solarwindpy 0.0.1.dev0__py3-none-any.whl → 0.1.0__py3-none-any.whl

plans/github-issues-migration/0-Overview.md

@@ -0,0 +1,510 @@
+# GitHub Issues Migration with Propositions Framework - Overview
+
+## Plan Metadata
+- **Plan Name**: GitHub Issues Migration with Propositions Framework
+- **Created**: 2025-08-19
+- **Branch**: plan/github-issues-migration
+- **Implementation Branch**: feature/github-issues-migration
+- **PlanManager**: UnifiedPlanCoordinator
+- **PlanImplementer**: UnifiedPlanCoordinator
+- **Structure**: Multi-Phase
+- **Total Phases**: 5
+- **Dependencies**: None
+- **Affects**: plans/, .claude/hooks/, .claude/scripts/, CLAUDE.md, .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/, issues_from_plans.py
+- **Estimated Duration**: 16-21 hours
+- **Status**: Planning
+
+## Phase Overview
+- [ ] **Phase 1: Foundation & Label System** (Est: 3-4 hours) - GitHub labels setup and issue templates creation
+- [ ] **Phase 2: Migration Tool Complete Rewrite** (Est: 5-6 hours) - PropositionsAwareMigrator implementation
+- [ ] **Phase 3: CLI Integration & Automation** (Est: 3-4 hours) - gh CLI scripts and workflow automation
+- [ ] **Phase 4: Validated Migration** (Est: 3-4 hours) - Migrate existing plans with validation
+- [ ] **Phase 5: Documentation & Training** (Est: 1-2 hours) - Update documentation and team training
+
+## Phase Files
+1. [1-Foundation-Label-System.md](./1-Foundation-Label-System.md)
+2. [2-Migration-Tool-Rewrite.md](./2-Migration-Tool-Rewrite.md)
+3. [3-CLI-Integration-Automation.md](./3-CLI-Integration-Automation.md)
+4. [4-Validated-Migration.md](./4-Validated-Migration.md)
+5. [5-Documentation-Training.md](./5-Documentation-Training.md)
+
+## 🎯 Objective
+Migrate SolarWindPy's local plans system to GitHub Issues while preserving the comprehensive propositions framework (Risk, Value, Cost, Token, Usage) and automatic closeout documentation (85% implementation decision capture). Primary objective: Enable instant plan synchronization across 3 development computers, eliminating 100+ hours/year lost to cross-machine friction and preventing data loss from local-only plan branches.
+
+## 🧠 Context
+The current local plans system in `plans/` directories provides excellent structured planning with detailed propositions analysis and automatic closeout documentation. However, plans become trapped on local branches across multiple development machines, creating significant cross-computer friction and risk of data loss. With 3 active development computers, the inability to instantly sync and access plans from any machine wastes 100+ hours annually in context switching overhead, branch management, and duplicated work. This migration aims to preserve all current capabilities while enabling instant multi-computer synchronization through GitHub's native features.
+
+**Key Requirements:**
+- Preserve 85% automatic closeout documentation capture
+- Maintain comprehensive propositions framework
+- Zero data loss during migration
+- Single "plan:phase" label system (not plan:phase-1, plan:phase-2)
+- Complete rewrite of issues_from_plans.py (not update)
+- 20-25 total labels for practical categorization
+- Multi-computer synchronization as primary value driver
+
+## 🔧 Technical Requirements
+**Core Dependencies**:
+- GitHub CLI (`gh`) for automation and scripting
+- Python 3.8+ with `requests`, `pyyaml`, `click` for migration tools
+- GitHub API access with repository admin permissions
+- Existing `.claude/hooks/` integration for validation workflows
+
+**GitHub Features**:
+- Issue templates with YAML frontmatter for structured data
+- Labels system supporting hierarchical categorization
+- Milestones for phase-based progress tracking
+- GitHub Actions for automated validation and workflow enforcement
+
+**Integration Points**:
+- `.claude/hooks/` validation system adaptation for GitHub Issues
+- CLAUDE.md documentation updates for new workflow
+- Git branch workflow coordination with issue lifecycle
+- Velocity tracking system migration from local files to GitHub metadata
+
+## 📂 Affected Areas
+**Direct Modifications**:
+- `plans/issues_from_plans.py` → Complete rewrite as PropositionsAwareMigrator
+- `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/` → New issue templates (overview, phase, closeout)
+- `.claude/hooks/` → GitHub integration scripts replacing Python hooks
+- `.claude/scripts/` → New migration and validation utilities
+- `CLAUDE.md` → Workflow documentation updates
+
+**Data Migration**:
+- `plans/*` directories → GitHub Issues with preserved metadata
+- Velocity metrics → GitHub issue metadata and external tracking
+- Implementation decisions → GitHub issue comments and close documentation
+- Cross-plan dependencies → GitHub issue links and milestone coordination
+
+## ✅ Acceptance Criteria
+- [ ] All 5 phases completed successfully with full validation
+- [ ] 20-25 GitHub labels created and organized in 5 essential categories
+- [ ] 3 issue templates supporting propositions framework
+- [ ] PropositionsAwareMigrator handles 100% of current plan features (excluding velocity migration)
+- [ ] Zero data loss validated through comprehensive migration testing
+- [ ] 85% implementation decision capture preserved in GitHub format
+- [ ] Completed and active plans migrated with full metadata preservation
+- [ ] Multi-computer synchronization workflow validated across 3 machines
+- [ ] All tests pass and code coverage maintained ≥ 95%
+- [ ] Documentation updated and comprehensive migration guide available
+- [ ] Rollback procedures documented and tested
+
+## 🧪 Testing Strategy
+**Migration Validation**:
+- Parallel system testing: Local plans vs GitHub Issues for identical content
+- Propositions framework preservation testing across all 5 categories
+- API rate limiting and error handling validation
+- Large-scale migration testing with historical plans
+
+**Integration Testing**:
+- GitHub CLI workflow validation with `.claude/hooks/` system
+- Issue template rendering and metadata preservation testing
+- Cross-plan dependency tracking through GitHub issue links
+- Velocity metrics accuracy validation post-migration
+
+**User Acceptance Testing**:
+- Team workflow validation with real development scenarios
+- Search and discovery testing across migrated issue database
+- Performance testing for large-scale operations (100+ issues)
+- Rollback procedure validation with test data
+
+## 📊 Value Proposition Analysis
+
+### Scientific Software Development Value
+**Research Efficiency Improvements:**
+- **General Development**: Improved code quality and maintainability
+
+**Multi-Computer Development Efficiency:**
+- Plans instantly accessible from all 3 development machines
+- Eliminates branch synchronization overhead and context switching friction
+- Prevents data loss from local-only plan branches across machines
+- Reduces cross-computer development friction by 100+ hours annually
+
+**Development Quality Enhancements:**
+- Systematic evaluation of plan impact on scientific workflows
+- Enhanced decision-making through quantified value metrics
+- Improved coordination with SolarWindPy's physics validation system
+
+### Developer Productivity Value
+**Planning Efficiency:**
+- **Manual Planning Time**: ~225 minutes for 5 phases
+- **Automated Planning Time**: ~40 minutes with value propositions
+- **Time Savings**: 185 minutes (82% reduction)
+- **Reduced Cognitive Load**: Systematic framework eliminates ad-hoc analysis
+
+**Multi-Computer Workflow Optimization:**
+- **Current Cross-Machine Friction**: ~2 hours per plan (branch sync, context restoration)
+- **GitHub Issues Access**: ~5 minutes instant access from any machine
+- **Time Savings**: 115 minutes per plan (93% reduction)
+- **Annual Efficiency Gain**: 100+ hours saved across 25-30 plans
+
+**Token Usage Optimization:**
+- **Manual Proposition Writing**: ~1800 tokens
+- **Automated Hook Generation**: ~300 tokens  
+- **Net Savings**: 1500 tokens (83% reduction)
+- **Session Extension**: Approximately 15 additional minutes of productive work
+
+## 💰 Resource & Cost Analysis
+
+### Development Investment
+**Implementation Time Breakdown:**
+- **Base estimate**: 18.5 hours (multi-phase plan with simplified scope)
+- **Complexity multiplier**: 0.9x (reduced scope and removed velocity migration)
+- **Final estimate**: 16.7 hours
+- **Confidence interval**: 16-21 hours
+- **Per-phase average**: 3.3 hours
+
+**Maintenance Considerations:**
+- Ongoing maintenance: ~2-4 hours per quarter
+- Testing updates: ~1-2 hours per major change
+- Documentation updates: ~30 minutes per feature addition
+
+### Token Usage Economics  
+**Current vs Enhanced Token Usage:**
+- Manual proposition writing: ~1800 tokens
+- Automated generation: ~400 tokens
+  - Hook execution: 100 tokens
+  - Content insertion: 150 tokens
+  - Validation: 50 tokens
+  - Context overhead: 100 tokens
+
+**Net Savings: 1400 tokens (78% reduction)**
+
+**Break-even Analysis:**
+- Development investment: ~10-15 hours
+- Token savings per plan: 1400 tokens
+- Break-even point: 10 plans
+- Expected annual volume: 20-30 plans
+
+### Operational Efficiency
+- Runtime overhead: <2% additional planning time
+- Storage requirements: <5MB additional template data
+- Performance impact: Negligible on core SolarWindPy functionality
+
+## ⚠️ Risk Assessment & Mitigation
+
+### Technical Implementation Risks
+| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation Strategy |
+|------|------------|--------|-------------------|
+| Integration compatibility issues | Low | Medium | Thorough integration testing, backward compatibility validation |
+| Performance degradation | Low | Low | Performance benchmarking, optimization validation |
+
+### Project Management Risks
+- **Timeline slippage risk (Medium)**: Multiple phases increase coordination complexity
+  - *Mitigation*: Clear phase dependencies, regular milestone reviews
+- **Scope creep risk (Medium)**: Value propositions may reveal additional requirements
+  - *Mitigation*: Strict scope boundaries, change control process
+- **Resource availability risk (Low)**: Developer time allocation conflicts
+  - *Mitigation*: Resource planning, conflict identification system
+- **Token budget overrun (Low)**: Complex plans may exceed session limits
+  - *Mitigation*: Token monitoring, automatic compaction at phase boundaries
+
+### Scientific Workflow Risks
+- **User workflow disruption (Low)**: Interface changes may affect researcher productivity
+  - *Mitigation*: Backward compatibility, gradual feature introduction
+- **Documentation lag (Medium)**: Implementation may outpace documentation updates
+  - *Mitigation*: Documentation-driven development, parallel doc updates
+
+## 🔒 Security Proposition
+
+### Code-Level Security Assessment
+**Dependency Vulnerability Assessment:**
+- **No specific dependencies identified** - general Python security best practices apply
+
+**Recommended Actions:**
+- Run `pip audit` to scan for known vulnerabilities
+- Pin dependency versions in requirements.txt
+- Monitor security advisories for scientific computing packages
+- Consider using conda for better package management
+
+**Security Scope Clarification:**
+- This assessment covers **code-level security only**
+- **NO FAIR data principle compliance** (requires core data structure changes)
+- Focus on development workflow and dependency security
+- Research data repository integration explicitly excluded from scope
+
+**Authentication/Access Control Impact Analysis:**
+- No direct authentication system modifications identified
+- Standard scientific computing access patterns maintained
+- No elevated privilege requirements detected
+- Multi-user environment compatibility preserved
+
+**Attack Surface Analysis:**
+- **Minimal exposure increase**: Internal library modifications only
+
+**Mitigation Strategies:**
+- Validate all external inputs and user-provided data
+- Sanitize file paths and prevent directory traversal
+- Use parameterized queries for any database operations
+- Implement proper error handling to prevent information disclosure
+
+### Scientific Computing Environment Security
+**Development Workflow Security:**
+- Git workflow integrity maintained through branch protection
+- Code review requirements enforced for security-sensitive changes
+- Automated testing validates security assumptions
+- Multi-phase development allows incremental security review
+
+**CI/CD Pipeline Security:**
+- Automated dependency scanning in development workflow
+- Test environment isolation prevents production data exposure
+- Secrets management for any required credentials
+- Build reproducibility ensures supply chain integrity
+
+### Scope Limitations
+**This security assessment covers:**
+- Code-level security and dependency analysis
+- Development workflow security implications
+- Scientific computing environment considerations
+
+**Explicitly excluded from this assessment:**
+- Data principle compliance (requires core data structure changes)
+- Research data repository integration (outside scope)
+
+**Note**: For comprehensive research data security, consider separate compliance initiative.
+
+## 🎯 Scope Audit
+
+### SolarWindPy Alignment Assessment
+**Alignment Score**: 24/100
+
+**Score Interpretation:**
+- Low alignment score reflects **infrastructure/tooling** nature of this plan
+- Does not indicate core solar wind physics development
+- Acceptable for development process improvements
+- Maintains focus on supporting SolarWindPy scientific mission
+
+**Alignment Score Breakdown:**
+- Module Relevance: 0/40 points
+- Scientific Keywords: 14/30 points
+- Research Impact: 0/20 points
+- Scope Risk Control: 10/10 points
+
+**Assessment**: Low alignment, significant scope concerns
+
+### Scientific Research Relevance
+**Relevance Level**: Medium
+
+Moderate scientific computing relevance with research applications
+
+### Module Impact Analysis
+**Affected SolarWindPy Modules:**
+- Development workflow infrastructure only
+- No direct impact on core scientific modules
+
+### Scope Risk Identification
+**No significant scope risks identified** - Plan appears well-focused on scientific computing objectives
+
+### Scope Boundary Enforcement
+**Recommended Scope Controls:**
+- Limit implementation to affected modules: plans/, .claude/hooks/, .claude/scripts/, CLAUDE.md, .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/, issues_from_plans.py
+- **Maintain strict focus on SolarWindPy scientific mission support**
+- Validate all changes preserve scientific workflow integrity
+- Ensure development processes align with solar wind physics research needs
+- **Infrastructure changes must directly support scientific computing goals**
+
+**Out-of-Scope Elements to Avoid:**
+- Web development or interface features unrelated to scientific analysis
+- General-purpose software infrastructure not specific to research computing
+- Business logic or user management functionality
+- Non-scientific data processing or visualization features
+
+**Scientific Computing Alignment:**
+This plan should advance SolarWindPy's mission to provide accurate, efficient tools for solar wind physics research and space weather analysis.
+
+## 💾 Token Usage Optimization
+
+### Current Token Usage Patterns
+**Manual Planning Token Breakdown:**
+- Initial planning discussion: ~800 tokens
+- Value proposition writing: ~600 tokens (moderate plan)
+- Revision and refinement: ~300 tokens
+- Context switching overhead: ~200 tokens
+- **Total current usage: ~1900 tokens per plan**
+
+**Inefficiency Sources:**
+- Multi-phase coordination: ~200 additional tokens
+- Repetitive manual analysis for similar plan types
+- Context regeneration between planning sessions
+- Inconsistent proposition quality requiring revisions
+
+### Optimized Token Usage Strategy
+**Hook-Based Generation Efficiency:**
+- Hook execution and setup: 100 tokens
+- Plan metadata extraction: 50 tokens
+- Content generation coordination: 150 tokens
+- Template insertion and formatting: 75 tokens
+- Optional validation: 50 tokens
+- **Total optimized usage: ~425 tokens per plan**
+
+**Optimization Techniques:**
+- Programmatic generation eliminates manual analysis
+- Template-based approach ensures consistency
+- Cached calculations reduce redundant computation
+- Structured format enables better context compression
+
+### Context Preservation Benefits
+**Session Continuity Improvements:**
+- Structured value propositions enable efficient compaction
+- Decision rationale preserved for future reference
+- Consistent format improves session bridging
+- Reduced context regeneration between sessions
+
+**Compaction Efficiency:**
+- Value propositions compress well due to structured format
+- Multi-phase plans benefit from milestone-based compaction
+- Key metrics preserved even in heavily compacted states
+- Phase-by-phase progress tracking reduces context loss
+- Automated generation allows context-aware detail levels
+
+## ⏱️ Time Investment Analysis
+
+### Implementation Time Breakdown
+**Phase-by-Phase Time Estimates (5 phases):**
+- Planning and design: 2 hours
+- Implementation: 8.0 hours (base: 8, multiplier: 1.0x)
+- Testing and validation: 2 hours
+- Documentation updates: 1 hours
+- **Total estimated time: 13.0 hours**
+
+**Confidence Intervals:**
+- Optimistic (80%): 10.4 hours
+- Most likely (100%): 13.0 hours
+- Pessimistic (130%): 16.9 hours
+
+### Time Savings Analysis
+**Per-Plan Time Savings:**
+- Manual planning process: 90 minutes
+- Automated hook-based planning: 20 minutes
+- Net savings per plan: 70 minutes (78% reduction)
+
+**Long-term Efficiency Gains:**
+- Projected annual plans: 25
+- Annual time savings: 29.2 hours
+- Equivalent to 3.6 additional development days per year
+
+**Qualitative Benefits:**
+- Reduced decision fatigue through systematic evaluation
+- Consistent quality eliminates rework cycles
+- Improved plan accuracy through structured analysis
+
+### Break-Even Calculation
+**Investment vs. Returns:**
+- One-time development investment: 14 hours
+- Time savings per plan: 1.2 hours
+- Break-even point: 12.0 plans
+
+**Payback Timeline:**
+- Estimated monthly plan volume: 2.5 plans
+- Break-even timeline: 4.8 months
+- ROI positive after: ~12 plans
+
+**Long-term ROI:**
+- Year 1: 200-300% ROI (25-30 plans)
+- Year 2+: 500-600% ROI (ongoing benefits)
+- Compound benefits from improved plan quality
+
+## 🎯 Usage & Adoption Metrics
+
+### Target Use Cases
+**Primary Applications:**
+- All new plan creation (immediate value through automated generation)
+- Major feature development planning for SolarWindPy modules
+- Scientific project planning requiring systematic value assessment
+
+**Secondary Applications:**
+- Existing plan enhancement during major updates
+- Cross-plan value comparison for resource prioritization
+- Quality assurance for plan completeness and consistency
+- Decision audit trails for scientific project management
+
+### Adoption Strategy
+**Phased Rollout Approach:**
+
+**Phase 1 - Pilot (Month 1):**
+- Introduce enhanced templates for new plans only
+- Target 5-8 pilot plans for initial validation
+- Gather feedback from UnifiedPlanCoordinator users
+- Refine hook accuracy based on real usage
+
+**Phase 2 - Gradual Adoption (Months 2-3):**
+- Default enhanced templates for all new plans
+- Optional migration for 3-5 active existing plans
+- Training materials and best practices documentation
+- Performance monitoring and optimization
+
+**Phase 3 - Full Integration (Months 4-6):**
+- Enhanced templates become standard for all planning
+- Migration of remaining active plans (optional)
+- Advanced features and customization options
+- Integration with cross-plan analysis tools
+
+**Success Factors:**
+- Opt-in enhancement reduces resistance
+- Immediate value visible through token savings
+- Backward compatibility maintains existing workflows
+- Progressive enhancement enables gradual learning
+
+### Success Metrics
+**Quantitative Success Metrics:**
+
+**Short-term (1-3 months):**
+- Enhanced template adoption rate: >80% for new plans
+- Token usage reduction: 60-80% demonstrated across plan types
+- Hook execution success rate: >95% reliability
+- Planning time reduction: >60% measured improvement
+
+**Medium-term (3-6 months):**
+- Plan quality scores: Objective improvement in completeness
+- Value proposition accuracy: >90% relevant and actionable
+- User satisfaction: Positive feedback from regular users
+- Security assessment utility: Demonstrable risk identification
+
+**Long-term (6-12 months):**
+- Full adoption: 90%+ of all plans use enhanced templates
+- Compound efficiency: Planning velocity improvements
+- Quality improvement: Reduced plan revision cycles
+- Knowledge capture: Better decision documentation
+
+**Qualitative Success Indicators:**
+- Developers prefer enhanced planning process
+- Plan reviews are more efficient and comprehensive
+- Scientific value propositions improve project prioritization
+- Security considerations are systematically addressed
+
+## 📊 Progress Tracking
+
+### Overall Status
+- **Phases Completed**: 0/5
+- **Tasks Completed**: 0/32
+- **Time Invested**: 0h of 18h estimated
+- **Last Updated**: 2025-08-19
+
+### Implementation Notes
+*Implementation decisions, blockers, and changes will be documented here as the plan progresses.*
+
+## 🔗 Related Plans
+**Dependent Plans**: None
+**Coordinated Plans**: None
+**Future Plans**: GitHub Actions CI/CD enhancement, GitHub Projects integration
+
+## 💬 Notes & Considerations
+**Alternative Approaches Considered**:
+- Hybrid system with local plans + GitHub sync (rejected: complexity)
+- GitHub Discussions instead of Issues (rejected: less structured)
+- Third-party project management tools (rejected: additional dependencies)
+
+**Key Decision Factors**:
+- Prioritizing propositions framework preservation over simplicity
+- Choosing complete rewrite over incremental updates for clean architecture
+- Emphasizing zero data loss over migration speed
+- Focusing on team workflow preservation during transition
+
+**Success Dependencies**:
+- Team commitment to workflow change and training participation
+- GitHub API stability and rate limit accommodation
+- Comprehensive testing validation before full migration
+- Effective rollback procedures for risk mitigation
+
+---
+*This multi-phase plan uses the plan-per-branch architecture where implementation occurs on feature/github-issues-migration branch with progress tracked via commit checksums across phase files.*

plans/github-issues-migration/1-Foundation-Label-System.md

@@ -0,0 +1,180 @@
+# Phase 1: Foundation & Label System
+
+## Phase Metadata
+- **Phase**: 1/5
+- **Estimated Duration**: 3-4 hours
+- **Dependencies**: None
+- **Status**: Not Started
+
+## 🎯 Phase Objective
+Establish the foundational GitHub infrastructure including practical label system (20-25 labels across 5 essential categories), issue templates supporting propositions framework, and initial repository configuration for plan migration.
+
+## 🧠 Phase Context
+This phase creates the GitHub-native infrastructure required to support the full propositions framework and closeout documentation. The label system focuses on essential categorization for single-developer workflow while the issue templates preserve all current plan metadata and structure.
+
+## 📋 Implementation Tasks
+
+### Task Group 1: GitHub Labels System (20-25 labels)
+- [ ] **Create priority labels** (Est: 30 min) - priority:critical, priority:high, priority:medium, priority:low
+  - Commit: `<checksum>`
+  - Status: Pending
+  - Notes: Color-coded priority system for plan triage
+- [ ] **Create status labels** (Est: 20 min) - status:planning, status:in-progress, status:blocked, status:review, status:completed
+  - Commit: `<checksum>`
+  - Status: Pending
+  - Notes: Lifecycle tracking matching current plan statuses
+- [ ] **Create type labels** (Est: 25 min) - type:feature, type:bugfix, type:refactor, type:docs, type:test, type:infrastructure, type:chore
+  - Commit: `<checksum>`
+  - Status: Pending
+  - Notes: Work categorization for velocity tracking
+- [ ] **Create plan structure labels** (Est: 15 min) - plan:overview, plan:phase, plan:closeout
+  - Commit: `<checksum>`
+  - Status: Pending
+  - Notes: Single "plan:phase" label (not plan:phase-1, plan:phase-2)
+- [ ] **Create domain labels** (Est: 35 min) - domain:physics, domain:data, domain:plotting, domain:testing, domain:infrastructure, domain:docs
+  - Commit: `<checksum>`
+  - Status: Pending
+  - Notes: Scientific domain categorization for specialist routing
+
+### 🔄 Context Management Point
+**IMPORTANT**: After completing this Task Group, the user should manually compact the conversation context to ensure continued development efficiency. This prevents token limit issues during extended implementation sessions.
+
+To compact: Save current progress, start fresh session with compacted state, and continue with next Task Group.
+
+### Task Group 2: Issue Templates Creation
+- [ ] **Create overview template** (Est: 60 min) - .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/plan-overview.yml
+  - Commit: `<checksum>`
+  - Status: Pending
+  - Notes: Complete propositions framework with YAML frontmatter
+- [ ] **Create phase template** (Est: 45 min) - .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/plan-phase.yml
+  - Commit: `<checksum>`
+  - Status: Pending
+  - Notes: Task tracking with checksum support and progress monitoring
+- [ ] **Create closeout template** (Est: 30 min) - .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/plan-closeout.yml
+  - Commit: `<checksum>`
+  - Status: Pending
+  - Notes: Implementation decisions capture (85% automation target)
+
+### 🔄 Context Management Point
+**IMPORTANT**: After completing this Task Group, the user should manually compact the conversation context to ensure continued development efficiency. This prevents token limit issues during extended implementation sessions.
+
+To compact: Save current progress, start fresh session with compacted state, and continue with next Task Group.
+
+### Task Group 3: Repository Configuration
+- [ ] **Configure issue settings** (Est: 15 min) - Enable discussions, configure default labels
+  - Commit: `<checksum>`
+  - Status: Pending
+  - Notes: Repository-level settings for optimal plan workflow
+- [ ] **Create label documentation** (Est: 30 min) - Document label usage and categorization rules
+  - Commit: `<checksum>`
+  - Status: Pending
+  - Notes: Team reference for consistent labeling practices
+- [ ] **Validate template rendering** (Est: 20 min) - Test all templates with sample data
+  - Commit: `<checksum>`
+  - Status: Pending
+  - Notes: Ensure propositions framework renders correctly
+
+### 🔄 Context Management Point
+**IMPORTANT**: After completing this Task Group, the user should manually compact the conversation context to ensure continued development efficiency. This prevents token limit issues during extended implementation sessions.
+
+To compact: Save current progress, start fresh session with compacted state, and continue with next Task Group.
+
+### Task Group 4: Initial Validation
+- [ ] **Test label hierarchy** (Est: 25 min) - Verify label combinations and filtering work correctly
+  - Commit: `<checksum>`
+  - Status: Pending
+  - Notes: Validate 20-25 label system usability
+- [ ] **Create sample issues** (Est: 40 min) - Test overview, phase, and closeout templates
+  - Commit: `<checksum>`
+  - Status: Pending
+  - Notes: End-to-end validation of propositions preservation
+- [ ] **Document GitHub CLI setup** (Est: 20 min) - Team setup instructions for gh CLI
+  - Commit: `<checksum>`
+  - Status: Pending
+  - Notes: Required for automation workflows in later phases
+
+## ✅ Phase Acceptance Criteria
+- [ ] All 20-25 labels created and properly categorized across 5 essential groups
+- [ ] 3 issue templates (overview, phase, closeout) render correctly
+- [ ] Templates preserve complete propositions framework structure
+- [ ] Sample issues demonstrate propositions metadata preservation
+- [ ] Label combinations support complex filtering and search
+- [ ] Repository configuration optimized for plan workflow
+- [ ] Team documentation complete for label usage
+- [ ] GitHub CLI setup validated and documented
+
+## 🧪 Phase Testing Strategy
+**Template Validation**:
+- Render all templates with comprehensive test data
+- Verify propositions framework sections display correctly
+- Test YAML frontmatter parsing and metadata extraction
+- Validate markdown rendering across different GitHub views
+
+**Label System Testing**:
+- Test all 20-25 labels for correct categorization
+- Verify color coding and visual distinction
+- Test complex label combinations and filtering
+- Validate search functionality across label hierarchies
+
+**Integration Testing**:
+- End-to-end issue creation with all templates
+- Cross-template consistency validation
+- GitHub API compatibility testing
+- Mobile and web interface rendering verification
+
+## 🔧 Phase Technical Requirements
+**GitHub Features**:
+- Repository admin access for label and template creation
+- GitHub CLI (`gh`) for automation and bulk operations
+- YAML frontmatter support in issue templates
+- Advanced label filtering and search capabilities
+
+**Dependencies**:
+- No external dependencies - GitHub-native features only
+- Team GitHub accounts with appropriate repository permissions
+- Browser access for template testing and validation
+
+## 📂 Phase Affected Areas
+- `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/` - New issue templates
+- Repository labels - Complete 41-label system
+- Repository settings - Issue and discussion configuration
+- Team documentation - Label usage and workflow guides
+
+## 📊 Phase Progress Tracking
+
+### Current Status
+- **Tasks Completed**: 0/12
+- **Time Invested**: 0h of 3.5h estimated
+- **Completion Percentage**: 0%
+- **Last Updated**: 2025-08-19
+
+### Blockers & Issues
+- No current blockers - foundational phase with clear requirements
+- Risk: GitHub template complexity may require iteration
+- Risk: Label system usability needs validation with real usage
+
+### Next Actions
+- Begin with priority and status labels as foundational categories
+- Create overview template first as most complex template
+- Validate each template immediately after creation
+- Document label usage patterns for team consistency
+
+## 💬 Phase Implementation Notes
+
+### Implementation Decisions
+- Single "plan:phase" label chosen over numbered variants for simplicity
+- 20-25 total labels provides practical categorization for single-developer workflow
+- YAML frontmatter in templates enables structured metadata preservation
+- Color-coded priority system follows GitHub conventional patterns
+
+### Lessons Learned
+*Will be updated during implementation*
+
+### Phase Dependencies Resolution
+- No dependencies - foundational phase creates infrastructure for subsequent phases
+- Provides complete GitHub infrastructure for Phase 2 migration tool development
+- Establishes template standards for Phase 3 CLI integration
+
+---
+*Phase 1 of 5 - GitHub Issues Migration with Propositions Framework - Last Updated: 2025-08-19*
+*See [0-Overview.md](./0-Overview.md) for complete plan context and cross-phase coordination.*