Skip to content

Pattern miner: Add close-older-issues tip to status-report archetype - #283

Draft
github-actions[bot] wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
pattern-miner/status-report-close-older-issues-63497867204cce70
Draft

github-actions[bot] wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
pattern-miner/status-report-close-older-issues-63497867204cce70

Conversation

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

What

Adds one refinement tip to the status-report archetype: prefer close-older-issues: true on create-issue over skip-if-match for recurring reports.

Upstream evidence

Mined githubnext-agentics workflow files and github-gh-aw maintainer docs:

  • workflows/repo-status.mdsafe-outputs.create-issue.close-older-issues: true, no skip-if-match
  • workflows/team-status.md — same shape (close-older-issues: true)
  • workflows/weekly-repo-map.mdclose-older-issues: true alongside expires/max
  • workflows/contribution-check.mdclose-older-issues: true on its recurring report issue

That's four upstream workflows demonstrating the same recurring-report shape, plus corroborating docs in github-gh-aw:

  • .github/aw/report.md — "Recommended for recurring reports: create-issue with close-older-issues: true"; also documents close-older-issues explicitly closing the prior matching issue vs. skip-if-match which skips activation while one remains open
  • .github/aw/create-agentic-workflow-trigger-details.md and .github/aw/github-agentic-workflows.md — recommend close-older-issues: true for recurring digest patterns

Why this wasn't already covered

The existing status-report archetype only recommended skip-if-match + expires for duplicate prevention. skip-if-match skips the whole run while a matching issue is open, whereas close-older-issues lets every scheduled run execute and supersede the prior report — the behavior four of the observed upstream status/report workflows actually use. No existing tip, trigger combo, or archetype captured this distinction; community-digest already had the discussion equivalent (close-older-discussions) but nothing documented the issue-based lifecycle option for status-report.

What changed

  • patterns/archetypes/status-report.json — appended one tip to tips
  • scripts/generate-patterns.py — appended the same tip to the status-report config so regeneration won't drop it (curated tips for measured archetypes are read from archetype_config in the script, not preserved automatically like curated-archetype files)

No triggers, safe outputs, tools, timeout, or measured fields (success_rate, count, top_repos) were touched.

Candidates left out

  • New discussion-task-miner-style archetype (mining GitHub Discussions into issues): only one upstream workflow (discussion-task-miner.md) demonstrates this shape with no corroborating doc recommendation — doesn't meet the two-workflow (or one-workflow-plus-doc) bar.
  • repo-chronicle / narrative digest via create-discussion: already fully covered by the existing community-digest archetype (schedule trigger, create-discussion, close-older-discussions tip).
  • Pre-activation open-PR throttle gate (glossary-maintainer.md, ci-coach.md, etc.): already covered by existing tips across code-improvement, documentation-updater, daily-test-improver, and performance-nut.

Validation

  • npm test (excluding test/copilot-instructions.test.js, which fails identically on main due to a stale hardcoded date assertion unrelated to this change): 324 passed, 0 failed
  • npm run build: succeeded

Generated by Pattern Miner · copilot · auto · 140.3 AIC · ⌖ 9.27 AIC · ⊞ 8.7K ·

Upstream repo-status.md, team-status.md, weekly-repo-map.md, and
contribution-check.md all use safe-outputs.create-issue.close-older-issues:
true for recurring reports instead of skip-if-match, and the gh-aw
maintainer docs (report.md, github-agentic-workflows.md,
create-agentic-workflow-trigger-details.md) recommend it as the default
for recurring digests so each scheduled run always executes and
supersedes the previous report.

Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

0 participants