Create Issue Gate

Create Issue Gate

Overview

This public intake copy packages plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/create-issue-gate from https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills into the native Omni Skills editorial shape without hiding its origin.

Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.

This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses metadata.json plus ORIGIN.md as the provenance anchor for review.

Create Issue Gate

Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: Required Fields, Acceptance Criteria Gate, Issue Creation Mode, Goal, Scope, Non-Goals.

When to Use This Skill

Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.

• You are starting a new implementation task and want a GitHub issue to be the required tracking entrypoint.
• The work must be blocked until the user provides explicit, testable acceptance criteria.
• You need to distinguish between draft, ready, and blocked work before execution begins.
• Use when the request clearly matches the imported source intent: starting a new implementation task and an issue must be created with strict acceptance criteria gating before execution.
• Use when the operator should preserve upstream workflow detail instead of rewriting the process from scratch.
• Use when provenance needs to stay visible in the answer, PR, or review packet.

Operating Table

Workflow

This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.

1. Confirm the user goal, the scope of the imported workflow, and whether this skill is still the right router for the task.
2. Read the overview and provenance files before loading any copied upstream support files.
3. Load only the references, examples, prompts, or scripts that materially change the outcome for the current request.
4. Execute the upstream workflow while keeping provenance and source boundaries explicit in the working notes.
5. Validate the result against the upstream expectations and the evidence you can point to in the copied files.
6. Escalate or hand off to a related skill when the work moves out of this imported workflow's center of gravity.
7. Before merge or closure, record what was used, what changed, and what the reviewer still needs to verify.

Imported Workflow Notes

Imported: Overview

Create GitHub issues as the single tracking entrypoint for tasks, with a hard gate on acceptance criteria.

Core rule: no explicit, testable acceptance criteria from user => issue stays draft and execution is blocked.

Imported: Required Fields

Every issue must include these sections:

• Problem
• Goal
• Scope
• Non-Goals
• Acceptance Criteria
• Dependencies/Blockers
• Status (draft | ready | blocked | done)

Examples

Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly

Use @create-issue-gate to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.

Explanation: This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.

Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review

Review @create-issue-gate against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.

Explanation: Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.

Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution

Use @create-issue-gate for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.

Explanation: This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.

Example 4: Build a reviewer packet

Review @create-issue-gate using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.

Explanation: This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.

Best Practices

Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.

• draft: missing/weak acceptance criteria or incomplete task definition
• ready: acceptance criteria are explicit and testable
• blocked: external dependency prevents progress
• done: acceptance criteria verified with evidence
• Keep the imported skill grounded in the upstream repository; do not invent steps that the source material cannot support.
• Prefer the smallest useful set of support files so the workflow stays auditable and fast to review.
• Keep provenance, source commit, and imported file paths visible in notes and PR descriptions.

Imported Operating Notes

Imported: Status Rules

• draft: missing/weak acceptance criteria or incomplete task definition
• ready: acceptance criteria are explicit and testable
• blocked: external dependency prevents progress
• done: acceptance criteria verified with evidence

Never mark an issue ready without valid acceptance criteria.

Troubleshooting

Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically

Symptoms: The result ignores the upstream workflow in plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/create-issue-gate, fails to mention provenance, or does not use any copied source files at all. Solution: Re-open metadata.json, ORIGIN.md, and the most relevant copied upstream files. Load only the files that materially change the answer, then restate the provenance before continuing.

Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review

Symptoms: Reviewers can see the generated SKILL.md, but they cannot quickly tell which references, examples, or scripts matter for the current task. Solution: Point at the exact copied references, examples, scripts, or assets that justify the path you took. If the gap is still real, record it in the PR instead of hiding it.

Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization

Symptoms: The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better. Solution: Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.

Imported Troubleshooting Notes

Imported: Problem

Related Skills

• @conductor-validator - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @confluence-automation - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @content-creator - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @content-marketer - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

Additional Resources

Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.

Imported Reference Notes

Imported: Acceptance Criteria Gate

Acceptance criteria are valid only when they are testable and pass/fail checkable.

Examples:

• valid: "CreateCheckoutLambda-dev returns an openable third-party payment checkout URL"
• invalid: "fix checkout" / "improve UX" / "make it better"

If criteria are missing or non-testable:

• still create the issue
• set Status: draft
• add Execution Gate: blocked (missing valid acceptance criteria)
• do not move task to execution

Imported: Issue Creation Mode

Default mode is direct GitHub creation using gh issue create.

Use a body template like:

#### Imported: Goal

<what outcome is expected>

#### Imported: Scope

- <in scope item>

#### Imported: Non-Goals

- <out of scope item>

#### Imported: Acceptance Criteria

- <explicit, testable criterion 1>

#### Imported: Dependencies/Blockers

- <dependency or none>

#### Imported: Status

draft|ready|blocked|done

#### Imported: Execution Gate

allowed|blocked (<reason>)

Imported: Handoff to Execution

Execution workflows (for example closed-loop-delivery) may start only when:

• issue status is ready
• execution gate is allowed

If issue is draft, stop and request user-provided acceptance criteria.

Imported: Limitations

• Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
• Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
• Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.