|
| 1 | +--- |
| 2 | +description: Label usage guidelines for GitHub Agentic Workflows issue tracking |
| 3 | +--- |
| 4 | + |
| 5 | +# Label Guidelines |
| 6 | + |
| 7 | +## Purpose of Labels |
| 8 | + |
| 9 | +Labels help organize and triage issues for better project management. Use labels to: |
| 10 | +- Categorize issue type (bug, enhancement, documentation) |
| 11 | +- Indicate priority level |
| 12 | +- Mark workflow automation status |
| 13 | +- Identify component areas |
| 14 | + |
| 15 | +## Label Categories |
| 16 | + |
| 17 | +### Type Labels (choose one) |
| 18 | +- **bug** - Something isn't working correctly |
| 19 | +- **enhancement** - New feature or improvement request |
| 20 | +- **documentation** - Documentation improvements or additions |
| 21 | +- **question** - Questions about usage or behavior |
| 22 | +- **testing** - Test-related issues |
| 23 | + |
| 24 | +### Priority Labels (optional) |
| 25 | +- **priority-high** - Critical issues requiring immediate attention |
| 26 | +- **priority-medium** - Important but not urgent |
| 27 | +- **priority-low** - Nice-to-have improvements |
| 28 | + |
| 29 | +### Component Labels (optional, choose multiple if needed) |
| 30 | +- **cli** - Command-line interface |
| 31 | +- **workflow** - Workflow compilation and processing |
| 32 | +- **mcp** - MCP server integration |
| 33 | +- **actions** - GitHub Actions integration |
| 34 | +- **engine** - AI engine configuration |
| 35 | + |
| 36 | +### Workflow Automation Labels (managed by automation) |
| 37 | +- **ai-generated** - Issue created by AI workflow (Plan Command, etc.) |
| 38 | +- **plan** - Planning issue with sub-tasks |
| 39 | +- **ai-inspected** - Issue reviewed by AI workflow |
| 40 | +- **smoke-copilot** - Smoke test results |
| 41 | + |
| 42 | +### Status Labels |
| 43 | +- **good first issue** - Suitable for new contributors |
| 44 | +- **dependencies** - Dependency updates |
| 45 | + |
| 46 | +## Label Usage Best Practices |
| 47 | + |
| 48 | +### When to Add Labels |
| 49 | + |
| 50 | +**During Issue Creation:** |
| 51 | +- Add a type label (bug, enhancement, documentation, etc.) |
| 52 | +- Add priority if urgent |
| 53 | +- Add relevant component labels |
| 54 | + |
| 55 | +**During Triage:** |
| 56 | +- Review and update labels based on discussion |
| 57 | +- Add `good first issue` for newcomer-friendly tasks |
| 58 | +- Set priority based on impact |
| 59 | + |
| 60 | +**Automation Labels:** |
| 61 | +- `ai-generated` and `plan` are automatically added by workflows |
| 62 | +- These should not be manually added or removed |
| 63 | +- They help track AI-assisted issue creation and planning |
| 64 | + |
| 65 | +### When to Remove Labels |
| 66 | + |
| 67 | +**For Workflow Labels:** |
| 68 | +- `plan` labels may be removed after all sub-tasks are completed |
| 69 | +- Keep `ai-generated` for historical tracking |
| 70 | +- Don't remove automation labels unless the issue was incorrectly tagged |
| 71 | + |
| 72 | +**For Other Labels:** |
| 73 | +- Update priority labels as urgency changes |
| 74 | +- Remove incorrect type or component labels during triage |
| 75 | + |
| 76 | +### Label Lifecycle |
| 77 | + |
| 78 | +**AI-Generated Planning Issues:** |
| 79 | +1. Created with `plan` + `ai-generated` labels |
| 80 | +2. Add type and component labels for better categorization |
| 81 | +3. Monitor sub-task completion |
| 82 | +4. Consider removing `plan` label when all sub-tasks are complete |
| 83 | +5. Close issue when work is done, keeping labels for historical reference |
| 84 | + |
| 85 | +**Manual Issues:** |
| 86 | +1. Created with type label (bug, enhancement, etc.) |
| 87 | +2. Add component and priority labels during triage |
| 88 | +3. Update labels as issue evolves |
| 89 | +4. Close when resolved |
| 90 | + |
| 91 | +## Label Hygiene |
| 92 | + |
| 93 | +**Regular Maintenance:** |
| 94 | +- Review unlabeled issues weekly and add appropriate labels |
| 95 | +- Update priority labels as project needs change |
| 96 | +- Ensure all open issues have at least a type label |
| 97 | + |
| 98 | +**Avoiding Label Overload:** |
| 99 | +- Use 2-4 labels per issue for effective filtering |
| 100 | +- Don't duplicate information (e.g., title already says "bug") |
| 101 | +- Prefer specific component labels over generic ones |
| 102 | + |
| 103 | +## Label Taxonomy |
| 104 | + |
| 105 | +**Current Label Structure:** |
| 106 | +``` |
| 107 | +Type: bug, enhancement, documentation, question, testing |
| 108 | +Priority: priority-high, priority-medium, priority-low |
| 109 | +Component: cli, workflow, mcp, actions, engine, automation |
| 110 | +Workflow: ai-generated, plan, ai-inspected, smoke-copilot |
| 111 | +Status: good first issue, dependencies |
| 112 | +``` |
| 113 | + |
| 114 | +This taxonomy provides clear filtering while avoiding label sprawl. Use GitHub's issue search to combine labels effectively: |
| 115 | +- `is:issue is:open label:bug label:priority-high` - Critical bugs |
| 116 | +- `is:issue is:open label:enhancement label:good first issue` - Beginner-friendly enhancements |
| 117 | +- `is:issue is:open label:plan` - Active planning issues |
| 118 | + |
| 119 | +## Label Distribution Analysis |
| 120 | + |
| 121 | +### Current State |
| 122 | + |
| 123 | +Analysis of the repository (as of December 2024) shows: |
| 124 | +- **Total open issues**: 35 |
| 125 | +- **Issues with `plan`**: 16 (45.7%) |
| 126 | +- **Issues with `ai-generated`**: 16 (45.7%) |
| 127 | +- **Perfect overlap**: All `plan` issues also have `ai-generated` |
| 128 | +- **Unlabeled issues**: 0 (excellent!) |
| 129 | + |
| 130 | +### Key Findings |
| 131 | + |
| 132 | +**The label distribution is healthy and working as intended.** The high percentage of workflow labels reflects active AI-assisted planning, not a labeling problem. |
| 133 | + |
| 134 | +**Why this is not a concern:** |
| 135 | +1. Labels reflect actual project activity (active AI planning) |
| 136 | +2. Clear distinction between automated and manual issues |
| 137 | +3. Effective filtering with label combinations |
| 138 | +4. Transparent AI attribution |
| 139 | +5. Additional labels (type, component, priority) provide needed categorization |
| 140 | + |
| 141 | +### Recommendations |
| 142 | + |
| 143 | +✅ **Keep current structure** - No changes needed to `plan`/`ai-generated` labels |
| 144 | +- Working as designed |
| 145 | +- Serves clear purpose for tracking AI-generated planning issues |
| 146 | +- Enables effective filtering with combinations |
| 147 | + |
| 148 | +❌ **Do not create `plan-*` subcategories** - Adds complexity without benefit |
| 149 | +- Current system handles this with `is:open` / `is:closed` filters |
| 150 | +- Would fragment label space |
| 151 | + |
| 152 | +🔄 **Optional** (low priority): Remove `plan` label after sub-tasks complete |
| 153 | +- Would make it an "active planning" indicator |
| 154 | +- Keep `ai-generated` for historical tracking |
| 155 | +- Not required, current approach is also valid |
| 156 | + |
| 157 | +✅ **Monitor** for true label skew |
| 158 | +- Watch type/priority labels (not workflow labels) |
| 159 | +- Quarterly review recommended |
| 160 | +- Warning signs: A type label exceeding 60% of open issues |
| 161 | + |
| 162 | +## Success Metrics |
| 163 | + |
| 164 | +✅ Zero unlabeled open issues |
| 165 | +✅ Clear distinction between automated and manual issues |
| 166 | +✅ Effective filtering with label combinations |
| 167 | +✅ Transparent AI attribution maintained |
| 168 | + |
| 169 | +--- |
| 170 | + |
| 171 | +**Last Updated**: December 2024 |
0 commit comments