# Mellions Issue Creation > - Skill: `leta-tech/mellions-issue-creation` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 3 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add leta-tech/mellions-issue-creation` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/leta-tech/mellions-issue-creation/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: LetA-Tech (https://skillmd.com/u/leta-tech) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/leta-tech/mellions-issue-creation --- # Filing an issue An issue is the **work contract**: what to solve, where, why, which branch is truth, which paths are involved, what evidence and tests are required, which constraints cannot be violated, and how it closes. It is never proof of anything — a created issue is not completed work, and a filed hypothesis is a contract nobody can satisfy. ## Read the assets before the first line of the body Two files, both beside this one, both read in full before drafting: - `assets/github-issue-template.md` — the title format, the eleven body sections in their fixed order, the label block, the banned list. - `assets/github-issue-taxonomy.md` — the label vocabulary and what each family means, the evidence tiers, the profiles for work that has no implementation, and what to do where a registry does not carry a family. The body is eleven numbered sections in this order, so that a missing one is visible from here: ```text 1 Defect · 2 Root cause · 3 Evidence · 4 Call and data flow · 5 Code locations 6 Runtime conditions · 7 Failure, recovery, concurrency and latency 8 Resolution · 9 Affected components, risks and dependencies 10 Test and verification plan · 11 Acceptance criteria ``` **What goes in each is deliberately not here.** An issue written from memory of this page reproduces the shape without the content that made the shape worth having — the tiered evidence, the ASCII call graph, the code inventory, the checkable criteria — and a second copy of the definitions on this page drifts from the asset within the day. Neither file is loaded into the session with this one; open them with Read. Missing or unreadable: stop, and say which, rather than improvising a format. Where the defect is not in a code path at all — a prompt, a document, a configuration string — sections 4 to 7 have no source content and are absent, with the reason said in §2. That is not one of the taxonomy's two profiles and does not license skipping them on an implementation issue. ## Where a repository installs its own issue canon Some repositories carry an issue-creation Skill of their own under `.claude/skills/`, with a taxonomy asset beside it; most carry none. Deferring to a convention a repository does not actually declare is how an issue ends up with ad-hoc headings and no labels, so establish which exists before deciding: ```bash ls .claude/skills/*issue-creation*/assets/ 2>/dev/null ``` Nothing there — the assets beside this Skill govern, and that is the common case. Something there, and not this Skill's own directory — the rule is version, not location. Both taxonomies state a version line; read it with `grep -m1 Status:` rather than by line number, since the lineages carry it at different depths. The installed one governs the body **only where its version is strictly greater** than the carried one's; equal or older or absent, the carried assets govern. A tie is not a reason to defer: the copy in front of you is the one whose adaptations you can see. Either way the repository still supplies its own facts — the base branch, the label registry, its `CLAUDE.md`. Structure comes from whichever taxonomy won; values always come from the repository. And whichever won, the carried taxonomy's §5 rule for a family the registry does not carry still applies — it is a statement about what is possible in that repository, not a preference between taxonomies. ## Before filing - **The finding is established, not inferred.** Re-open every citation at the base branch HEAD now; the code wins over the finding's account of it. What drifted is corrected before it is written; a claim you have not read the code for does not go in. - **The base branch is established, not guessed.** From the repository's own binding or `CLAUDE.md` where it declares one. Where nothing declares one the remote's default is read instead and said to be discovered — that is a fact about the repository, not somebody stating what work should target, and in this estate the two differ: the default is the release branch and the implementation target is `dev`. Confirm it before pinning to it. A branch that cannot be established stops the work: an issue pinned to the wrong tree sends every reader to the wrong tree. - **Nobody has it already.** Search the tracker for the symptom, the path and the identifier (`gh issue list --state all --search`), and the open pull requests. A duplicate is a comment on the existing issue, not a second one; a claimed issue (`mellions:claimed`) belongs to the lane that holds it. - **One root cause per issue.** Consolidate the symptoms of one defect; never merge independently remediable problems into one, and never split one mechanism into several. ## The title ```text [Mellions] - ``` The word, one space, one hyphen, one space, then what the issue is about — action and place, short. Nothing else goes in the brackets: not the type, not the repository, not the severity. Those are labels, and an issue that carries them twice is one of them going stale. ## The labels Read `gh label list --repo ` **before** choosing, not after a rejected `gh issue create`. The taxonomy's ten families are the target; the registry is what exists. Apply every family the registry carries, use its own value where it names one this taxonomy does not, and record a family it lacks in the one `Labels unavailable` line the taxonomy permits. Invent no label, and drop no family silently — taxonomy §5 is the whole rule. `risk:` is read off the taxonomy's matrix for the `probability:` and `impact:` chosen independently. Nothing downstream re-checks it, so it is right here or it is never right. ## Filing Write the body to scratch and file with `--body-file`; never write a draft into the repository. A section with no source content stays absent and the gap is said — nothing is invented to fill a slot. The code contradicting the finding is a discrepancy to report, not something to write around. Without tracker access, the draft is handed over with the pin, not filed later from memory. Report the URL; the issue is where the work now lives, and `mellions-issue-resolution-proposal` is what goes on it next. ## Stop points - Either asset is missing or unreadable. - The base branch cannot be established. - The finding is a hypothesis: it has not been reproduced or read in the code at the pin. Establish it first, or put the question on an existing issue. - An issue, a pull request or a claim already covers it. - The repository's convention requires something you cannot supply — an approval, a registry entry. Say what is missing rather than approximating.