Project manager for GitHub issues: create structured issues optimized for LLM agent teams, triage and recommend what to work on next, audit and clean up stale issues, or deep-validate a single issue against the codebase. Triggers: create issue, plan work, new task, project manager, write ticket, draft issue, plan feature, plan project, start project, create ticket, review issue, pm.
Resources
1Install
npx skillscat add rube-de/cc-skills/pm Install via the SkillsCat registry.
Project Manager
GitHub issue lifecycle: create, triage, audit, and review.
Sub-Skills
| Skill | Command | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Create | /pm or /pm -quick <desc> |
Create structured issues optimized for agent execution |
| Next | /pm:next |
Triage open issues — recommend what to work on next |
| Update | /pm:update |
Audit open issues — find stale, orphaned, and drift |
| Review | /pm:review ISSUE_NUMBER |
Deep-validate a single issue against the codebase |
Usage
/pm → Create a new issue (interactive flow)
/pm -quick fix the login → Create issue with smart defaults
/pm next → Triage: recommend next issue to work on
/pm:next → Same (alternate syntax)
/pm update → Audit: find stale/orphaned issues
/pm:update → Same (alternate syntax)
/pm review 42 → Review: validate issue #42 against codebase
/pm:review 42 → Same (alternate syntax)Routing
Parse the first argument:
| Argument | Route to |
|---|---|
next |
/pm:next sub-skill |
update |
/pm:update sub-skill |
review |
/pm:review sub-skill |
-quick [desc] |
Create Issue Workflow (quick mode) below |
| anything else / empty | Create Issue Workflow below |
If routed to a sub-skill, invoke it with Skill and pass remaining arguments. Otherwise, continue with the Create Issue Workflow below.
Create Issue Workflow
Create structured GitHub issues optimized for LLM agent execution first, human readability second.
Every issue produced by this skill follows the Agent-Optimized Issue Format — structured sections
with consistent headers, machine-parseable acceptance criteria, explicit file paths, verification
methods, and clear scope boundaries.
Activation
This skill activates when users want to create work items for an agent team. Recognize these signals:
| Signal | Examples |
|---|---|
| Direct | "create an issue", "write a ticket", "plan this work" |
| Implicit | "we need to fix...", "let's add...", "can we refactor..." |
| Shorthand | "/pm", "project manager", "create task" |
Arguments
| Flag | Description |
|---|---|
-quick |
Quick mode — propose smart defaults instead of blocking on ambiguity |
Usage: /pm -quick add a delete button to user profiles
Parse the first argument for -quick. If present, activate quick mode. Everything after the flag is the task description.
Core Workflow
1. Classify → 2. Discover → 3. Challenge → 4. Explore Codebase → 5. Draft → 6. Review → 7. CreateStep 1: Classify Issue Type
Use AskUserQuestion to determine the issue type:
Question: "What type of work is this?"
Options:
- Bug: Something is broken or behaving incorrectly
- Feature: New functionality or enhancement to existing behavior
- Epic: Large initiative requiring 3+ coordinated tasks
- Refactor: Improve code structure without changing behavior
- New Project: Build something from scratch (includes tech stack decisions)
- Chore/Research: Maintenance, dependency updates, spikes, investigationsIf the user's initial message already makes the type obvious (e.g., "there's a crash when..."),
skip this step and classify automatically. State your classification and proceed.
Step 2: Type-Specific Discovery
Run the question flow for the classified type. See references/WORKFLOWS.md.
Key principles:
- Use
AskUserQuestionfor structured choices (max 4 questions per call, 2-4 options each) - Use follow-up conversation for open-ended details
- Batch related questions together to minimize round-trips
- If user says "you decide" or similar, make a reasonable choice and note it as
[AGENT-DECIDED: rationale] - Mark gaps as
[NEEDS CLARIFICATION: question]— don't guess on ambiguous requirements - Never accept vague requirements. Before moving to the next step, critically examine every
requirement for specificity. If a user says "add a button", ask: Where? What states? What action?
If a user says "fix the bug", ask: What exact behavior? What's expected vs actual? What triggers it?
Treat every underspecified detail as a blocker.
Step 3: Requirements Challenge
After discovery, systematically check for underspecified requirements. See the
Requirements Challenge Checklist in references/WORKFLOWS.md
for the full dimension list.
Default mode (critical):
- Analyze gathered requirements against the challenge checklist dimensions
- Identify every gap — placement, states, behavior, edge cases, error handling, accessibility
- Use
AskUserQuestionto probe each gap (batch related questions, max 4 per call) - Do NOT proceed to codebase exploration until all critical ambiguities are resolved
- An agent executing the resulting issue should never need to guess intent
Quick mode (-quick):
- Analyze gathered requirements against the same checklist dimensions
- For each gap, propose a smart default with rationale
- Present all assumptions in a single summary: "Here's what I'll assume: [list]. Confirm or correct?"
- Proceed after one confirmation round — only block on truly ambiguous requirements where no
reasonable default exists - Tag every assumed detail in the final issue body with
[AGENT-DECIDED: rationale]
Example — "add a delete button to user profiles":
Critical mode:
I need to clarify several details before drafting:
- Where on the profile page should the button go? (header actions, settings section, footer)
- Who can see it? (all users, admins only, own profile only)
- What happens on click? (immediate delete, confirmation dialog, soft delete)
- What are the visual states? (default, hover, disabled, loading)
- What about error handling? (network failure, permission denied)
Quick mode (-quick):
Here's what I'll assume — confirm or correct:
- Placement: profile header action bar, right-aligned
- Visibility: own profile only, admins on any profile
- On click: confirmation dialog → soft delete → redirect to home
- States: default (red outline), hover (red fill), loading (spinner), disabled (greyed, no permission)
- Errors: toast notification with retry option
Step 4: Codebase Exploration
Before drafting, explore the codebase to enrich the issue with concrete details:
- Discover: Use the Explore agent to survey the codebase for structure, conventions, and relevant areas. For large or unfamiliar codebases, use repomix-explorer (if available) to get a structural overview.
- Target: Use
Glob,Grep, andReadto drill into specific files identified during discovery — find files that need modification, understand current patterns, check for related work (TODOs, existing tests, related components), and verify that proposed changes don't conflict with existing code.
This step is critical — agents executing the issue will perform better with accurate file paths
and pattern-aware implementation hints.
Step 5: Draft the Issue
Use the appropriate template from references/TEMPLATES.md.
Agent-first formatting rules:
- Sections are contracts — every section header means something. Agents parse them.
- Acceptance criteria are tests — write them as verifiable assertions:
VERIFY: [condition] - File paths are absolute from repo root —
src/auth/login.ts, not "the login file" - Approach is sequential — numbered steps an agent follows linearly
- Scope is explicit — "In Scope" and "Out of Scope" prevent agents from over-engineering
- Dependencies are linked —
Blocked by: #NandBlocks: #N - Constraints are non-negotiable — performance targets, backwards compatibility, etc.
Write the draft to a temp file: /tmp/issue-body.md
Step 6: Review
Present the draft to the user with a summary:
- Title
- Type and labels
- Key acceptance criteria
- File scope
Ask: "Ready to create this issue, or want to adjust anything?"
For epics: also present the sub-issue breakdown before creating.
Step 7: Create
gh issue create --repo OWNER/REPO \
--title "<type-prefix>: <description>" \
--body-file /tmp/issue-body.md \
--label "<type-label>"Title prefixes by type:
| Type | Prefix | Label |
|---|---|---|
| Bug | fix: |
bug |
| Feature | feat: |
enhancement |
| Epic | epic: |
epic |
| Refactor | refactor: |
refactor |
| New Project | project: |
project |
| Chore | chore: |
chore |
| Research | spike: |
research |
On failure: Save draft to /tmp/issue-draft-{timestamp}.md, report error.
On success: Remove the temp file: rm -f /tmp/issue-body.md
For epics: create the parent issue first, then sub-issues with Part of #EPIC_NUMBER references. Clean up /tmp/issue-body.md only after all sub-issues are created successfully.
Report all created issue URLs to the user.
Quality Checklist
Before creating any issue, verify:
- Title is concise and action-oriented (imperative mood)
- Acceptance criteria are testable — not vague ("improve performance" → "response time < 200ms")
- Implementation hints reference real files found via codebase exploration
- Scope boundaries are explicit (In/Out of Scope sections)
- Dependencies are identified and linked
- No external context required — issue is self-contained
- Uncertainty is marked with
[NEEDS CLARIFICATION: ...] - Agent-decided items are marked with
[AGENT-DECIDED: rationale]
Duplicate Check
Before creating, always search for existing issues:
gh issue list --search "keywords" --state all --limit 10If similar issue exists → inform user, suggest linking instead of duplicating.
Repo Detection
Detect the current repo automatically:
gh repo view --json nameWithOwner -q .nameWithOwnerIf not in a git repo or no remote → ask user for the target repo.
Templates & Workflows
- references/WORKFLOWS.md — Type-specific question flows
- references/TEMPLATES.md — Agent-optimized issue templates