issue

Standardize issue lifecycle management across GitHub and TAPD platforms.

2|Updated Apr 21, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/dd-xiaozhi/dev-agent-flow --skill issue-dd-xiaozhi
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: issue
Source: https://github.com/dd-xiaozhi/dev-agent-flow/tree/main/.claude/skills/issue
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/dd-xiaozhi/dev-agent-flow --skill issue-dd-xiaozhi

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

This Skill solves the chaos of inconsistent issue tracking and fragmented handoffs between product, engineering, and QA teams by enforcing a strict, protocol-driven lifecycle for GitHub and TAPD platforms.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Scenario-Based Handoffs: Enforces S1-S5 scenario discipline to ensure every issue handoff has a clear, actionable state.
  • Dual-Platform Integration: Seamlessly manages issues across GitHub and TAPD with platform-specific field mapping and automated synchronization.
  • Quality Guardrails: Implements mandatory self-check tables, architectural impact assessments, and automated commit-message validation to prevent accidental issue closure and ensure traceability.

Quick Start

Run the issue skill with the specific issue number to initiate the standardized triage and execution flow for your current task.

Frequently Asked Questions about issue

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I standardize issue tracking across GitHub and TAPD platforms?

Standardizing issue tracking across GitHub and TAPD requires a protocol-driven lifecycle management approach that enforces platform-specific field mapping and automated synchronization for consistent multi-role handoffs. This ensures every issue has a clear, actionable state.

What is the best way to manage bug fixing handoffs between product and engineering teams?

Managing bug fixing handoffs is best achieved through scenario-based S1-S5 discipline, which enforces strict state transitions and mandatory architectural self-checks to prevent fragmented communication and ensure traceability.

How do commit-message validation and stage-gate verification prevent accidental issue closure?

Commit-message validation and stage-gate verification prevent accidental issue closure by enforcing strict technical guardrails that require documentation synchronization and explicit architectural impact assessments before any issue transitions to a resolved state.

Does this issue lifecycle management approach work for production-grade development flows?

Yes, this issue lifecycle management approach works for production-grade development flows by enforcing mandatory self-check tables, architectural impact assessments, and automated commit validation to ensure high-quality traceability.

Why does issue tracking fail without explicit scenario-based protocols?

Issue tracking fails without explicit scenario-based protocols because inconsistent tracking and fragmented handoffs occur, leading to chaos between product, engineering, and QA teams due to the lack of clear, actionable states.

Can I automate bug lifecycle management without manual architectural impact assessments?

No, automating bug lifecycle management requires mandatory architectural impact assessments and self-check tables to enforce quality guardrails, ensuring that automated commit validation does not bypass critical traceability checks.