apollo-issue-review_skill

Overview

This skill reviews issues across the Apollo ecosystem with a classify-first workflow and drafts maintainer-grade replies. It classifies issues as behavior/regression or consultative/support, performs the appropriate validation (reproduce or evidence-check), and produces a concise, actionable reply plus triage guidance. The output is ready for maintainer review and can be held as a draft or posted after confirmation.

How this skill works

The skill ingests issue metadata (repo, issue number, title/body/comments, labels, desired outcome) and decides issue type up front. For behavior/regression it builds minimal reproductions or unit-test checks and records exact observed outputs; for consultative/support it performs a targeted repository evidence scan (controllers, docs, OpenAPI scripts, pom.xml). It then drafts a reply that states the validation result, current support boundaries, exact file/API paths or commands, and next steps or contribution guidance.

When to use it

• Triage reported runtime bugs or regressions where a concrete reproduction is expected
• Answer API/docs/capability questions that need proof from code or docs
• Draft maintainer replies that must be concise, non-speculative, and action-focused
• Prepare an implementation handoff for contributors after a confirmed gap or agreed design
• Avoid duplicate long replies when prior comments already solved the ask

Best practices

• Classify first: reproduction for behavior, evidence-check for consultative asks
• Use canonical Apollo module names and correct misnomers succinctly
• Record exact files/paths/commands searched and observed outputs — avoid speculative root causes
• If reproducible and conclusion is stable, do not ask for extra logs
• When a community member volunteers to implement, acknowledge then give feasibility boundaries and concrete refinements
• Always include a publish gate: draft only by default, post only after explicit approval

Example use cases

• User reports an agent crash: reproduce locally, confirm stack trace, propose workaround and label bug
• User asks whether an OpenAPI endpoint exists: scan controllers, docs, pom.xml and provide exact path or alternative
• Contributor offers a patch: evaluate feasibility, specify files/tests to touch and acceptance criteria
• User reports degraded behavior across versions: reproduce on specified version and clarify whether regression analysis is requested
• Clarify terminology in an issue that used non-canonical module names and provide corrected module references