gh-devkade-collaborator-skills-oss-contribution-framework/skills/issue-discovery/SKILL.md

name, description

name	description
oss:issue-discovery	Phase 1 of OSS contribution - Find and evaluate suitable issues matching your skills, time, and learning goals. Filters by labels, assesses project health, and provides structured recommendations. Use when starting OSS contribution, looking for beginner-friendly issues, or evaluating multiple issue options.

Phase 1: Issue Discovery & Triage

Find and evaluate suitable issues to work on in open source projects.

Purpose

Help contributors identify issues that match their:

• Skill level and experience
• Available time commitment
• Learning goals
• Interest areas

When to Use

Triggers:

• "좋은 이슈 찾아줘"
• "beginner-friendly 이슈 추천"
• "이 프로젝트에서 뭘 할 수 있을까?"
• "이 이슈가 나한테 맞을까?"

Use when:

• Starting contribution to a new project
• Looking for next issue after completing one
• Evaluating multiple issue options
• Unsure which issue to tackle

Discovery Process

Step 1: Understand Contributor Profile

Ask or infer:

• Experience level: First-time, intermediate, experienced
• Tech stack familiarity: Languages, frameworks, tools
• Time availability: Quick fix, moderate, substantial project
• Goals: Learn, build portfolio, fix personal pain point, give back
• Preferences: Bug fix, feature, docs, tests, refactoring

Step 2: Project Assessment

Before searching issues, evaluate project health and read contribution guidelines:

MANDATORY: Read CONTRIBUTING.md

• MUST read and understand the repository's CONTRIBUTING.md file
• Note required workflow, branch naming, commit conventions
• Identify testing requirements and code style guidelines
• Check for CLA (Contributor License Agreement) requirements
• Understand PR submission process and review expectations
• All subsequent phases MUST follow these guidelines

Health indicators:

• Recent commit activity (last 7-30 days)
• Responsive maintainers (issue/PR response time)
• Clear contribution guidelines (CONTRIBUTING.md present)
• Active community (discussions, recent merges)
• Good documentation

Red flags:

• No activity for 6+ months
• Many ignored PRs or issues
• Hostile or dismissive maintainer responses
• No CONTRIBUTING.md or unclear guidelines
• Constant breaking changes

Output format:

### Project Health Check
- **Activity:** [recent commits/releases]
- **Responsiveness:** [avg maintainer response time]
- **Community:** [# contributors, discussion activity]
- **CONTRIBUTING.md:** ✅ Read and understood / ⚠️ Unclear / ❌ Missing
  - Key requirements: [workflow, testing, style, etc.]
- **Assessment:** ✅ Good to contribute / ⚠️ Proceed with caution / ❌ Not recommended

Step 3: Issue Filtering

Use multiple filters to find candidates:

Critical filters (MUST apply):

• No linked PR: Exclude issues that already have associated pull requests
  • Check issue references, linked PRs in GitHub UI
  • Skip issues marked "has-pr" or with PR links in comments
• Beginner-friendly priority: Focus on accessible issues
  • Labels: good first issue, beginner-friendly, help wanted
  • Labels: up-for-grabs, easy, low-hanging-fruit
• High priority labels: Prioritize important work
  • Look for: priority: high, high-priority, important, urgent
  • Repository-specific priority indicators
  • Issues referenced in roadmap or milestones

By issue type:

• documentation, bug, enhancement
• Prefer well-scoped, clearly defined issues

By complexity:

• Simple (1-4 hours): Typos, docs, simple bugs, config changes
• Moderate (1-2 days): Feature additions, refactoring, moderate bugs
• Complex (1+ weeks): Architecture changes, major features, complex bugs

By recency:

• Prefer issues updated within last 30 days
• Check for assigned developers
• Look for maintainer engagement

Step 4: Individual Issue Evaluation

For each candidate issue, assess:

Quality Indicators ✅

Clear description:

• Problem statement is specific
• Expected behavior defined
• Actual behavior described
• Steps to reproduce (for bugs)

Good context:

• Relevant error messages/logs
• Environment details (version, OS, browser)
• Screenshots or examples
• Links to related issues/discussions

Maintainer engagement:

• Maintainer has commented
• Issue is confirmed/triaged
• No one currently assigned
• Not marked as "wontfix" or "blocked"

Warning Signs ⚠️

• Has linked PR - Issue already being worked on
• Vague or unclear requirements
• No maintainer response
• Already assigned to someone
• Marked as "blocked", "on-hold", or "needs-discussion"
• Very old issue (6+ months) with no activity
• Duplicate of another issue
• Controversial or disputed approach

Evaluation Template

For each candidate issue:

## Issue: [Title] (#[number])
**URL:** [link]
**Labels:** [labels]
**Created:** [date] | **Updated:** [date]

### Quick Assessment
- **Clarity:** ⭐⭐⭐⭐☆ (4/5) - [brief note]
- **Scope:** 🔵 Small | 🟡 Medium | 🔴 Large
- **Difficulty:** 🟢 Easy | 🟡 Moderate | 🔴 Hard
- **Time estimate:** [hours/days]

### Requirements Understanding
- **What needs to be done:** [1-2 sentences]
- **Success criteria:** [how to know it's complete]
- **Unknowns:** [what's unclear or needs investigation]

### Skill Match
- **Required skills:** [list]
- **Your match:** ✅ Good fit / ⚠️ Stretch goal / ❌ Too advanced
- **Learning opportunity:** [what you'll learn]

### Decision
✅ **Good choice because:** [reasons]
⚠️ **Consider if:** [conditions]
❌ **Skip because:** [reasons]

**Recommendation:** [Proceed / Ask maintainer first / Choose another]

Step 5: Multi-Issue Comparison

When evaluating multiple issues, create comparison table:

## Issue Comparison

| Issue | Difficulty | Time | Learning Value | Impact | Priority |
|-------|-----------|------|----------------|--------|----------|
| #123  | 🟢 Easy    | 2h   | ⭐⭐☆         | Medium | 🥇 High  |
| #456  | 🟡 Medium  | 1d   | ⭐⭐⭐        | High   | 🥈 Med   |
| #789  | 🔴 Hard    | 1w   | ⭐⭐⭐⭐     | High   | 🥉 Low   |

### Recommendation
Start with **#123** because:
1. Quick win to familiarize with codebase
2. Clear requirements, low risk
3. Sets foundation for #456 later

**Progression path:** #123 → #456 → #789

Strategic Considerations

First Contribution Strategy

For first-time contributors to a project:

1. Start small: Choose simple issue to learn workflow
2. Build trust: Demonstrate quality before tackling complex work
3. Learn codebase: Use first PR to understand conventions
4. Engage community: Interact respectfully with maintainers

Recommended progression:

First PR: Documentation fix or typo
  ↓
Second PR: Simple bug fix or small feature
  ↓
Third PR: Moderate complexity work
  ↓
Ongoing: Complex features, architecture improvements

Learning-Oriented Selection

When goal is learning:

• Choose stretch issues: Slightly above comfort level
• Look for patterns: Issues that teach transferable skills
• Seek feedback: Projects with detailed code reviews
• Diverse types: Mix bugs, features, refactoring, docs

Impact-Oriented Selection

When goal is maximizing value:

• User-facing issues: Direct user benefit
• Bug fixes: Immediate problem resolution
• Documentation: Helps many future contributors
• Performance: Benefits all users

Portfolio Building

For building public portfolio:

• Substantial features: Show design skills
• Complex bugs: Show debugging ability
• Cross-cutting work: Show system understanding
• Leadership: Help triage, review others' PRs

Engagement Before Starting

Before beginning work, always:

1. Comment on issue:

   "Hi! I'd like to work on this issue.
   
   My understanding is: [brief summary]
   
   I'm planning to: [approach]
   
   Does this sound good? Any guidance appreciated!"
   

2. Wait for confirmation:

   • Maintainer gives go-ahead
   • No one else is assigned
   • Approach is approved

3. Ask questions:

   • Clarify unclear requirements
   • Confirm edge cases
   • Request guidance on approach

Why this matters:

• Avoids duplicate work
• Ensures approach is correct
• Builds relationship with maintainers
• Shows respect for project process

Common Pitfalls

Avoid:

❌ Starting without commenting - Someone else might be working on it ❌ Choosing glamorous but too-hard issues - Will frustrate you and waste time ❌ Ignoring "needs discussion" label - Issue might not be ready ❌ Taking assigned issues - Respect others' claimed work ❌ Multiple issues at once - Finish one before starting next ❌ Stale issues - May be outdated or deprioritized

Output Format

Provide structured recommendation:

# 🎯 Issue Discovery Results

## Selected Issue
**Title:** [Issue title]
**URL:** [link]
**Status:** [open/triaged/confirmed]

### Why This Issue?
1. [Reason 1: skill match, learning, impact, etc.]
2. [Reason 2]
3. [Reason 3]

### What You'll Do
[1-2 sentence summary of the work]

### Prerequisites
- [ ] Comment on issue to claim
- [ ] Wait for maintainer approval
- [ ] Fork repository
- [ ] Set up development environment

### Next Steps
Ready to move to **Phase 2: Issue Analysis**?

---

## Alternative Options

If this doesn't work out, consider:
1. **[Issue #]** - [brief description, why alternative]
2. **[Issue #]** - [brief description, why alternative]

Integration with Main Framework

When invoked from main framework:

1. Receive context: User profile, project URL, preferences
2. Execute discovery: Filter and evaluate issues
3. Return recommendation: Selected issue + reasoning
4. Update tracker: Mark Phase 1 complete
5. Transition: Prepare context for Phase 2

Can be re-invoked at any time if selected issue becomes unavailable or user wants different option.