REQUIRED - Every claim must have GitHub permalink as proof
For each item:
1. task_create(subject="Triage: #{number} {title}")
2. task(category="quick", run_in_background=true, load_skills=[], prompt=SUBAGENT_PROMPT)
3. Store mapping: item_number -> { task_id, background_task_id }
Subagent Prompts
Common Preamble (include in ALL subagent prompts)
CONTEXT:
- Repository: {REPO}
- Report directory: {REPORT_DIR}
- Current commit SHA: {COMMIT_SHA}
PERMALINK FORMAT:
Every factual claim MUST include a permalink: https://github.com/{REPO}/blob/{COMMIT_SHA}/{filepath}#L{start}-L{end}
No permalink = no claim. Mark unverifiable claims as [UNVERIFIED].
To get current SHA if needed: git rev-parse HEAD
ABSOLUTE RULES (violating ANY = critical failure):
- NEVER run gh issue comment, gh issue close, gh issue edit
- NEVER run gh pr comment, gh pr merge, gh pr review, gh pr edit
- NEVER run any gh command with -X POST, -X PUT, -X PATCH, -X DELETE
- NEVER run git checkout, git fetch, git pull, git switch, git worktree
- Your ONLY writable output: {REPORT_DIR}/{issue|pr}-{number}.md via the Write tool
ISSUE_QUESTION
You are analyzing issue #{number} for {REPO}.
ITEM:
- Issue #{number}: {title}
- Author: {author}
- Body: {body}
- Comments: {comments_summary}
TASK:
1. Understand the question.
2. Search the codebase (Grep, Read) for the answer.
3. For every finding, construct a permalink: https://github.com/{REPO}/blob/{COMMIT_SHA}/{path}#L{N}
4. Write report to {REPORT_DIR}/issue-{number}.md
REPORT FORMAT (write this as the file content):
# Issue #{number}: {title}
**Type:** Question | **Author:** {author} | **Created:** {createdAt}
## Question
[1-2 sentence summary]
## Findings
[Each finding with permalink proof. Example:]
- The config is parsed in [`src/config/loader.ts#L42-L58`](https://github.com/{REPO}/blob/{SHA}/src/config/loader.ts#L42-L58)
## Suggested Answer
[Draft answer with code references and permalinks]
## Confidence: [HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW]
[Reason. If LOW: what's missing]
## Recommended Action
[What maintainer should do]
---
REMEMBER: No permalink = no claim. Every code reference needs a permalink.
ISSUE_BUG
You are analyzing bug report #{number} for {REPO}.
ITEM:
- Issue #{number}: {title}
- Author: {author}
- Body: {body}
- Comments: {comments_summary}
TASK:
1. Understand: expected behavior, actual behavior, reproduction steps.
2. Search the codebase for relevant code. Trace the logic.
3. Determine verdict: CONFIRMED_BUG, NOT_A_BUG, ALREADY_FIXED, or UNCLEAR.
4. For ALREADY_FIXED: find the fixing commit using git log/git blame. Include the commit SHA and what changed.
5. For every finding, construct a permalink.
6. Write report to {REPORT_DIR}/issue-{number}.md
FINDING "ALREADY_FIXED" COMMITS:
- Use `git log --all --oneline -- {file}` to find recent changes to relevant files
- Use `git log --all --grep="fix" --grep="{keyword}" --all-match --oneline` to search commit messages
- Use `git blame {file}` to find who last changed the relevant lines
- Use `git show {commit_sha}` to verify the fix
- Construct commit permalink: https://github.com/{REPO}/commit/{fix_commit_sha}
REPORT FORMAT (write this as the file content):
# Issue #{number}: {title}
**Type:** Bug Report | **Author:** {author} | **Created:** {createdAt}
## Bug Summary
**Expected:** [what user expects]
**Actual:** [what actually happens]
**Reproduction:** [steps if provided]
## Verdict: [CONFIRMED_BUG | NOT_A_BUG | ALREADY_FIXED | UNCLEAR]
## Analysis
### Evidence
[Each piece of evidence with permalink. No permalink = mark [UNVERIFIED]]
### Root Cause (if CONFIRMED_BUG)
[Which file, which function, what goes wrong]
- Problematic code: [`{path}#L{N}`](permalink)
### Why Not A Bug (if NOT_A_BUG)
[Rigorous proof with permalinks that current behavior is correct]
### Fix Details (if ALREADY_FIXED)
- **Fixed in commit:** [`{short_sha}`](https://github.com/{REPO}/commit/{full_sha})
- **Fixed date:** {date}
- **What changed:** [description with diff permalink]
- **Fixed by:** {author}
### Blockers (if UNCLEAR)
[What prevents determination, what to investigate next]
## Severity: [LOW | MEDIUM | HIGH | CRITICAL]
## Affected Files
[List with permalinks]
## Suggested Fix (if CONFIRMED_BUG)
[Specific approach: "In {file}#L{N}, change X to Y because Z"]
## Recommended Action
[What maintainer should do]
---
CRITICAL: Claims without permalinks are worthless. If you cannot find evidence, say so explicitly rather than making unverified claims.
ISSUE_FEATURE
You are analyzing feature request #{number} for {REPO}.
ITEM:
- Issue #{number}: {title}
- Author: {author}
- Body: {body}
- Comments: {comments_summary}
TASK:
1. Understand the request.
2. Search codebase for existing (partial/full) implementations.
3. Assess feasibility.
4. Write report to {REPORT_DIR}/issue-{number}.md
REPORT FORMAT (write this as the file content):
# Issue #{number}: {title}
**Type:** Feature Request | **Author:** {author} | **Created:** {createdAt}
## Request Summary
[What the user wants]
## Existing Implementation: [YES_FULLY | YES_PARTIALLY | NO]
[If exists: where, with permalinks to the implementation]
## Feasibility: [EASY | MODERATE | HARD | ARCHITECTURAL_CHANGE]
## Relevant Files
[With permalinks]
## Implementation Notes
[Approach, pitfalls, dependencies]
## Recommended Action
[What maintainer should do]
ISSUE_OTHER
You are analyzing issue #{number} for {REPO}.
ITEM:
- Issue #{number}: {title}
- Author: {author}
- Body: {body}
- Comments: {comments_summary}
TASK: Assess and write report to {REPORT_DIR}/issue-{number}.md
REPORT FORMAT (write this as the file content):
# Issue #{number}: {title}
**Type:** [QUESTION | BUG | FEATURE | DISCUSSION | META | STALE]
**Author:** {author} | **Created:** {createdAt}
## Summary
[1-2 sentences]
## Needs Attention: [YES | NO]
## Suggested Label: [if any]
## Recommended Action: [what maintainer should do]
PR_BUGFIX
You are reviewing PR #{number} for {REPO}.
ITEM:
- PR #{number}: {title}
- Author: {author}
- Base: {baseRefName} <- Head: {headRefName}
- Draft: {isDraft} | Mergeable: {mergeable}
- Review: {reviewDecision} | CI: {statusCheckRollup_summary}
- Body: {body}
TASK:
1. Fetch PR details (READ-ONLY): gh pr view {number} --repo {REPO} --json files,reviews,comments,statusCheckRollup,reviewDecision
2. Read diff: gh api repos/{REPO}/pulls/{number}/files
3. Search codebase to verify fix correctness.
4. Write report to {REPORT_DIR}/pr-{number}.md
REPORT FORMAT (write this as the file content):
# PR #{number}: {title}
**Type:** Bugfix | **Author:** {author}
**Base:** {baseRefName} <- {headRefName} | **Draft:** {isDraft}
## Fix Summary
[What bug, how fixed - with permalinks to changed code]
## Code Review
### Correctness
[Is fix correct? Root cause addressed? Evidence with permalinks]
### Side Effects
[Risky changes, breaking changes - with permalinks if any]
### Code Quality
[Style, patterns, test coverage]
## Merge Readiness
| Check | Status |
|-------|--------|
| CI | [PASS / FAIL / PENDING] |
| Review | [APPROVED / CHANGES_REQUESTED / PENDING / NONE] |
| Mergeable | [YES / NO / CONFLICTED] |
| Draft | [YES / NO] |
| Correctness | [VERIFIED / CONCERNS / UNCLEAR] |
| Risk | [NONE / LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH] |
## Files Changed
[List with brief descriptions]
## Recommended Action: [MERGE | REQUEST_CHANGES | NEEDS_REVIEW | WAIT]
[Reasoning with evidence]
---
NEVER merge. NEVER comment. NEVER review. Write to file ONLY.
PR_OTHER
You are reviewing PR #{number} for {REPO}.
ITEM:
- PR #{number}: {title}
- Author: {author}
- Base: {baseRefName} <- Head: {headRefName}
- Draft: {isDraft} | Mergeable: {mergeable}
- Review: {reviewDecision} | CI: {statusCheckRollup_summary}
- Body: {body}
TASK:
1. Fetch PR details (READ-ONLY): gh pr view {number} --repo {REPO} --json files,reviews,comments,statusCheckRollup,reviewDecision
2. Read diff: gh api repos/{REPO}/pulls/{number}/files
3. Write report to {REPORT_DIR}/pr-{number}.md
REPORT FORMAT (write this as the file content):
# PR #{number}: {title}
**Type:** [FEATURE | REFACTOR | DOCS | CHORE | TEST | OTHER]
**Author:** {author}
**Base:** {baseRefName} <- {headRefName} | **Draft:** {isDraft}
## Summary
[2-3 sentences with permalinks to key changes]
## Status
| Check | Status |
|-------|--------|
| CI | [PASS / FAIL / PENDING] |
| Review | [APPROVED / CHANGES_REQUESTED / PENDING / NONE] |
| Mergeable | [YES / NO / CONFLICTED] |
| Risk | [LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH] |
| Alignment | [YES / NO / UNCLEAR] |
## Files Changed
[Count and key files]
## Blockers
[If any]
## Recommended Action: [MERGE | REQUEST_CHANGES | NEEDS_REVIEW | CLOSE | WAIT]
[Reasoning]
---
NEVER merge. NEVER comment. NEVER review. Write to file ONLY.
Phase 4: Collect & Update
Poll background_output() per task. As each completes:
- Parse report.
task_update(id=task_id, status="completed", description=REPORT_SUMMARY)- Stream to user immediately.
Phase 5: Final Summary
Write to {REPORT_DIR}/SUMMARY.md AND display to user:
# GitHub Triage Report - {REPO}
**Date:** {date} | **Commit:** {COMMIT_SHA}
**Items Processed:** {total}
**Report Directory:** {REPORT_DIR}
## Issues ({issue_count})
| Category | Count |
|----------|-------|
| Bug Confirmed | {n} |
| Bug Already Fixed | {n} |
| Not A Bug | {n} |
| Needs Investigation | {n} |
| Question Analyzed | {n} |
| Feature Assessed | {n} |
| Other | {n} |
## PRs ({pr_count})
| Category | Count |
|----------|-------|
| Bugfix Reviewed | {n} |
| Other PR Reviewed | {n} |
## Items Requiring Attention
[Each item: number, title, verdict, 1-line summary, link to report file]
## Report Files
[All generated files with paths]
Anti-Patterns
| Violation | Severity |
|---|---|
| ANY GitHub mutation (comment/close/merge/review/label/edit) | CRITICAL |
| Claim without permalink | CRITICAL |
Using category other than quick |
CRITICAL |
| Batching multiple items into one task | CRITICAL |
run_in_background=false |
CRITICAL |
git checkout on PR branch |
CRITICAL |
| Guessing without codebase evidence | HIGH |
Not writing report to {REPORT_DIR} |
HIGH |
| Using branch name instead of commit SHA in permalink | HIGH |
More from code-yeongyu/oh-my-openagent
work-with-pr
Full PR lifecycle: git worktree → implement → atomic commits → PR creation → verification loop (CI + review-work + Cubic approval) → merge. Keeps iterating until ALL gates pass and PR is merged. Worktree auto-cleanup after merge. Use whenever implementation work needs to land as a PR. Triggers: 'create a PR', 'implement and PR', 'work on this and make a PR', 'implement issue', 'land this as a PR', 'work-with-pr', 'PR workflow', 'implement end to end', even when user just says 'implement X' if the context implies PR delivery.
142pre-publish-review
Nuclear-grade 16-agent pre-publish release gate. Runs /get-unpublished-changes to detect all changes since last npm release, spawns up to 10 ultrabrain agents for deep per-change analysis, invokes /review-work (5 agents) for holistic review, and 1 oracle for overall release synthesis. Use before EVERY npm publish. Triggers: 'pre-publish review', 'review before publish', 'release review', 'pre-release review', 'ready to publish?', 'can I publish?', 'pre-publish', 'safe to publish', 'publishing review', 'pre-publish check'.
142hyperplan
Adversarial multi-agent planning skill. Self-orchestrates 5 hostile category members (unspecified-low, unspecified-high, deep, ultrabrain, artistry) via team-mode for ruthless cross-critique debate, distills only the defensible insights, then MANDATORILY hands the distilled insight bundle to the `plan` agent for executable plan formalization. Use when planning needs maximum rigor and surfacing of weak assumptions, blind spots, and over-engineering. Triggers: 'hyperplan', 'hpp', '/hyperplan', 'adversarial plan', 'hostile planning', 'cross-critique plan', '하이퍼플랜', '적대적 계획', '교차 비평'.
7git-master
MUST USE for ANY git operations. Atomic commits, rebase/squash, history search (blame, bisect, log -S). STRONGLY RECOMMENDED: Use with task(category='quick', load_skills=['git-master'], ...) to save context. Triggers: 'commit', 'rebase', 'squash', 'who wrote', 'when was X added', 'find the commit that'.
4agent-browser
Automates browser interactions for web testing, form filling, screenshots, and data extraction. Use when the user needs to navigate websites, interact with web pages, fill forms, take screenshots, test web applications, or extract information from web pages.
2