Apollo Issue Review

# Apollo Issue Review

Follow this workflow to review an Apollo issue and produce a concise maintainer response.

Core Principles

• Classify first: behavior/regression issue vs consultative/support question.
• For behavior/regression issues: reproduce first, theorize second.
• For consultative/support questions (for example "is there an official script/doc"): do evidence check first and answer directly; do not force "reproduced/not reproduced" wording.
• Solve the user ask, do not debate whether the user is right or wrong.
• If behavior is already reproduced and conclusion is stable, do not ask for extra info.
• Do not default to "version regression" analysis unless the user explicitly asks for version comparison or it changes the recommendation.
• Match the issue language: English issue -> English reply, Chinese issue -> Chinese reply (unless the user explicitly asks for bilingual output).
• Use canonical Apollo module names from repository reality (AGENTS/module layout/root `pom.xml`), and correct misnamed terms succinctly when needed.
• If an existing comment already answers the same ask (including bot replies), avoid duplicate long replies; prefer a short addendum that only contributes corrections or missing deltas.
• Never wrap GitHub @mention handles in backticks/code spans; use plain @handle so notifications are actually triggered.
• If a community user volunteers to implement ("认领"/"first contribution"), acknowledge and encourage first, then evaluate the proposal with explicit feasibility boundaries and concrete refinement suggestions.
• For OpenAPI-related asks, explicitly separate Portal web APIs (e.g., `/users`) and OpenAPI endpoints (e.g., `/openapi/v1/*`); only claim "OpenAPI supports X" when token-based OpenAPI path is verified.
• Before concluding "capability not available", cross-check code + docs/scripts + module/dependency hints from `pom.xml` to avoid false negatives caused by path assumptions.

Input Contract

Collect or derive these fields before review:

• `repo`: `<owner>/<repo>`
• `issue_number`: numeric ID
• `issue_context`: title/body/comments
• `publish_mode`: `draft-only` (default) or `post-after-confirm`
• `output_mode`: `human` (default) or `pipeline`

Optional but recommended:

• `known_labels`: existing labels on the issue
• `desired_outcome`: whether user wants only triage or triage + implementation handoff

If `issue_number` or `issue_context` is missing, ask one short clarification before continuing.

Workflow

• 1. Collect issue facts and user ask
• Read issue body and comments before concluding.
• Extract: primary ask, symptom, expected behavior, actual behavior, and whether user asks one path or an either-or path.
• Keep user asks explicit (for example "better parsing API OR raw text API": answer both).
• Detect whether the thread includes a contribution-claim ask (for example "can I take this issue?") and treat it as a guidance+boundary response, not only a capability yes/no response.
• Detect main language from issue title/body/recent comments and set reply language before drafting.
• Decide issue type up front:
• - behavior/regression (needs reproducibility check)
• - consultative/support (needs evidence check)
• Normalize names to canonical module/service terms used by Apollo repo (e.g., `apollo-portal`, not invented service names).
• If GitHub API access is unstable, use:
• ```bash
• curl -L -s https://api.github.com/repos/<owner>/<repo>/issues/<id>
• curl -L -s https://api.github.com/repos/<owner>/<repo>/issues/<id>/comments
• ```

• 2. Run the right validation path (mandatory)
• For behavior/regression issues:
• - Build a minimal, local, runnable reproduction for the reported behavior.
• - Prefer repo-native unit tests or a tiny temporary script over speculation.
• - Record exact observed output and types, not just interpretation.
• For consultative/support questions:
• - Verify by repository evidence scan (docs/scripts/code paths), not by speculative reproduction framing.
• - For API availability asks, verify in three places before concluding:
• 1) actual controller paths, 2) docs/openapi scripts, 3) module/dependency pointers in `pom.xml`.
• - Record exact files/paths searched and what exists vs does not exist.
• Example checks:
• ```bash
• rg -n "<api_or_path_related_to_issue>" -S
• go test ./... -run <target_test_name>
• # or a minimal go run script under /tmp for one-off validation
• # consultative evidence scan example:
• rg --files | rg -i "<keyword1|keyword2>"
• rg -n "<keyword>" docs scripts apollo-* -S
• ```

• 3. Branch by validation result
• Behavior/regression path:
• - If reproducible:
• - State clearly that behavior is confirmed.
• - Identify whether this is supported behavior, usage mismatch, or current feature gap.
• - Then answer user asks directly (existing API/workaround/unsupported).
• - If not reproducible:
• - Ask for minimal missing evidence only:
• - input sample
• - exact read/access code
• - expected vs actual output
• - Keep this short and concrete.
• Consultative/support path:
• - If capability/script/doc exists: provide exact path/link and usage entry point.
• - If it does not exist: state "currently not available" directly and give one practical alternative.
• - If an existing comment already covered the same conclusion: post only a concise delta/correction instead of repeating the full answer.

• 4. Draft maintainer reply (focus on action)
• Start with a one-paragraph summary in the thread language:
• - behavior/regression issue: reproduction summary (`复现结论` / `Reproduction Result`)
• - consultative/support issue: direct conclusion summary (`结论` / `Conclusion`)
• Then include:
• - `当前能力与边界`: what is supported today and what is not.
• - `可行方案`: exact API/command/workaround user can run now.
• - `后续路径`: either invite PR with concrete files/tests, or state maintainers may plan it later without overpromising timeline.
• If the thread includes a contribution-claim proposal, structure the main body as:
• 1) appreciation and encouragement, 2) feasibility judgment, 3) concrete implementation refinements (what to reuse vs what not to reuse directly).
• If user ask is either-or, answer both explicitly.
• If already confirmed feature gap, do not request more logs/steps by default.
• Keep wording factual and concise.
• Use canonical module names in final wording; if the issue uses a non-canonical name, correct it briefly without derailing the answer.
• If there is already a correct prior comment, prefer "reference + minimal supplement" format.
• If you mention users/bots, keep mentions as plain text (e.g., @dosubot), not code-formatted mention strings.
• Use localized section labels and wording by issue language (for example: `Reproduction Result / Current Support Boundary / Practical Path / Next Step` in English threads).

• 5. Ask for publish confirmation (mandatory gate)
• Default behavior: generate draft only; do not post automatically.
• Present the exact comment body first, then ask for confirmation in the same thread.
• Use a direct question in the same language as the thread, e.g.:
• - Chinese: `是否直接发布到 issue #<id>？回复“发布”或“先不发”。`
• - English: `Post this to issue #<id> now? Reply "post" or "hold".`
• Treat no response or ambiguous response as `not approved`.

• 6. Post the response only after explicit confirmation
• Allowed confirmation examples: `发布` / `帮我发` / `直接回复上去`.
• If user intent is unclear, ask one short clarification question before any post command.
• Preferred:
• ```bash
• gh api repos/<owner>/<repo>/issues/<id>/comments -f body='<reply>'
• ```
• Fallback when `gh` transport is unstable:
• ```bash
• TOKEN=$(gh auth token)
• curl --http1.1 -sS -X POST \
• -H "Authorization: token $TOKEN" \
• -H "Accept: application/vnd.github+json" \
• -d '{"body":"<reply>"}' \
• https://api.github.com/repos/<owner>/<repo>/issues/<id>/comments
• ```
• After posting, return the comment URL as evidence.

Output Contract

Default (`output_mode=human`) output should be human-friendly:

• 1. `Issue Summary`
• issue type + confidence
• validation result (reproduced / not reproduced / evidence result)

• 2. `Triage Suggestion`
• labels to add
• missing information (if any)
• whether it is ready for implementation handoff

• 3. `Draft Maintainer Reply`
• First sentence must match issue type:
• - behavior/regression: reproducibility status (`已复现/暂未复现` or `Reproduced/Not yet reproduced`)
• - consultative/support: direct availability conclusion
• Include at least one concrete API/code path/file reference.
• If unsupported today: include support boundary + practical workaround + next path.
• If reproducible and conclusion is stable: do not request extra data.
• If not reproducible: request only minimal reproducible inputs.
• If prior comment already solved the ask: provide concise delta only.
• Do not present unverified root cause as fact.
• Keep language matched to issue language unless user asks otherwise.

• 4. `Publish Gate`
• If no explicit publish confirmation exists, end with:
• - Chinese: `是否直接发布到 issue #<id>？回复“发布”或“先不发”。`
• - English: `Post this to issue #<id> now? Reply "post" or "hold".`

If `output_mode=pipeline`, append one machine-readable block after the human output:

```yaml handoff: issue_classification: type: "功能咨询|问题排查|技术讨论|Bug 反馈|Feature request" validation_path: "behavior-regression|consultative-support" confidence: "high|medium|low" triage_decision: labels_to_add: [] missing_info_fields: [] ready_for_issue_to_pr: false ready_reason: "" implementation_handoff: goal: "" acceptance_criteria: [] suggested_modules: [] risk_hints: [] ```

Load References When Needed

• Use `references/diagnostic-playbook.md` for scenario-specific diagnostics and command snippets.
• Use `references/reply-templates.md` for reusable Chinese maintainer reply skeletons.