engram-issue-creation

When to Use

Use this skill when:

• Creating a GitHub issue (bug report or feature request)
• Helping a contributor file an issue
• Triaging or approving issues as a maintainer

---

Critical Rules

1. Blank issues are disabled — MUST use a template (bug report or feature request)
2. Every issue gets status:needs-review automatically on creation
3. A maintainer MUST add status:approved before any PR can be opened
4. Questions go to Discussions, not issues

---

Workflow

1. Search existing issues for duplicates
2. Choose the correct template (Bug Report or Feature Request)
3. Fill in ALL required fields
4. Check pre-flight checkboxes
5. Submit → issue gets status:needs-review automatically
6. Wait for maintainer to add status:approved
7. Only then open a PR linking this issue

---

Issue Templates

Bug Report

Template: .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml Auto-labels: bug, status:needs-review

Required Fields

Field	Description
Pre-flight Checks	Checkboxes: no duplicate + understands approval workflow
Bug Description	Clear description of the bug
Steps to Reproduce	Numbered steps to reproduce
Expected Behavior	What should have happened
Actual Behavior	What happened instead (include errors/logs)
Operating System	Dropdown: macOS, Linux variants, Windows, WSL
Engram Version	Output of engram version
Agent / Client	Dropdown: Claude Code, OpenCode, Gemini CLI, Cursor, Windsurf, Other

Optional Fields

Field	Description
Relevant Logs	Log output (auto-formatted as code block)
Additional Context	Screenshots, workarounds, extra info

Example — Bug Report via CLI

gh issue create --template "bug_report.yml" \
  --title "fix(store): duplicate observations on concurrent saves" \
  --body "
### Pre-flight Checks
- [x] I have searched existing issues and this is not a duplicate
- [x] I understand this issue needs status:approved before a PR can be opened

### Bug Description
When two agents save observations concurrently, duplicates are created.

### Steps to Reproduce
1. Start two engram instances pointing to the same DB
2. Both save an observation with the same title simultaneously
3. Query observations — duplicates appear

### Expected Behavior
The second save should upsert, not insert a duplicate.

### Actual Behavior
Two identical observations exist with different IDs.

### Operating System
macOS

### Engram Version
0.3.1

### Agent / Client
Claude Code

### Relevant Logs
\`\`\`
UNIQUE constraint failed: observations.title
\`\`\`
"

---

Feature Request

Template: .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.yml Auto-labels: enhancement, status:needs-review

Required Fields

Field	Description
Pre-flight Checks	Checkboxes: no duplicate + understands approval workflow
Problem Description	The pain point this feature solves
Proposed Solution	How it should work from the user's perspective
Affected Area	Dropdown: CLI, MCP Server, TUI, Store, Sync, Skills, Documentation, Other

Optional Fields

Field	Description
Alternatives Considered	Other approaches or workarounds
Additional Context	Mockups, examples, references

Example — Feature Request via CLI

gh issue create --template "feature_request.yml" \
  --title "feat(cli): add --json flag to mem search" \
  --body "
### Pre-flight Checks
- [x] I have searched existing issues and this is not a duplicate
- [x] I understand this issue needs status:approved before a PR can be opened

### Problem Description
When scripting with engram, parsing the human-readable output of mem search is fragile. There's no machine-readable output format.

### Proposed Solution
Add a \`--json\` flag to \`engram mem search\` that outputs results as JSON.

Example:
\`\`\`bash
engram mem search \"auth middleware\" --json
\`\`\`

Expected output:
\`\`\`json
[{\"id\": 42, \"title\": \"JWT auth middleware\", \"type\": \"decision\", ...}]
\`\`\`

### Affected Area
CLI (commands, flags)

### Alternatives Considered
Using \`jq\` to parse the current output, but it's unreliable since the format isn't structured.
"

---

Label System

Applied Automatically on Issue Creation

Template	Labels added
Bug Report	bug, status:needs-review
Feature Request	enhancement, status:needs-review

Applied by Maintainers

Label	When to apply
status:approved	Issue accepted for implementation — PRs can now be opened
priority:high	Critical bug or urgent feature
priority:medium	Important but not blocking
priority:low	Nice to have

---

Maintainer Approval Workflow

1. New issue arrives with status:needs-review
2. Review the issue — is it valid, clear, and in scope?
3. If YES → add status:approved label
4. If NO → comment with reason, close if needed
5. Contributor can now open a PR linking this issue

---

Decision Tree

Is it a bug?                    → Use Bug Report template
Is it a new feature/improvement? → Use Feature Request template
Is it a question?               → Use Discussions, NOT issues
Is it a duplicate?              → Link to existing issue, close

---

Commands

# Search existing issues before creating
gh issue list --search "keyword"

# Create bug report
gh issue create --template "bug_report.yml" --title "fix(scope): description"

# Create feature request
gh issue create --template "feature_request.yml" --title "feat(scope): description"

# Maintainer: approve an issue
gh issue edit <number> --add-label "status:approved"

# Maintainer: add priority
gh issue edit <number> --add-label "priority:high"