Issue Triage Proposal

[victorm-hernandez]

I propose a new structure of labels for issue triaging, if everybody agrees I would like to add it to the Contribution guidelines to provide context to new collaborators.

Current Tags

This is the status quo

Type of issue

• type:bug: Something isn't working
• type:proposal: New feature or request
• type:refimpl: Reference implementation or adapter work
• type:docs: Improvements or additions to documentation
• type:conformance: Conformance or dogfooding report

In scope for this quarter (90 days)

• scope:in-focus: Feeds the ninety-day committed outcome. Maintainers only
• scope:deferred: Real work, tracked, lands after Day 90. Maintainers only

Status of issue

• status:accepted: In the backlog. Maintainers only
• status:blocked: Waiting on another decision or PR
• status:needs-triage: Not yet triaged. Applied by the issue forms

Priority

• priority:P1: Maintainers only
• priority:P2: Maintainers only

Area of work

• workstream:coding-agents: Owning workstream. Maintainers only
• workstream:sdk: Owning workstream. Maintainers only
• workstream:spec: Owning workstream. Maintainers only

Special label to bring people attention to something

• help wanted: Already accepted work. Safe to start without waiting on triage.

---

Proposed Tags for Issues

I propose that after an issue is triaged, the following labels should always be present:

{area}{type}{priority}{status}

For example for bug #160, the labels after triaging would look like this:

{area:code:refimpl}{type:conformance}{priority:1}{status:accepted}

Area of issue

The kickoff meeting interest form does a great job categorizing the work available to potential collaborators.

I believe this is a great way to categorize the work we have and assign it to anyone who may want to participate. This proposed tag list will replace the workstream tags we use today and extend them.

Tag	Description
area:spec:schema-hooks	Specification: JSON Schema and hook definitions
area:spec:main	Specification: normative spec text and review
area:spec:tracing	Specification: Trace mappings for OpenTelemetry and OCSF
area:code:port	Coding: port the reference Guardian to Python, Go, Rust, or Codex
area:code:refimpl	Coding: Reference implementation work
area:code:adapters	Coding: adapters for other agent frameworks and harnesses
area:code:sdk	Coding: SDK work
area:code:codingagents	Coding Agents: the IDE coding-agent spec and hook coverage across harnesses
area:testing	Testing and Validation: conformance suite, negative vectors, behavioral tests, requirement ledger
area:docs	Documentation: guides, concepts pages, tutorials, editing
area:outreach	Outreach: talks, writing, social, community, analyst and vendor conversations
area:program	Program: issue triage, project board, release coordination, meeting notes
area:design	Design: site, diagrams, presentation material

Type of issue

I prpose to use the same types we have today except 'refimpl' which would be covered by the area above:

• type:bug, Something isn't working and needs fixing.
• type:docs, Improvements or additions to documentation.
• type:conformance, Conformance or dogfooding report.
• type:proposal, New feature or request.
• type:work, Work item that needs a volunteer.

Priority

• priority:0, Highest priority fix ASAP.
• priority:1, Required before we release a new version.
• priority:2, Nice to have.

Status

• status:accepted: In the backlog for this quarter.
• status:postponed, In the backlog without a timeframe.
• status:blocked: Waiting on another decision or PR.
• status:needs-triage: Not yet triaged. Applied by the issue forms.

This proposal replaces the scope label entirely as follows: scope:deferred is replaced with status:postponed and the status:in-focus label is replaced by status:accepted.

Miscelaneous

Finally I propose to replace the help wanted and instead use something like Good for first timers to denote that this issue is easy for someone with little context to contribute.

[victorm-hernandez]

@rocklambros would love to hear your thoughts on this before completing the triage and reaching out to contributors.

[rocklambros]

I'm good w/ it. Dropping a note to the core team to make sure. If I don't have any objections today, we'll roll w/ it. I'll let you know.

[victorm-hernandez]

Thank you!

[rocklambros]

Tracking the decision and the change it needs in #178. That issue lists everything the labels are wired into, so whatever we settle on here can land in one pull request.

[victorm-hernandez]

@rocklambros , did you reach a decision on this?

[victorm-hernandez]

Documenting here that we agreed to proceed with this proposal