Gh issue report
A lazy engineer's toolkit — why do it yourself when a Skill can?
npx -y skills add jackchuka/skills --skill gh-issue-reportAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 15 stars15 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Investigate and file bug reports on GitHub repositories. Searches existing issues to avoid duplicates, checks contributing guides and issue templates, optionally confirms the bug in source code, and files a well-structured issue. Works on both local and remote repos. Triggers: "file a bug", "report issue", "is there a bug for", "check if reported", "investigate and file", "bug report on", "/gh-issue-report"
The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.
SKILL.md
5.7 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Issue Report
Investigate a bug, confirm it hasn't been reported, optionally verify in source code, and file a structured issue — all in one workflow.
Arguments
/gh-issue-report— interactive: asks for repo and bug description/gh-issue-report <owner/repo> <description>— uses arguments directly
Phase 1: Intake
-
Resolve target repo:
- If argument includes
owner/repo, use it. - If the current directory is a git repo, offer it as default.
- Otherwise, ask.
- If argument includes
-
Bug description: If provided as argument, use it. Otherwise ask:
What bug are you seeing? Include steps to reproduce if you have them.
-
Determine repo locality:
- Check if the repo is cloned locally (look for matching remote in
git remote -vor check common paths). - Local: use file system tools (Read, Grep, Glob) for code investigation.
- Remote-only: use
gh apito fetch repo contents for code investigation.
- Check if the repo is cloned locally (look for matching remote in
Phase 2: Search Existing Issues
-
Search for duplicates using multiple query strategies in parallel:
gh issue list -R <repo> --state all --search "<keywords from description>" --limit 20Run 2-3 searches with different keyword combinations extracted from the bug description (e.g., key nouns, component names, error messages). Cast a wide net.
-
Evaluate matches:
- If a clear duplicate exists: show it to the user and ask whether to proceed or comment on the existing issue.
- If partial matches exist: show them and note the differences.
- If no matches: continue.
Phase 3: Check Repo Conventions
-
Fetch contributing guide and issue templates in parallel:
# Contributing guide gh api 'repos/<repo>/contents/CONTRIBUTING.md' --jq '.content' | base64 -d # Issue templates gh api 'repos/<repo>/contents/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE' --jq '.[].name'If issue templates exist, fetch the relevant one (usually
bug_report.mdorbug_report.yml):gh api 'repos/<repo>/contents/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/<template>' --jq '.content' | base64 -d -
Extract conventions: note title prefix (e.g.,
[bug]), required labels, required sections, and any special instructions from the contributing guide.
Phase 4: Code Investigation
Adapt investigation depth based on what's achievable. Start lightweight; go deeper only when the lightweight pass yields promising leads.
-
Lightweight pass — identify relevant files:
For local repos:
Use Grep/Glob to find files matching component names, error messages, or keywords from the bug description.For remote repos:
gh api 'repos/<repo>/git/trees/main?recursive=1' --jq '.tree[].path' | grep -iE '<keywords>'If this yields no useful results (no matching files, or too many to be actionable), skip to Phase 5 and draft the issue without code-level root cause. Note in the issue body that root cause was not confirmed in code.
-
Deep investigation — if the lightweight pass found relevant files (< 10 candidates), read them to understand the bug:
For local repos: use Read tool directly.
For remote repos:
gh api 'repos/<repo>/contents/<path>' --jq '.content' | base64 -dUse subagents for parallel investigation when reading multiple files. Focus on:
- Where the relevant state is stored (React state, store, DB, etc.)
- What triggers the bug (lifecycle, navigation, race condition, etc.)
- Why the current implementation fails
-
Assess findings:
- Root cause confirmed: include it in the issue with file paths and line references.
- Suspected but unconfirmed: include as hypothesis, clearly labeled.
- Nothing actionable found: omit code analysis from the issue, describe only the observed behavior.
Phase 5: Draft Issue
-
Compose the issue following the repo's template and conventions:
Always include:
- Title: follow repo convention (e.g.,
[bug] ...), keep under 80 chars - Description: clear, concise explanation of the bug
- Steps to reproduce: numbered list
- Expected vs actual behaviour
Include when available:
- Root cause: with file paths and line references from Phase 4
- Suggested fix: if root cause is clear enough to propose a direction
- Environment: platform, version, relevant config
- Title: follow repo convention (e.g.,
-
Infer labels: fetch repo labels and match against the issue content:
gh label list -R <repo> --json name,description --jq '.[] | "\(.name)\t\(.description)"'Only use labels that exist on the repo. If the template specifies a label (e.g.,
bug), use it. -
Present draft to user:
Here's the issue I'll file. Want me to adjust anything?
Show the full title, labels, and body. Wait for approval.
Phase 6: File Issue
-
Create the issue:
gh issue create -R <repo> \ --title "<title>" \ --label "<labels>" \ --body "$(cat <<'EOF' <body> EOF )" -
Report result:
Filed: <issue-url>