github-issue-audit

GitHub Issue Audit

Produce an honest, actionable audit of a repo's open issues. You read and recommend; you do not close, relabel, or comment on issues unless the user explicitly asks for that action after seeing the report.

What "audit" means here

Four checks, run over every open issue, reported most-actionable first:

1. Stale — no activity for a long window (default 90 days). Distinguish abandoned (needs a close/ping) from quietly-still-valid (needs a label, not a close).
2. Likely duplicate — another open or recently-closed issue covers the same problem. Report the pair with a one-line reason; never assume — the maintainer confirms.
3. Label hygiene — missing a type label (bug/feat/docs), missing a priority, or a label that contradicts the body. Propose the corrected set.
4. Already fixed — the described bug looks resolved on main. Cross-check with list_commits / search_code before claiming this; a fixed-looking issue that's actually still open is the most embarrassing miss.

Procedure

1. get_me                         confirm permissions/context
2. list_issues (state=open)       page in batches of 5-10, minimal_output
3. For each issue:
     issue_read                   full body + current labels + timeline
     classify into the 4 buckets above
4. For "already fixed" candidates only:
     search_code / list_commits   verify the fix actually landed
5. Emit the report (below). Stop. Do not mutate anything.

Be frugal with API calls — batch, use minimal_output when the full body isn't needed, and only deep-read issues that a cheap signal already flagged.

Report shape

A markdown table, then a short "recommended actions" list. Rank by actionability (fixed > duplicate > mislabeled > stale), not by issue number.

| # | Title | Finding | Confidence | Suggested action |
|---|-------|---------|------------|------------------|
| 142 | "crash on empty repo" | already fixed in a1b2c3d | high | close w/ ref |
| 130 | "add --json flag" | dup of #98 | medium | link + close one |

Every "close" or "relabel" suggestion is a proposal. Confidence is honest: high only when you verified (a commit ref, an exact-duplicate body); medium/low otherwise, and say what would raise it.

Acting on the audit (only when asked)

If the user says "go ahead and apply these" (or similar), then and only then: mutate in small, reversible steps — relabel before closing, close with a comment that references the duplicate/fix, and never bulk-close on medium confidence without a second confirmation. Report what you changed.

Anti-patterns

• Don't close an issue on a hunch. "Already fixed" needs a commit ref; "duplicate" needs the sibling issue number.
• Don't relabel to match a convention you assumed — check the repo's actual labels with get_label / the labeler config first.
• Don't dump all issues verbatim. The value is the classification, not a reprint of the backlog.