[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6FPAB14CSSMVX97PPA9SYEJ":3,"skill-same:01M6FPAB14CSSMVX97PPA9SYEJ":70},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":15,"categories":16,"keywords":17,"publishedAt":38,"linkOnly":39,"markdownContent":40,"markdownBody":41,"frontMatter":42,"refName":43,"commitSha":44,"skillDirectory":45,"forksCount":46,"repositoryHtmlUrl":47,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":48,"ownerBlogUrl":6,"ownerDescription":6,"updatedAt":49,"install":50,"resources":63},"01M6FPAB14CSSMVX97PPA9SYEJ","issue-prioritizer",null,"Prioritize GitHub issues by ROI, solution sanity, and architectural impact. Identifies quick wins, over-engineered proposals, and actionable bugs. Use for issue triage, contributor matching, and filtering non-actionable items. Read-only — never modifies repositories.","kbarbel640-del\u002Fskills","kbarbel640-del","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F255315490?v=4","01M6CJPPQGCCESXMG3K7BBGQ5J","01M6CJPPX2PB2BCZERFVM2C2B3",1,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fkbarbel640-del\u002Fskills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fglucksberg\u002Fissue-prioritizer\u002FSKILL.md",[],[18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37],"issue prioritizer","issue","never","read-only","quick","sanity","actionable","impact","matching","only","github","use","filtering","proposals","read","prioritize","issues","issue triage","roi","triage","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: issue-prioritizer\ndescription: Prioritize GitHub issues by ROI, solution sanity, and architectural impact. Identifies quick wins, over-engineered proposals, and actionable bugs. Use for issue triage, contributor matching, and filtering non-actionable items. Read-only — never modifies repositories.\n---\n\n# Issue Prioritizer\n\nAnalyze issues from a GitHub repository and rank them by **Adjusted Score** — ROI penalized by Tripping Scale (solution sanity), Architectural Impact, and Actionability.\n\nThis is a **read-only skill**. It analyzes and presents information. The user makes all decisions.\n\n## Requirements\n\n- `gh` CLI authenticated (`gh auth login`)\n\n## Instructions\n\n### Step 1: Get Repository\n\nIf the user didn't specify a repository, ask which one to analyze (format: `owner\u002Frepo`).\n\n### Step 2: Fetch Issues\n\n```bash\ngh issue list --repo {owner\u002Frepo} --state open --limit {limit} --json number,title,body,labels,createdAt,comments,url\n```\n\nDefault limit is 30. Store the full JSON response.\n\n**Error handling:**\n- Auth error → tell user to run `gh auth login`\n- Rate limited → inform user, suggest reducing `--limit`\n- Repo not found → check format `owner\u002Frepo`\n- No issues → report and exit\n- Missing fields → treat null\u002Fmissing body and labels as empty\n\n### Step 3: Filter Issues with Existing PRs\n\n**Note:** If user specified `--include-with-prs`, skip this entire step and proceed to Step 4 with all fetched issues.\n\nBefore analyzing, check for open PRs that already address issues to avoid duplicate work.\n\n```bash\ngh pr list --repo {owner\u002Frepo} --state open --json number,title,body,url\n```\n\n**Detect linked issues** using ALL of these methods:\n\n**Method 1 — Explicit Keywords** (high confidence):\nScan PR title and body (case-insensitive):\n- `fixes #N`, `fix #N`, `fixed #N`\n- `closes #N`, `close #N`, `closed #N`\n- `resolves #N`, `resolve #N`, `resolved #N`\n\n**Method 2 — Issue References** (medium confidence):\n- `#N` anywhere in text\n- `issue N`, `issue #N`, `related to #N`, `addresses #N`\n\n**Method 3 — Title Similarity** (fuzzy):\nNormalize titles (lowercase, remove punctuation\u002Fcommon words). If 70%+ word overlap → likely linked.\n\n**Method 4 — Semantic Matching** (ambiguous cases):\nExtract key terms from issue (error names, function names, components). Check if PR body discusses same things.\n\n**Confidence icons:**\n- ? Explicit link (fixes\u002Fcloses\u002Fresolves)\n- ? Referenced (#N mentioned)\n- ? Similar title (fuzzy match)\n- ? Semantic match (same components)\n\nRemove linked issues from analysis. Report them separately before the main report.\n\nIf all issues have PRs, report that and exit.\n\n### Step 4: Analyze Each Issue\n\nFor each remaining issue, score the following:\n\n#### Difficulty (1-10)\n\nBase score: 5. Adjustments:\n\n| Signal | Adjustment |\n|--------|-----------|\n| Documentation only | -3 |\n| Has proposed solution | -2 |\n| Has reproduction steps | -1 |\n| Clear error message | -1 |\n| Unknown root cause | +3 |\n| Architectural change | +3 |\n| Race condition\u002Fconcurrency | +2 |\n| Security implications | +2 |\n| Multiple systems involved | +2 |\n\n#### Importance (1-10)\n\n| Range | Level | Examples |\n|-------|-------|---------|\n| 8-10 | Critical | Crash, data loss, security vulnerability, service down |\n| 6-7 | High | Broken functionality, errors, performance issues |\n| 4-5 | Medium | Enhancements, feature requests, improvements |\n| 1-3 | Low | Cosmetic, documentation, typos |\n\n#### Tripping Scale (1-5) — Solution Sanity (How \"Out There\" Is It?)\n\n| Score | Label | Description |\n|-------|-------|-------------|\n| 1 | Total Sanity | Proven approach, standard patterns |\n| 2 | Grounded w\u002FFlair | Practical with creative touches |\n| 3 | Dipping Toes | Exploring cautiously |\n| 4 | Wild Adventure | Bold, risky, unconventional |\n| 5 | Tripping | Questionable viability |\n\n**Red Flags** (+score): rewrite from scratch, buzzwords (blockchain, AI-powered, ML-based), experimental\u002Funstable, breaking change, custom protocol\n**Green Flags** (-score): standard approach, minimal change, backward compatible, existing library, well-documented\n\n#### Architectural Impact (1-5)\n\nAlways ask: \"Is there a simpler way?\" before scoring.\n\n| Score | Label | Description |\n|-------|-------|-------------|\n| 1 | Surgical | Isolated fix, 1-2 files, no new abstractions |\n| 2 | Localized | Small addition, follows existing patterns exactly |\n| 3 | Moderate | New component within existing architecture |\n| 4 | Significant | New subsystem, new patterns, affects multiple modules |\n| 5 | Transformational | Restructures core, changes paradigms, migration needed |\n\n**Red Flags** (+score): \"rewrite\", \"refactor entire\", new framework for existing capability, changes across >5 files, breaking API changes, scope creep\n**Green Flags** (-score): single file fix, uses existing utilities, follows established patterns, backward compatible, easily revertible\n\n**Critical:** If a simple solution exists, architectural changes are wrong. Don't create a \"validation framework\" when a single if-check suffices.\n\n#### Actionability (1-5) — Can it be resolved with a PR?\n\n| Score | Label | Description |\n|-------|-------|-------------|\n| 1 | Not Actionable | Question, discussion, duplicate, support request |\n| 2 | Needs Triage | Missing info, unclear scope, needs clarification |\n| 3 | Needs Investigation | Root cause unknown, requires debugging first |\n| 4 | Ready to Work | Clear scope, may need some design decisions |\n| 5 | PR Ready | Solution is clear, just needs implementation |\n\n**Blockers** (-score): questions (\"how do I?\"), discussions (\"thoughts?\"), labels (duplicate, wontfix, question), missing repro\n**Ready signals** (+score): action titles (\"fix:\", \"add:\"), proposed solution, repro steps, good-first-issue label, specific files mentioned\n\n#### Derived Values\n\n```\nissueType: \"bug\" | \"feature\" | \"docs\" | \"other\"\nsuggestedLevel:\n  - \"beginner\": difficulty 1-3, no security\u002Farchitecture changes\n  - \"intermediate\": difficulty 4-6\n  - \"advanced\": difficulty 7+ OR security implications OR architectural changes\n```\n\n#### Calculation Formulas\n\n```\nROI = Importance \u002F Difficulty\nAdjustedScore = ROI × TripMultiplier × ArchMultiplier × ActionMultiplier\n```\n\n**Tripping Scale Multiplier:**\n\n| Score | Label | Multiplier |\n|-------|-------|------------|\n| 1 | Total Sanity | 1.00 (no penalty) |\n| 2 | Grounded w\u002FFlair | 0.85 |\n| 3 | Dipping Toes | 0.70 |\n| 4 | Wild Adventure | 0.55 |\n| 5 | Tripping | 0.40 |\n\n**Architectural Impact Multiplier:**\n\n| Score | Label | Multiplier |\n|-------|-------|------------|\n| 1 | Surgical | 1.00 (no penalty) |\n| 2 | Localized | 0.90 |\n| 3 | Moderate | 0.75 |\n| 4 | Significant | 0.50 |\n| 5 | Transformational | 0.25 |\n\n**Actionability Multiplier:**\n\n| Score | Label | Multiplier |\n|-------|-------|------------|\n| 5 | PR Ready | 1.00 (no penalty) |\n| 4 | Ready to Work | 0.90 |\n| 3 | Needs Investigation | 0.70 |\n| 2 | Needs Triage | 0.40 |\n| 1 | Not Actionable | 0.10 |\n\n### Step 5: Categorize\n\n- **Quick Wins**: ROI ≥ 1.5 AND Difficulty ≤ 5 AND Trip ≤ 3 AND Arch ≤ 2 AND Actionability ≥ 4\n- **Critical Bugs**: issueType = \"bug\" AND Importance ≥ 8\n- **Tripping Issues**: Trip ≥ 4\n- **Over-Engineered**: Arch ≥ 4 (simpler solution likely exists)\n- **Not Actionable**: Actionability ≤ 2\n\nSort all issues by AdjustedScore descending.\n\n### Step 6: Present Results\n\n```\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n  ISSUE PRIORITIZATION REPORT\n  Repository: {owner\u002Frepo}\n  Analyzed: {count} issues\n  Excluded: {excluded} issues with existing PRs\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n\n  Quick Wins: {n} | Critical Bugs: {n} | Tripping: {n} | Over-Engineered: {n} | Not Actionable: {n}\n\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n  TOP 10 BY ADJUSTED SCORE\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n\n  #123 [Adj: 3.50] ⭐ Quick Win\n  Fix typo in README\n  ├─ Difficulty: 1\u002F10 | Importance: 4\u002F10 | ROI: 4.00\n  ├─ Trip: ✅ Total Sanity (1\u002F5) | Arch: ✅ Surgical (1\u002F5)\n  ├─ Act: ✅ PR Ready (5\u002F5) | Level: beginner\n  └─ https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fowner\u002Frepo\u002Fissues\u002F123\n\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n  QUICK WINS (High Impact, Low Effort, Sane & Actionable)\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n\n  #123: Fix typo in README [Adj: 3.50]\n        Difficulty: 1 | Importance: 4 | beginner\n\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n  RECOMMENDATIONS BY LEVEL\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n\n  BEGINNER (Difficulty 1-3, no security\u002Farchitecture):\n  - #123: Fix typo - Low risk, good first contribution\n\n  INTERMEDIATE (Difficulty 4-6):\n  - #456: Add validation - Medium complexity, clear scope\n\n  ADVANCED (Difficulty 7-10 or security\u002Farchitecture):\n  - #789: Refactor auth - Architectural knowledge needed\n\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n  CRITICAL BUGS (Importance ≥ 8)\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n\n  #111 [Adj: 1.67] ? Critical\n  App crashes on startup with large datasets\n  ├─ Difficulty: 6\u002F10 | Importance: 9\u002F10 | ROI: 1.50\n  ├─ Trip: ✅ (2\u002F5) | Arch: ✅ (2\u002F5) | Act: ⚠️ (3\u002F5)\n  └─ https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fowner\u002Frepo\u002Fissues\u002F111\n\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n  TRIPPING ISSUES (Trip ≥ 4 — Review Carefully)\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n\n  #999 [Trip: ? 5\u002F5 — Tripping]\n  Rewrite entire backend in Rust with blockchain storage\n  ├─ Red Flags: \"rewrite from scratch\", \"blockchain\"\n  ├─ Adjusted Score: 0.12 (heavily penalized)\n  └─ Consider: Is this complexity really needed?\n\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n  OVER-ENGINEERED (Arch ≥ 4 — Simpler Solution Likely Exists)\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n\n  #777 [Arch: ?️ 5\u002F5 — Transformational]\n  Add form validation\n  ├─ Proposed: New validation framework with schema definitions\n  ├─ Simpler Alternative: Single validation function, 20 lines\n  └─ Ask: Why create a framework for one form?\n\n  ? TIP: Maintainers often reject PRs that change architecture\n     unnecessarily. Always start with the simplest fix.\n\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n  NOT ACTIONABLE (Actionability ≤ 2)\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n\n  - #222: \"How do I deploy to Kubernetes?\" (Act: 1\u002F5 — question)\n  - #333: Duplicate of #111 (Act: 1\u002F5 — duplicate)\n\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n  EXCLUDED — EXISTING PRs\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n\n  #123: Login crashes on empty password\n        └─ ? PR #456: \"Fix login validation\" (explicit: fixes #123)\n\n  Detection: ? Explicit link | ? Referenced | ? Similar title | ? Semantic match\n\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n  SCALE LEGEND\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n\n  Trip (Solution Sanity):        Arch (Structural Impact):\n  ✅ 1-2 = Sane                  ✅ 1-2 = Minimal change\n  ⚠️  3  = Cautious              ⚠️  3  = Moderate\n  ? 4-5 = Risky                 ?️ 4-5 = Over-engineered\n\n  Actionability:\n  ✅ 4-5 = Ready for PR\n  ⚠️  3  = Needs Investigation\n  ❌ 1-2 = Not Actionable\n\n  AdjustedScore = ROI × TripMult × ArchMult × ActionMult\n  Higher = Better (prioritize first)\n\n  ? SIMPLICITY PRINCIPLE: If a 10-line fix exists,\n     a 200-line refactor is wrong.\n\n  Mode: SKILL (read-only) — analyzes only, never modifies.\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n```\n\n## Options\n\n- `--json`: Raw JSON output\n- `--markdown` \u002F `--md`: Markdown table output\n- `--quick-wins`: Show only quick wins\n- `--level beginner|intermediate|advanced`: Filter by contributor level\n- `--limit N`: Number of issues to analyze (default: 30)\n- `--include-with-prs`: Skip PR filtering, include all issues\n\n## LLM Deep Analysis (Optional)\n\nFor higher-quality scoring, use an LLM to analyze each issue individually. For each issue, prompt the model with the issue details and scoring criteria, requesting structured JSON output:\n\n```json\n{\n  \"number\": 123,\n  \"difficulty\": 5,\n  \"difficultyReasoning\": \"base 5; has repro (-1); unknown cause (+3) = 7\",\n  \"importance\": 7,\n  \"importanceReasoning\": \"broken functionality affecting users\",\n  \"tripScore\": 2,\n  \"tripLabel\": \"Grounded with Flair\",\n  \"tripRedFlags\": [],\n  \"tripGreenFlags\": [\"minimal change\", \"standard approach\"],\n  \"archScore\": 2,\n  \"archLabel\": \"Localized\",\n  \"archRedFlags\": [],\n  \"archGreenFlags\": [\"uses existing patterns\"],\n  \"archSimplerAlternative\": null,\n  \"actionScore\": 4,\n  \"actionLabel\": \"Ready to Work\",\n  \"actionBlockers\": [],\n  \"actionReadySignals\": [\"has proposed solution\"],\n  \"issueType\": \"bug\",\n  \"suggestedLevel\": \"intermediate\",\n  \"roi\": 1.40,\n  \"adjustedScore\": 0.96\n}\n```\n\nTruncate issue bodies longer than 2000 characters before sending to the model.\n\n**When to use LLM Deep Analysis:**\n- Complex repositories with nuanced issues\n- When accuracy matters more than speed\n- For repositories you're unfamiliar with\n\n**Tradeoffs:** Slower (~2-5s per issue) but more accurate. 1 API call per issue.\n\n**Integration:** For each issue, call the LLM with the analysis prompt, parse the JSON response, and merge into results before Step 5 (Categorize).\n","# Issue Prioritizer\n\nAnalyze issues from a GitHub repository and rank them by **Adjusted Score** — ROI penalized by Tripping Scale (solution sanity), Architectural Impact, and Actionability.\n\nThis is a **read-only skill**. It analyzes and presents information. The user makes all decisions.\n\n## Requirements\n\n- `gh` CLI authenticated (`gh auth login`)\n\n## Instructions\n\n### Step 1: Get Repository\n\nIf the user didn't specify a repository, ask which one to analyze (format: `owner\u002Frepo`).\n\n### Step 2: Fetch Issues\n\n```bash\ngh issue list --repo {owner\u002Frepo} --state open --limit {limit} --json number,title,body,labels,createdAt,comments,url\n```\n\nDefault limit is 30. Store the full JSON response.\n\n**Error handling:**\n- Auth error → tell user to run `gh auth login`\n- Rate limited → inform user, suggest reducing `--limit`\n- Repo not found → check format `owner\u002Frepo`\n- No issues → report and exit\n- Missing fields → treat null\u002Fmissing body and labels as empty\n\n### Step 3: Filter Issues with Existing PRs\n\n**Note:** If user specified `--include-with-prs`, skip this entire step and proceed to Step 4 with all fetched issues.\n\nBefore analyzing, check for open PRs that already address issues to avoid duplicate work.\n\n```bash\ngh pr list --repo {owner\u002Frepo} --state open --json number,title,body,url\n```\n\n**Detect linked issues** using ALL of these methods:\n\n**Method 1 — Explicit Keywords** (high confidence):\nScan PR title and body (case-insensitive):\n- `fixes #N`, `fix #N`, `fixed #N`\n- `closes #N`, `close #N`, `closed #N`\n- `resolves #N`, `resolve #N`, `resolved #N`\n\n**Method 2 — Issue References** (medium confidence):\n- `#N` anywhere in text\n- `issue N`, `issue #N`, `related to #N`, `addresses #N`\n\n**Method 3 — Title Similarity** (fuzzy):\nNormalize titles (lowercase, remove punctuation\u002Fcommon words). If 70%+ word overlap → likely linked.\n\n**Method 4 — Semantic Matching** (ambiguous cases):\nExtract key terms from issue (error names, function names, components). Check if PR body discusses same things.\n\n**Confidence icons:**\n- ? Explicit link (fixes\u002Fcloses\u002Fresolves)\n- ? Referenced (#N mentioned)\n- ? Similar title (fuzzy match)\n- ? Semantic match (same components)\n\nRemove linked issues from analysis. Report them separately before the main report.\n\nIf all issues have PRs, report that and exit.\n\n### Step 4: Analyze Each Issue\n\nFor each remaining issue, score the following:\n\n#### Difficulty (1-10)\n\nBase score: 5. Adjustments:\n\n| Signal | Adjustment |\n|--------|-----------|\n| Documentation only | -3 |\n| Has proposed solution | -2 |\n| Has reproduction steps | -1 |\n| Clear error message | -1 |\n| Unknown root cause | +3 |\n| Architectural change | +3 |\n| Race condition\u002Fconcurrency | +2 |\n| Security implications | +2 |\n| Multiple systems involved | +2 |\n\n#### Importance (1-10)\n\n| Range | Level | Examples |\n|-------|-------|---------|\n| 8-10 | Critical | Crash, data loss, security vulnerability, service down |\n| 6-7 | High | Broken functionality, errors, performance issues |\n| 4-5 | Medium | Enhancements, feature requests, improvements |\n| 1-3 | Low | Cosmetic, documentation, typos |\n\n#### Tripping Scale (1-5) — Solution Sanity (How \"Out There\" Is It?)\n\n| Score | Label | Description |\n|-------|-------|-------------|\n| 1 | Total Sanity | Proven approach, standard patterns |\n| 2 | Grounded w\u002FFlair | Practical with creative touches |\n| 3 | Dipping Toes | Exploring cautiously |\n| 4 | Wild Adventure | Bold, risky, unconventional |\n| 5 | Tripping | Questionable viability |\n\n**Red Flags** (+score): rewrite from scratch, buzzwords (blockchain, AI-powered, ML-based), experimental\u002Funstable, breaking change, custom protocol\n**Green Flags** (-score): standard approach, minimal change, backward compatible, existing library, well-documented\n\n#### Architectural Impact (1-5)\n\nAlways ask: \"Is there a simpler way?\" before scoring.\n\n| Score | Label | Description |\n|-------|-------|-------------|\n| 1 | Surgical | Isolated fix, 1-2 files, no new abstractions |\n| 2 | Localized | Small addition, follows existing patterns exactly |\n| 3 | Moderate | New component within existing architecture |\n| 4 | Significant | New subsystem, new patterns, affects multiple modules |\n| 5 | Transformational | Restructures core, changes paradigms, migration needed |\n\n**Red Flags** (+score): \"rewrite\", \"refactor entire\", new framework for existing capability, changes across >5 files, breaking API changes, scope creep\n**Green Flags** (-score): single file fix, uses existing utilities, follows established patterns, backward compatible, easily revertible\n\n**Critical:** If a simple solution exists, architectural changes are wrong. Don't create a \"validation framework\" when a single if-check suffices.\n\n#### Actionability (1-5) — Can it be resolved with a PR?\n\n| Score | Label | Description |\n|-------|-------|-------------|\n| 1 | Not Actionable | Question, discussion, duplicate, support request |\n| 2 | Needs Triage | Missing info, unclear scope, needs clarification |\n| 3 | Needs Investigation | Root cause unknown, requires debugging first |\n| 4 | Ready to Work | Clear scope, may need some design decisions |\n| 5 | PR Ready | Solution is clear, just needs implementation |\n\n**Blockers** (-score): questions (\"how do I?\"), discussions (\"thoughts?\"), labels (duplicate, wontfix, question), missing repro\n**Ready signals** (+score): action titles (\"fix:\", \"add:\"), proposed solution, repro steps, good-first-issue label, specific files mentioned\n\n#### Derived Values\n\n```\nissueType: \"bug\" | \"feature\" | \"docs\" | \"other\"\nsuggestedLevel:\n  - \"beginner\": difficulty 1-3, no security\u002Farchitecture changes\n  - \"intermediate\": difficulty 4-6\n  - \"advanced\": difficulty 7+ OR security implications OR architectural changes\n```\n\n#### Calculation Formulas\n\n```\nROI = Importance \u002F Difficulty\nAdjustedScore = ROI × TripMultiplier × ArchMultiplier × ActionMultiplier\n```\n\n**Tripping Scale Multiplier:**\n\n| Score | Label | Multiplier |\n|-------|-------|------------|\n| 1 | Total Sanity | 1.00 (no penalty) |\n| 2 | Grounded w\u002FFlair | 0.85 |\n| 3 | Dipping Toes | 0.70 |\n| 4 | Wild Adventure | 0.55 |\n| 5 | Tripping | 0.40 |\n\n**Architectural Impact Multiplier:**\n\n| Score | Label | Multiplier |\n|-------|-------|------------|\n| 1 | Surgical | 1.00 (no penalty) |\n| 2 | Localized | 0.90 |\n| 3 | Moderate | 0.75 |\n| 4 | Significant | 0.50 |\n| 5 | Transformational | 0.25 |\n\n**Actionability Multiplier:**\n\n| Score | Label | Multiplier |\n|-------|-------|------------|\n| 5 | PR Ready | 1.00 (no penalty) |\n| 4 | Ready to Work | 0.90 |\n| 3 | Needs Investigation | 0.70 |\n| 2 | Needs Triage | 0.40 |\n| 1 | Not Actionable | 0.10 |\n\n### Step 5: Categorize\n\n- **Quick Wins**: ROI ≥ 1.5 AND Difficulty ≤ 5 AND Trip ≤ 3 AND Arch ≤ 2 AND Actionability ≥ 4\n- **Critical Bugs**: issueType = \"bug\" AND Importance ≥ 8\n- **Tripping Issues**: Trip ≥ 4\n- **Over-Engineered**: Arch ≥ 4 (simpler solution likely exists)\n- **Not Actionable**: Actionability ≤ 2\n\nSort all issues by AdjustedScore descending.\n\n### Step 6: Present Results\n\n```\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n  ISSUE PRIORITIZATION REPORT\n  Repository: {owner\u002Frepo}\n  Analyzed: {count} issues\n  Excluded: {excluded} issues with existing PRs\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n\n  Quick Wins: {n} | Critical Bugs: {n} | Tripping: {n} | Over-Engineered: {n} | Not Actionable: {n}\n\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n  TOP 10 BY ADJUSTED SCORE\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n\n  #123 [Adj: 3.50] ⭐ Quick Win\n  Fix typo in README\n  ├─ Difficulty: 1\u002F10 | Importance: 4\u002F10 | ROI: 4.00\n  ├─ Trip: ✅ Total Sanity (1\u002F5) | Arch: ✅ Surgical (1\u002F5)\n  ├─ Act: ✅ PR Ready (5\u002F5) | Level: beginner\n  └─ https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fowner\u002Frepo\u002Fissues\u002F123\n\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n  QUICK WINS (High Impact, Low Effort, Sane & Actionable)\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n\n  #123: Fix typo in README [Adj: 3.50]\n        Difficulty: 1 | Importance: 4 | beginner\n\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n  RECOMMENDATIONS BY LEVEL\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n\n  BEGINNER (Difficulty 1-3, no security\u002Farchitecture):\n  - #123: Fix typo - Low risk, good first contribution\n\n  INTERMEDIATE (Difficulty 4-6):\n  - #456: Add validation - Medium complexity, clear scope\n\n  ADVANCED (Difficulty 7-10 or security\u002Farchitecture):\n  - #789: Refactor auth - Architectural knowledge needed\n\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n  CRITICAL BUGS (Importance ≥ 8)\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n\n  #111 [Adj: 1.67] ? Critical\n  App crashes on startup with large datasets\n  ├─ Difficulty: 6\u002F10 | Importance: 9\u002F10 | ROI: 1.50\n  ├─ Trip: ✅ (2\u002F5) | Arch: ✅ (2\u002F5) | Act: ⚠️ (3\u002F5)\n  └─ https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fowner\u002Frepo\u002Fissues\u002F111\n\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n  TRIPPING ISSUES (Trip ≥ 4 — Review Carefully)\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n\n  #999 [Trip: ? 5\u002F5 — Tripping]\n  Rewrite entire backend in Rust with blockchain storage\n  ├─ Red Flags: \"rewrite from scratch\", \"blockchain\"\n  ├─ Adjusted Score: 0.12 (heavily penalized)\n  └─ Consider: Is this complexity really needed?\n\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n  OVER-ENGINEERED (Arch ≥ 4 — Simpler Solution Likely Exists)\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n\n  #777 [Arch: ?️ 5\u002F5 — Transformational]\n  Add form validation\n  ├─ Proposed: New validation framework with schema definitions\n  ├─ Simpler Alternative: Single validation function, 20 lines\n  └─ Ask: Why create a framework for one form?\n\n  ? TIP: Maintainers often reject PRs that change architecture\n     unnecessarily. Always start with the simplest fix.\n\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n  NOT ACTIONABLE (Actionability ≤ 2)\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n\n  - #222: \"How do I deploy to Kubernetes?\" (Act: 1\u002F5 — question)\n  - #333: Duplicate of #111 (Act: 1\u002F5 — duplicate)\n\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n  EXCLUDED — EXISTING PRs\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n\n  #123: Login crashes on empty password\n        └─ ? PR #456: \"Fix login validation\" (explicit: fixes #123)\n\n  Detection: ? Explicit link | ? Referenced | ? Similar title | ? Semantic match\n\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n  SCALE LEGEND\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n\n  Trip (Solution Sanity):        Arch (Structural Impact):\n  ✅ 1-2 = Sane                  ✅ 1-2 = Minimal change\n  ⚠️  3  = Cautious              ⚠️  3  = Moderate\n  ? 4-5 = Risky                 ?️ 4-5 = Over-engineered\n\n  Actionability:\n  ✅ 4-5 = Ready for PR\n  ⚠️  3  = Needs Investigation\n  ❌ 1-2 = Not Actionable\n\n  AdjustedScore = ROI × TripMult × ArchMult × ActionMult\n  Higher = Better (prioritize first)\n\n  ? SIMPLICITY PRINCIPLE: If a 10-line fix exists,\n     a 200-line refactor is wrong.\n\n  Mode: SKILL (read-only) — analyzes only, never modifies.\n═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════\n```\n\n## Options\n\n- `--json`: Raw JSON output\n- `--markdown` \u002F `--md`: Markdown table output\n- `--quick-wins`: Show only quick wins\n- `--level beginner|intermediate|advanced`: Filter by contributor level\n- `--limit N`: Number of issues to analyze (default: 30)\n- `--include-with-prs`: Skip PR filtering, include all issues\n\n## LLM Deep Analysis (Optional)\n\nFor higher-quality scoring, use an LLM to analyze each issue individually. For each issue, prompt the model with the issue details and scoring criteria, requesting structured JSON output:\n\n```json\n{\n  \"number\": 123,\n  \"difficulty\": 5,\n  \"difficultyReasoning\": \"base 5; has repro (-1); unknown cause (+3) = 7\",\n  \"importance\": 7,\n  \"importanceReasoning\": \"broken functionality affecting users\",\n  \"tripScore\": 2,\n  \"tripLabel\": \"Grounded with Flair\",\n  \"tripRedFlags\": [],\n  \"tripGreenFlags\": [\"minimal change\", \"standard approach\"],\n  \"archScore\": 2,\n  \"archLabel\": \"Localized\",\n  \"archRedFlags\": [],\n  \"archGreenFlags\": [\"uses existing patterns\"],\n  \"archSimplerAlternative\": null,\n  \"actionScore\": 4,\n  \"actionLabel\": \"Ready to Work\",\n  \"actionBlockers\": [],\n  \"actionReadySignals\": [\"has proposed solution\"],\n  \"issueType\": \"bug\",\n  \"suggestedLevel\": \"intermediate\",\n  \"roi\": 1.40,\n  \"adjustedScore\": 0.96\n}\n```\n\nTruncate issue bodies longer than 2000 characters before sending to the model.\n\n**When to use LLM Deep Analysis:**\n- Complex repositories with nuanced issues\n- When accuracy matters more than speed\n- For repositories you're unfamiliar with\n\n**Tradeoffs:** Slower (~2-5s per issue) but more accurate. 1 API call per issue.\n\n**Integration:** For each issue, call the LLM with the analysis prompt, parse the JSON response, and merge into results before Step 5 (Categorize).\n",{"name":5,"description":7},"main","e7e336ac628c3e3bd771aff1aaa469c93778f94a","skills\u002Fglucksberg\u002Fissue-prioritizer",0,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fkbarbel640-del\u002Fskills","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fkbarbel640-del","2026-08-23 22:39:37",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":51,"prompt":61,"zipAvailable":62},[52,55,58],{"tool":53,"command":54},"npx","npx skills add kbarbel640-del\u002Fskills --skill issue-prioritizer",{"tool":56,"command":57},"bunx","bunx skills add kbarbel640-del\u002Fskills --skill issue-prioritizer",{"tool":59,"command":60},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add kbarbel640-del\u002Fskills --skill issue-prioritizer","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fkbarbel640-del\u002Fskills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fglucksberg\u002Fissue-prioritizer\u002FSKILL.md",true,[64],{"path":65,"resourceType":66,"resourceTypeDesc":67,"sizeBytes":68,"sourceHtmlUrl":69},"_meta.json","REFERENCE","参考文档",290,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fkbarbel640-del\u002Fskills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fglucksberg\u002Fissue-prioritizer\u002F_meta.json",[71,102,130,150,156,175],{"skillNo":72,"name":73,"nameZh":6,"description":74,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":75,"categories":76,"keywords":82,"publishedAt":38},"01M6G8J55967D6281ACMKAKTEQ","crowd-prompting","A marketplace where AI agents improve prompts, system instructions, tool descriptions, and other text-based content with domain expertise from real-world operations — and earn tokens for valuable contributions.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fkbarbel640-del\u002Fskills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fzzadrian\u002Fcrowd-prompting\u002FSKILL.md",[77],{"categoryNo":78,"categoryName":79,"taxonomyType":80,"taxonomyTypeDesc":81},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000036","内容创作者","PROFESSION","适用职业",[83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101],"crowd prompting","prompting","api","with","tokens","domain","world","prompts","operations","instructions","text","tool","system","improve","productivity","marketplace","https","content","ai agents",{"skillNo":103,"name":104,"nameZh":6,"description":105,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":106,"categories":107,"keywords":113,"publishedAt":38},"01M6G8J0PKPAYVET6BWE8W4C26","dilemm-ai","Compete in DilemmAI, the prisoner's dilemma AI arena at dilemm.ai. Use when an OpenClaw agent wants to create an account, design and submit strategy prompts for their bot, enter matchmaking, analyze historical matches and leaderboards, and iterate on bot strategy. Requires headless browser automation (no API available yet).","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fkbarbel640-del\u002Fskills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fzyori\u002Fdilemm-ai\u002FSKILL.md",[108],{"categoryNo":109,"categoryName":110,"taxonomyType":111,"taxonomyTypeDesc":112},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发","SCENARIO","使用场景",[114,85,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,90,29],"dilemm ai","arena","analyze","browser","openclaw agent","create","automation","browser automation","bot","openclaw","design","strategy","headless","compete","submit","matchmaking",{"skillNo":131,"name":132,"nameZh":6,"description":133,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":134,"categories":135,"keywords":139,"publishedAt":38},"01M6G8HWAF3K9SW7NP3Z83CPJ6","arxiv-paper-reviews","Interact with arXiv Crawler API to fetch papers, read reviews, and submit comments. Use when working with arXiv papers, fetching paper lists by date\u002Fcategory\u002Finterest, viewing paper details with comments, or submitting paper reviews via API at http:\u002F\u002F150.158.152.82:8000.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fkbarbel640-del\u002Fskills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fzxrys\u002Fweak-accept\u002FSKILL.md",[136],{"categoryNo":137,"categoryName":138,"taxonomyType":111,"taxonomyTypeDesc":112},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000021","资料检索与研究",[140,141,142,143,144,145,146,86,147,128,29,32,85,148,149],"arxiv paper reviews","reviews","arxiv","paper","crawler","papers","comments","fetch","http","via",{"skillNo":151,"name":132,"nameZh":6,"description":133,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":152,"categories":153,"keywords":155,"publishedAt":38},"01M6G8HQJ7N7WMY6YV7D7SSJ16","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fkbarbel640-del\u002Fskills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fzxrys\u002Farxiv-paper-reviews\u002FSKILL.md",[154],{"categoryNo":137,"categoryName":138,"taxonomyType":111,"taxonomyTypeDesc":112},[143,142,141,140,149,145,146,86,144,128,29,147,32,85,148],{"skillNo":157,"name":158,"nameZh":6,"description":159,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":160,"categories":161,"keywords":162,"publishedAt":38},"01M6G8HM95Y64JNVFC2HN4E2BG","git-summary","Get a quick summary of the current Git repository including status, recent commits, branches, and contributors.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fkbarbel640-del\u002Fskills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fzweack\u002Fgit-summary\u002FSKILL.md",[],[163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,22,173,174],"git","summary","git summary","commits","repository","win32","status","linux","contributors","true","get","branches",{"skillNo":176,"name":177,"nameZh":6,"description":178,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":179,"categories":180,"keywords":185,"publishedAt":38},"01M6G8HGEGF05CNEJCGVYFSC4R","agent-constitution","Interact with AgentConstitution governance contracts on Base Sepolia. Check compliance, read rules, log actions, query governance state.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fkbarbel640-del\u002Fskills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fztsalexey\u002Fagent-constitution\u002FSKILL.md",[181,182],{"categoryNo":109,"categoryName":110,"taxonomyType":111,"taxonomyTypeDesc":112},{"categoryNo":183,"categoryName":184,"taxonomyType":80,"taxonomyTypeDesc":81},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000037","律师与法务",[186,187,188,189,86,190,191,43,192,32,193,194,195,196,197,99,198,199,28],"agent constitution","constitution","contracts","tree","query","base","log","check","Rules","projects","compliance","actions","state","governance"]