Apollo Issue Review

Review Apollo ecosystem issues with a classify-first workflow (reproduce for behavior issues, evidence-check for consultative asks) and draft maintainer-grad...

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.