engram-backlog-triage

What this skill does

## When to Use

Use this skill when:
- Running a full backlog audit on Engram (or any repo)
- Deciding merge / request-changes / close / needs-design / approve-issue
- Cleaning noise from the issue tracker
- Prioritizing what to act on next

---

## Maintainer Philosophy (Engram)

These are the non-negotiable product values. Every triage decision is filtered through them.

| Principle | What it means in practice |
|-----------|--------------------------|
| **Zero-config** | Works out of the box. No required flags, env vars, or setup beyond install. |
| **Local-first** | Data lives in `~/.engram/engram.db`. No cloud dependency by default. |
| **Single binary** | One `engram` binary. No daemon, no service, no secondary processes needed. |
| **Terminal-first** | CLI and TUI are the primary UX. No web dashboard, no Electron. |
| **Thin adapters** | Plugin scripts (Claude, OpenCode, Gemini, Codex) are thin shims — logic lives in Go core. |
| **Issue-first** | Every PR must link a `status:approved` issue. No approved issue → no PR. |
| **Evidence-based reviews** | Request changes with specific, actionable items. No vague "needs improvement". |
| **Tight scope** | Reject features that expand Engram's surface area without a compelling case. |
| **Small focused contributions** | Prefer 50-line PRs solving one problem over 500-line PRs solving five. |
| **Reject vague/scope-breaking work** | Close scope-creep issues and PRs that turn Engram into something else. |

---

## Disposition Classification

Assign exactly ONE disposition to each issue or PR:

| Disposition | When to use |
|-------------|-------------|
| **MERGE** | PR is correct, scoped, tests pass, linked approved issue. Merge immediately. |
| **REQUEST CHANGES** | PR has the right idea but needs specific fixes. List each item. |
| **CLOSE** | Noise, duplicate, vague, scope-breaking, no approved issue, or stale with no activity. |
| **NEEDS DESIGN** | Idea is valid but architectural decision required before any PR is welcome. Open discussion or design issue first. |
| **APPROVE ISSUE** | Issue is valid, clear, reproducible/specific, and in scope. Add `status:approved` label. |
| **REJECT ISSUE** | Vague, duplicate, scope-breaking, or belongs in Discussions. Close with explanation. |

---

## Operating Phases

### Phase 1 — Fetch the Backlog

```bash
# All open issues with labels and comments
gh issue list --repo <owner/repo> --state open \
  --json number,title,labels,author,comments,body \
  --limit 100

# All open PRs with labels and review state
gh pr list --repo <owner/repo> --state open \
  --json number,title,labels,author,body,reviews,commits \
  --limit 50

# Check a specific issue in detail
gh issue view <number> --repo <owner/repo> --json number,title,body,labels,comments

# Check a specific PR in detail
gh pr view <number> --repo <owner/repo> --json number,title,body,labels,files,reviews
```

### Phase 2 — Classify Each Item

For every issue, answer:

```
1. Is it a real bug with reproduction steps? → candidate for APPROVE ISSUE
2. Is it a clear feature with a problem statement? → candidate for APPROVE ISSUE
3. Is it vague, a question, or a discussion? → REJECT ISSUE (redirect to Discussions)
4. Is it a duplicate? → REJECT ISSUE (link original, close)
5. Does it break zero-config / local-first / single-binary? → REJECT ISSUE
6. Does it need architectural decision before a PR? → NEEDS DESIGN
```

For every PR, answer:

```
1. Does it link a status:approved issue? → if not → CLOSE (process violation)
2. Does it have exactly one type:* label? → if not → REQUEST CHANGES
3. Do all 5 CI checks pass? → if not → REQUEST CHANGES (list failures)
4. Is the scope tight (one issue, minimal diff)? → if sprawling → REQUEST CHANGES
5. Does it follow conventional commits + branch naming? → if not → REQUEST CHANGES
6. Is the change correct and well-tested? → if yes → MERGE
```

### Phase 3 — Infer Ideology from Maintainer Comments

Look for maintainer responses (MEMBER or OWNER association) in issue comments. Extract:

- What the maintainer approved and how they framed it
- What the maintainer redirected (Questions → Discussions, etc.)
- What the maintainer scoped down ("Best place for it: add a section in DOCS.md")
- What the maintainer welcomed vs deferred ("I'll keep this issue open to track that")

Use these patterns to calibrate your triage against the actual maintainer stance, not just the written philosophy.

```bash
# Filter for maintainer responses
gh issue view <number> --repo <owner/repo> --json comments \
  --jq '.comments[] | select(.authorAssociation == "MEMBER" or .authorAssociation == "OWNER") | {author: .author.login, body: .body}'
```

### Phase 4 — Prioritize

Rank items within each disposition bucket:

**Quick wins (act immediately):**
- Real bugs with clear reproduction steps + no linked PR yet
- PRs that are correct, scoped, and just need a label or minor fix
- Docs PRs that are accurate and unambiguous

**Process blockers (fix the pipeline):**
- PRs missing `status:approved` linkage (close + explain)
- PRs missing `type:*` label (request changes)
- Issues with `status:needs-review` that have been waiting > 7 days

**Real bugs (high priority issues):**
- Reproducible crashes, data loss, or broken core workflows
- Issues with multiple confirming comments from different users

**Architectural proposals (schedule separately):**
- Issues tagged NEEDS DESIGN
- Proposals that affect the binary's interface, sync protocol, or plugin contract

**Noise (close immediately):**
- Issues without reproduction steps
- Feature requests that expand scope without evidence of demand
- Questions that belong in Discussions
- Vague reports ("it doesn't work")

### Phase 5 — Produce the Report

Output a structured triage report:

```markdown
## Triage Report — <repo> — <date>

### Summary
- Open issues: N | Open PRs: N
- To merge: N | To request changes: N | To close: N
- To approve: N | To reject: N | Needs design: N

### PRs

| # | Title | Disposition | Reason |
|---|-------|-------------|--------|
| 89 | fix(mcp): update config example | MERGE | Correct, scoped, CI pending only |
| 98 | feat(sync): selective export | REQUEST CHANGES | No approved issue linked |
| 80 | feat(nix): Introduce flake.nix | CLOSE | No approved issue; nix out of scope for single-binary |

### Issues

| # | Title | Disposition | Reason |
|---|-------|-------------|--------|
| 93 | Windows false positive (Defender) | APPROVE ISSUE | Real user-facing bug, 3 confirmations |
| 99 | FTS5 trigram SQL logic error | APPROVE ISSUE | Specific bug, reproducible |
| 104 | Project aliasing system | NEEDS DESIGN | Scope question: conflicts with local-first project name resolution |
| 97 | Auto-generate docs from memory | REJECT ISSUE | Vague scope, no concrete problem statement |
| 81 | Remove Projects / local-only notes | REJECT ISSUE | Ambiguous, belongs in Discussions |

### Suggested Comments

#### PR #N — REQUEST CHANGES
> Thanks for this! A few items before this can merge:
> - [ ] Link an approved issue (`Closes #N`) — no PR can merge without one
> - [ ] Add exactly one `type:*` label
> - [ ] Rebase on `main` to resolve the failing CI check

#### Issue #N — APPROVE ISSUE
> This is clear, reproducible, and in scope. Adding `status:approved` — feel free to open a PR linking this issue.

#### Issue #N — REJECT ISSUE
> Thanks for the report! This looks more like a question/discussion topic than a bug or feature request.
> Please continue the conversation in [Discussions](https://github.com/<owner/repo>/discussions).
> Closing this issue — feel free to re-open if you can reproduce it as a concrete bug with steps.

#### Issue #N — NEEDS DESIGN
> Good idea, but this touches the <area> architecture. Before a PR makes sense here,
> let's nail down the design. I'll leave this open for discussion — feel free to propose
> an approach in the comments.
```

---

## Quick-Action Commands

```bash
# Approve an issue (add status:approved)
gh issue edit