@codyswann/lisa 2.189.7 → 2.189.9

package/plugins/lisa/skills/github-validate-issue/SKILL.md

@@ -1,330 +0,0 @@
----
-name: github-validate-issue
-description: "Validates a proposed GitHub Issue spec (or an existing issue) against the organizational quality gates without writing anything. Returns a structured PASS/FAIL report per gate with concrete remediation. The GitHub counterpart of lisa:jira-validate-ticket — same gate definitions, translated to the GitHub Issues data model. Single source of truth for what makes a valid GitHub Issue. Both the write path (github-write-issue runs it pre-write) and the dry-run path (github-to-tracker runs it during PRD intake) call this skill."
-allowed-tools: ["Bash", "Read"]
----
-
-# Validate GitHub Issue: $ARGUMENTS
-
-Run all organizational quality gates against an issue spec OR an existing issue. **This skill is read-only — it never writes to GitHub.** The output is a structured report consumed by callers (`lisa:github-write-issue` for pre-write gating, `lisa:github-to-tracker` for PRD dry-run, `lisa:github-verify` for post-write checks).
-
-## Input
-
-`$ARGUMENTS` is one of:
-
-1. **An existing issue ref** (`org/repo#<number>` or `https://github.com/<org>/<repo>/issues/<number>`): fetch it and validate the live state. Use this for post-write checks.
-2. **A proposed issue spec** (YAML block, see schema below): validate as-is without touching GitHub. Use this for pre-write and dry-run checks.
-
-### Spec schema
-
-Specs are passed as a fenced YAML block. Required keys depend on `issue_type`.
-
-```yaml
-issue_type: Story          # Story | Task | Bug | Epic | Spike | Sub-task | Improvement
-org: my-org
-repo: my-repo
-summary: "[CU-1.2] Upload contract PDF from settings"
-priority: medium
-parent_ref: "my-org/my-repo#1234"   # Parent Epic for non-Bug/non-Epic; Story for Sub-task
-body: |
-  ## Context / Business Value
-  ...
-
-  ## Technical Approach
-  ...
-
-  ## Acceptance Criteria
-  ```gherkin
-  Scenario: <name>
-    Given <precondition>
-    When <action>
-    Then <observable outcome>
-  ```
-
-  ## Out of Scope
-  ...
-
-  ## Target Backend Environment
-  dev
-
-  ## Sign-in Required
-  Account: ...
-
-  ## Repository
-  backend-api
-
-  ## Validation Journey
-  ...
-
-# Behavioral flags — caller asserts these so the validator can pick the right gates
-runtime_behavior_change: true     # → requires Target Backend Environment + Validation Journey
-authenticated_surface: true       # → requires Sign-in Required
-artifacts_attached: true          # → requires Source Precedence section
-links: [{ ref: "my-org/my-repo#99", type: "is blocked by" }]   # known issue links (may be empty)
-remote_links: [{ url: "https://github.com/.../pull/42", title: "PR #42" }]
-journey_followup: auto            # auto | none — see S11
-build_ready: true                 # caller asserts the build-ready role (status:ready) is/would be applied — see S15
-child_refs: ["my-org/my-repo#601", "my-org/my-repo#602"]   # known child work (sub-issues / task-list / "Blocked by" parentage) — see S15
-```
-
-If the caller passes only an issue ref, fetch via `gh issue view <number> --repo <org>/<repo> --json number,title,body,labels,state,milestone,assignees`, parse the body sections, derive the spec fields, then run gates. The parser lives in `lisa:github-read-issue` (composition).
-
-## Gates
-
-Gates are grouped into **Specification** (spec-only checks, no GitHub lookups) and **Feasibility** (requires GitHub lookups). The dry-run path may opt to run Specification gates only via `--spec-only`; the write path runs both.
-
-Each gate is tagged with a fixed `category` and a `product_relevant` boolean. Categories are the same fixed set used by `lisa:jira-validate-ticket` so downstream PRD-intake comment-formatting policy is shared across vendors.
-
-| Gate | Category | Product-relevant |
-|------|----------|------------------|
-| S1 Required core fields | `structural` | false |
-| S2 Summary format | `structural` | false |
-| S3 Description three audiences | `product-clarity` | true |
-| S4 Acceptance criteria in Gherkin | `acceptance-criteria` | true |
-| S5 Bug-specific content | `product-clarity` | true |
-| S6 Spike-specific content | `scope` | true |
-| S7 Parent sub-issue declared | `structural` | false |
-| S8 Target Backend Environment | `technical` | false |
-| S9 Sign-in Required | `technical` | false |
-| S10 Single-repo scope | `scope` | false |
-| S11 Validation Journey | `acceptance-criteria` | true |
-| S12 Source Precedence | `design-ux` | true |
-| S13 Relationship Search | `dependency` | true |
-| S14 Evidence manifest binding (leaf work units) | `acceptance-criteria` | true |
-| S15 Leaf-only build-ready | `structural` | false |
-| F1 Issue type label exists in repo | `structural` | false |
-| F2 Parent sub-issue exists and is the right type | `structural` | false |
-| F3 Linked issues exist | `structural` | false |
-| F4 Required labels populated | `structural` | false |
-
-Category values are the same fixed set as `lisa:jira-validate-ticket`:
-
-- `product-clarity`, `acceptance-criteria`, `design-ux`, `scope`, `dependency`, `data`, `technical`, `structural`.
-
-### Specification Gates
-
-#### S1 — Required core fields
-
-`org`, `repo`, `issue_type`, `summary`, `priority`, `body` must all be present and non-empty.
-
-#### S2 — Summary format
-
-- Single line, ≤ 100 characters.
-- Imperative voice ("Add X", "Fix Y", not "Adding X" or "X is broken").
-- Bug / Task / Sub-task summaries SHOULD start with a `[repo-name]` prefix when the project convention uses one.
-
-#### S3 — Description has all three audiences
-
-Body must include all of these sections (case-insensitive `## ` headings):
-
-- `Context / Business Value` — stakeholder-facing
-- `Technical Approach` — developer-facing
-- `Acceptance Criteria` — coding-assistant-facing
-- `Out of Scope` — explicit non-coverage list
-
-Missing any → FAIL with name of missing section.
-
-#### S4 — Acceptance criteria in Gherkin
-
-Applies when `issue_type ∈ {Story, Task, Bug, Sub-task, Improvement}`.
-
-The `## Acceptance Criteria` section must contain at least one `Scenario:` block with `Given / When / Then` form, ideally inside a ` ```gherkin ` code fence. Reject prose-only criteria, "should work" language, or numbered lists without Given/When/Then verbs.
-
-#### S5 — Bug-specific content
-
-When `issue_type = Bug`, body must additionally include:
-
-- Reproduction steps
-- Expected vs. actual behavior
-- Environment where reproduced
-
-#### S6 — Spike-specific content
-
-When `issue_type = Spike`, body must include:
-
-- The question being answered
-- Definition of done (decision doc / prototype / findings deliverable)
-
-#### S7 — Parent sub-issue declared
-
-When `issue_type ∉ {Bug, Epic}`, `parent_ref` must be set — **except for a build-ready leaf work unit**, which may stand alone. A flat `Task` / `Improvement`, or a childless `Story` / `Spike` (no open child work) with `build_ready = true`, is an independently claimable leaf per `leaf-only-lifecycle`, which states such leaves "must not be stranded"; for these a missing parent is `N/A`, not a FAIL. This mirrors the leaf carve-out already in S10/S15. A `Sub-task` is exempt from this exception — it always requires a parent. When a parent IS declared, the native sub-issue link is set by `lisa:github-write-issue` Phase 6 step 3. (Validity of a declared parent is checked in feasibility gate F2.)
-
-#### S8 — Target Backend Environment
-
-When `runtime_behavior_change = true`, body must contain `## Target Backend Environment` with one of `dev`, `staging`, `prod`. Skipped for doc-only / config-only / type-only / Epic.
-
-#### S9 — Sign-in Required
-
-When `authenticated_surface = true`, body must contain `## Sign-in Required` naming the account/role and credential source.
-
-If the spec doesn't set `authenticated_surface`, infer it: scan the body and AC for sign-in / login / "as a {role} user" / authenticated route signals. If signals present and no `Sign-in Required` section: FAIL.
-
-#### S10 — Repository section, single-repo scope
-
-When `issue_type ∈ {Bug, Task, Sub-task, Improvement}` — or a **build-ready childless Story/Spike** (a claimable leaf per `leaf-only-lifecycle`) — body must contain `## Repository` naming exactly one repo. Multiple repos OR cross-repo references in AC: FAIL with recommendation `"Split into per-repo work units under a shared parent Story (see lisa:task-decomposition step 1.5)"`.
-
-(GitHub Issues live in one repo by definition, so the `## Repository` section is technically redundant — keep it for parity with the JIRA path so downstream tooling sees the same shape. Cross-repo references in AC are still possible and still fail this gate.)
-
-An **Epic**, or a **Story/Spike that still holds child work** (or is not build-ready): skipped (may span repos — coordination containers, not claimable leaf work units).
-
-This gate is `product_relevant: false` because cross-repo work units are not a product question — they are a decomposition error. Callers (`lisa:github-to-tracker`, `lisa:notion-to-tracker`, etc.) MUST pre-split cross-repo work into per-repo work units during the decomposition phase per `lisa:task-decomposition` step 1.5; an S10 failure here indicates the agent skipped that step and must auto-split + revalidate before writing, not surface a clarifying comment to product.
-
-#### S11 — Validation Journey present
-
-When `runtime_behavior_change = true`, body must contain `## Validation Journey`. Skipped for doc-only / config-only / type-only / Epic.
-
-The caller controls strictness via `journey_followup`:
-- `auto` (default): missing section is FAIL with remediation `"Invoke lisa:github-add-journey to append the section after create"`. Callers like `lisa:github-write-issue` know to chain the followup automatically.
-- `none`: missing section is FAIL the caller will not auto-fix (used by dry-run paths).
-
-#### S12 — Source Precedence (when artifacts attached)
-
-When `artifacts_attached = true`, body must include source-precedence guidance covering: business rules → PRD body, visual treatment → mocks, flow → prototypes, API/data → data artifacts. Cross-axis conflicts surfaced under `## Open Questions`.
-
-Accept either placement:
-- A dedicated `## Source Precedence` subsection, OR
-- A "Source Precedence" / "authoritative source" paragraph under `## Technical Approach`.
-
-Detect by scanning for the phrase `Source Precedence` (case-insensitive) AND verifying the four axes (business rules, visual, flow, data) are each named.
-
-#### S13 — Relationship Search documented
-
-The issue must EITHER have at least one entry in `links`, OR the body must contain a `## Relationship Search` block listing the git history queries and `gh issue list` queries that were run with their outcomes. ("Searched git history for `<keywords>` and `gh issue list` for label `component:X`; no related work found.")
-
-An issue with zero links and no documented search: FAIL.
-
-#### S14 — Evidence manifest binding (leaf work units)
-
-When `issue_type ∈ {Bug, Task, Sub-task, Improvement}` AND `runtime_behavior_change = true`, the `## Validation Journey` must declare at least one `[EVIDENCE: name]` marker. Each marker name must be kebab-case and unique within the issue. These markers are the work unit's **evidence manifest** — the exact, enumerated set of artifacts that must be captured and attached before the issue may be closed (see the "Per-Work-Unit Evidence Contract" section of the `verification` rule, the Definition of Done in `verification-lifecycle`, and the evidence-manifest gate in `tracker-evidence`).
-
-FAIL when the Validation Journey is present but declares zero `[EVIDENCE: name]` markers, or when any marker name is empty, duplicated, or not kebab-case. A behavior-changing work unit SHOULD declare both a success marker and an error/edge marker; a journey with only one marker passes but the remediation should recommend adding the error/edge case.
-
-This gate depends on S11. It is `N/A` for containers — an **Epic**, or any item with open child work (coordination containers, not work units) — and for leaf units with `runtime_behavior_change = false` (doc-only / config-only / type-only). If S11 fails because the Validation Journey is absent, S14 also FAILs (there is no manifest to bind) with remediation pointing back to `lisa:github-add-journey`.
-
-#### S15 — Leaf-only build-ready
-
-Enforces the build-side of the vendor-neutral `leaf-only-lifecycle` rule: **only a leaf work unit may carry the build-ready role.** This is the symmetric write-side guard for the GitHub validator — a stale or hand-applied `status:ready` on a container is a lifecycle error and must FAIL here, regardless of how the issue was produced. (Mirrors the "Build-ready label is leaf-only" rule that `lisa:github-write-issue` applies at write time.)
-
-**When the gate applies.** Run S15 whenever the issue is build-ready — i.e. `build_ready = true`, or the spec/live labels include `status:ready`. If the issue is not build-ready, S15 is `N/A` (nothing claims a non-ready issue, so the invariant is vacuous).
-
-**Resolve container vs. leaf — structural first, then nominal.** Per `leaf-only-lifecycle` the classification is structural: an item is a **container** if it has child work, whatever its declared type; otherwise the **type label** decides. Determine child work from (in order) `child_refs`, native sub-issues, body task-list checkboxes, and `Blocked by #<n>` / parent references — the same hierarchy resolution `lisa:github-read-issue` uses. When validating a live ref, query sub-issues alongside the issue fetch.
-
-Apply this decision and FAIL the two invariant-violating cases:
-
-1. **Container with child work + build-ready** — child work is present (any type that has open children), AND build-ready. FAIL. A parent organizes work; it is never claimed and implemented directly. Its lifecycle state rolls up from its children.
-2. **Childless Epic + build-ready** — `issue_type = Epic` with **no** child work, AND build-ready. Still FAIL: an Epic is a pure rollup container by design, and a childless one is an incomplete decomposition or a mis-applied role, not an implementable unit. (A childless Story or Spike is **not** failed here — the childless-parent exception in `leaf-only-lifecycle` promotes every childless non-Epic type to a build-ready leaf.)
-
-PASS (the childless-parent exception) when the issue is build-ready and is a **leaf work unit**: it has **no** open child work and `issue_type ≠ Epic` (i.e. `Bug, Task, Sub-task, Improvement`, or a childless `Story` / `Spike`). A flat Task/Bug, or a childless Story/Spike with no sub-issues, is a valid build-ready leaf and must not be stranded.
-
-| issue_type | has child work | build-ready | S15 |
-|---|---|---|---|
-| Bug / Task / Sub-task / Improvement / Story / Spike | no | yes | **PASS** (leaf) |
-| any type | yes | yes | **FAIL** (structurally a container) |
-| Epic | no | yes | **FAIL** (childless Epic — pure rollup container, exception does not apply) |
-| any | any | no | **N/A** (not build-ready) |
-
-Remediation: `"Build-ready (status:ready) is leaf-only per leaf-only-lifecycle. Move status:ready off this container onto its leaf children (or, for a childless Epic, decompose it into leaf children or reclassify it to a leaf type); a parent's lifecycle state rolls up from its children and is never set to ready directly."`
-
-`product_relevant: false` — a build-ready container is a lifecycle/decomposition error for the caller to repair, not a product question.
-
-### Feasibility Gates (require GitHub lookups; skip in `--spec-only`)
-
-#### F1 — Issue type label exists in repo
-
-```bash
-gh label list --repo <org>/<repo> --json name --jq '.[].name'
-```
-
-Confirm `type:<issue_type>` exists. Missing labels can be auto-created by `lisa:github-write-issue` Phase 5 — flag the absence as a structural FAIL with remediation "Run `gh label create type:<issue_type>` or let the write path auto-create."
-
-#### F2 — Parent sub-issue exists and is the right type
-
-When `parent_ref` is set:
-
-```bash
-gh issue view <number> --repo <org>/<repo> --json number,labels,state
-```
-
-Confirm the parent issue exists and:
-- For non-Sub-task children: parent has `type:Epic` label.
-- For Sub-task children: parent has `type:Story`, `type:Task`, `type:Bug`, or `type:Improvement` (anything that can host sub-tasks).
-
-#### F3 — Linked issues exist
-
-For each entry in `links`, run `gh issue view <number> --repo <link-org>/<link-repo>` to confirm the ref resolves. Flag broken refs.
-
-#### F4 — Required labels populated
-
-Per `Phase 5` of `lisa:github-write-issue`, every issue MUST carry: `type:<issue_type>`, `status:<status>`, `priority:<priority>`. If any are missing from the spec / live issue, FAIL with the missing label name.
-
-## Execution
-
-1. Parse `$ARGUMENTS`. If it's an issue ref, fetch via `gh issue view --json` and derive the spec fields — including `build_ready` (label set contains `status:ready`) and `child_refs` (native sub-issues plus body task-list / `Blocked by #<n>` parentage, resolved as in `lisa:github-read-issue`) so S15 can classify the issue. Otherwise parse the YAML spec.
-2. Confirm `gh auth status` succeeds before any feasibility gate runs.
-3. Run every Specification gate in order. Collect PASS / FAIL / N/A with a one-line reason.
-4. Unless the caller passed `--spec-only`, run every Feasibility gate.
-5. Emit the report below.
-
-## Output
-
-Output is a single fenced text block. Callers parse it; do not add free-form prose around it.
-
-```text
-## github-validate-issue: <ISSUE-REF-or-SUMMARY>
-
-### Specification Gates
-- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S1 Required core fields — <one-line reason>
-- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S2 Summary format — <one-line reason>
-- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S3 Description three audiences — <one-line reason>
-- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S4 Acceptance criteria in Gherkin — <one-line reason>
-- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S5 Bug-specific content — <one-line reason>
-- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S6 Spike-specific content — <one-line reason>
-- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S7 Parent sub-issue declared — <one-line reason>
-- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S8 Target Backend Environment — <one-line reason>
-- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S9 Sign-in Required — <one-line reason>
-- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S10 Single-repo scope — <one-line reason>
-- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S11 Validation Journey — <one-line reason>
-- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S12 Source Precedence — <one-line reason>
-- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S13 Relationship Search — <one-line reason>
-- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S14 Evidence manifest binding — <one-line reason>
-- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S15 Leaf-only build-ready — <one-line reason>
-
-### Feasibility Gates  (omit this section when --spec-only)
-- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] F1 Issue type label exists in repo — <one-line reason>
-- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] F2 Parent sub-issue exists and is the right type — <one-line reason>
-- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] F3 Linked issues exist — <one-line reason>
-- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] F4 Required labels populated — <one-line reason>
-
-### Verdict: PASS | FAIL
-### Failures: <count>
-### Failure details
-- gate: <gate-id>
-  category: <product-clarity|acceptance-criteria|design-ux|scope|dependency|data|technical|structural>
-  product_relevant: <true|false>
-  what: <plain-language description, no gate IDs, no GitHub jargon — written for a non-engineer product owner>
-  recommendation: <1–3 concrete options the caller (or downstream product team) can pick from. Never "clarify this".>
-- gate: <gate-id>
-  ...
-```
-
-The verdict is `PASS` if every applicable gate is `PASS`. Any `FAIL` makes the verdict `FAIL`. `N/A` does not affect the verdict.
-
-### Failure-detail fields
-
-Same shape and meaning as `lisa:jira-validate-ticket` so downstream PRD-intake skills (Notion, Confluence, Linear, GitHub) can format comments uniformly:
-
-- **gate**: the gate ID (`S1`–`S15`, `F1`–`F4`).
-- **category**: the gate's fixed category from the table.
-- **product_relevant**: matches the gate's table entry. `false` means the failure is an internal data-quality problem the caller should fix without bothering product.
-- **what**: plain-language, product-readable.
-- **recommendation**: 1–3 concrete options.
-
-## Rules
-
-- Never write to GitHub. The `allowed-tools` list intentionally excludes any `gh issue create / edit / comment / close` invocation.
-- Never auto-fix the spec. This skill reports gaps; callers decide what to do.
-- Never silently skip a gate. Return `N/A` with the reason if a gate genuinely doesn't apply; never omit it.
-- The `what` and `recommendation` must be concrete and product-readable — vague guidance ("clarify this") is useless.
-- Never emit a category outside the fixed set.
-- `product_relevant` is determined by the gate, not by the failure context.
-- When validating an existing issue ref, parse the body via the same logic as `lisa:github-read-issue` so the two skills agree on what they see.

package/plugins/lisa/skills/github-validate-issue/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -1,4 +0,0 @@
-display_name: "Github Validate Issue"
-short_description: "Validates a proposed GitHub Issue spec (or an existing issue) against the organizational quality gates without writing anything"
-default_prompt:
-  - "Use $github-validate-issue: Validates a proposed GitHub Issue spec (or an existing issue) against the organizational quality gates without writing anything."

package/plugins/lisa/skills/github-verify/SKILL.md

@@ -1,29 +0,0 @@
----
-name: github-verify
-description: This skill should be used when verifying that a GitHub Issue meets organizational standards for parent-sub-issue relationships and description quality. It fetches the live issue and delegates the gate checks to github-validate-issue so the bar matches what github-write-issue enforces pre-write. The GitHub counterpart of lisa:jira-verify.
-allowed-tools: ["Skill", "Bash"]
----
-
-# Verify GitHub Issue: $ARGUMENTS
-
-Verify that the existing GitHub Issue `$ARGUMENTS` (`org/repo#<number>` or full URL) meets organizational standards. This skill is a thin post-write wrapper around `lisa:github-validate-issue`: it fetches the live issue and asks the validator to run the gates against the fetched state.
-
-This indirection exists so the gate definitions live in exactly one place (`lisa:github-validate-issue`). When the bar changes, change it there — `lisa:github-verify`, `lisa:github-write-issue` (Phase 5.5 pre-write), and `lisa:github-to-tracker` (PRD dry-run) all pick it up.
-
-## Process
-
-1. Confirm `gh auth status` succeeds.
-2. Parse `$ARGUMENTS`. Resolve `<org>`, `<repo>`, `<number>`.
-3. Fetch the issue via `gh issue view <number> --repo <org>/<repo> --json number,title,body,labels,state,milestone,assignees,author,createdAt,updatedAt,closed,closedAt,url`.
-4. Invoke `lisa:github-validate-issue` and pass the issue ref. The validator fetches its own copy and runs every gate (Specification + Feasibility) against the live state.
-5. Surface the validator's report verbatim to the caller.
-
-## Output
-
-Pass through `lisa:github-validate-issue`'s structured output unchanged. Do not summarize or paraphrase — downstream callers (e.g. `lisa:github-agent`'s pre-flight gate) parse the gate lines.
-
-## Notes
-
-- This skill is read-only. It never edits the issue, posts comments, or changes labels.
-- If a gate fails, the recommendation is part of the validator's report; surface it as-is.
-- The Validation Journey check (S11) parses the `## Validation Journey` markdown section — same parser logic as `lisa:github-add-journey` and `lisa:github-journey`.

package/plugins/lisa/skills/github-verify/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -1,4 +0,0 @@
-display_name: "Github Verify"
-short_description: "verifying that a GitHub Issue meets organizational standards for parent-sub-issue relationships and description quality"
-default_prompt:
-  - "Use $github-verify: verifying that a GitHub Issue meets organizational standards for parent-sub-issue relationships and description quality."