chore: GitHub templates (bug/feature/task/PR/RFC)

[flyingrobots]

Adds GitHub templates for:

• Issues: Bug, Feature (umbrella), Task (1–3h)
• PR template
• RFC Discussions template (Ideas category)

Also configured the Echo project board Status options (Blocked/Ready/Done) via API so we can use a simple Kanban.

[coderabbitai]

Summary by CodeRabbit

• New Features

  • Introduced standardized issue templates for bug reports, feature requests, and tasks to improve contribution quality.
  • Added RFC discussion template for proposing significant changes and initiatives.
  • Added pull request template to streamline code submissions.

• Chores

  • Configured project board with workflow status tracking.
  • Updated documentation and resolved formatting issues.

Walkthrough

Adds GitHub templates and documentation updates: an RFC discussion template, three issue templates (bug/feature/task), issue template configuration, a pull request template, and decision/execution-plan doc edits. No runtime code changes. (≤50 words)

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Discussion Template \.github/DISCUSSION_TEMPLATE/rfc.yml	Adds an RFC discussion template with structured textarea fields: summary, motivation, design, alternatives, impact, and rollout.
Issue Templates \.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug.yml, \.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature.yml, \.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/task.yml	Adds bug, feature, and task issue templates: metadata and structured body fields (repro/expected/actual/stack/version/environment for bug; problem/proposal/acceptance for feature; parent linkage, steps, acceptance for task).
Issue Template Config \.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml	Disables blank issues and adds an RFC contact link pointing to discussions.
Pull Request Template \.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md	Adds PR template with Title, Summary, Scope, Links, and Checklist prompts.
Docs / Logs docs/decision-log.md, docs/execution-plan.md	Adds entries documenting template additions, lint fixes, and project-board configuration notes; formatting and lint hygiene only.

Sequence Diagram(s)

(omitted — changes are template/config and documentation only; no control-flow modifications to visualize)

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

• Spot-checks:
  • \.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml — blank_issues_enabled and contact link URL.
  • \.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/*.yml — YAML schema IDs, labels, and environment checkbox options.
  • \.github/DISCUSSION_TEMPLATE/rfc.yml — field IDs/descriptions and formatting.
  • docs/* — verify claimed lint fixes are present and accurate.

Possibly related PRs

• Docs: retire Neo4j journaling workflow #3 — Modifies the same docs (docs/execution-plan.md, docs/decision-log.md); likely related documentation changes.

Poem

Templates tucked in folders bright,
Issues guided, PRs take flight,
RFCs penned with fields aligned,
Docs kept tidy, lint refined—
Small changes, tidy light. ✨ BunBun

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	You can run @coderabbitai generate docstrings to improve docstring coverage.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title Check	✅ Passed	The PR title "chore: GitHub templates (bug/feature/task/PR/RFC)" directly and accurately summarizes the primary change—the addition of multiple GitHub templates for issues, pull requests, and RFC discussions. It is concise, specific, and leaves no ambiguity about what is being added. The title clearly conveys the main objective without unnecessary fluff or vague language, making it scannable in commit history.
Description Check	✅ Passed	The PR description is directly relevant to the changeset, clearly enumerating the templates being added (Bug, Feature, Task issue templates; PR template; RFC Discussions template) and explaining the secondary objective of configuring the Echo project board for Kanban tracking. The description provides meaningful context about the changes without being vague or generic, and it accurately reflects what the code additions accomplish.

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch echo/pr-templates-and-project

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 6

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 8ccbec9 and 2060d08.

📒 Files selected for processing (6)

• .github/DISCUSSION_TEMPLATE/rfc.yml (1 hunks)
• .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug.yml (1 hunks)
• .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml (1 hunks)
• .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature.yml (1 hunks)
• .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/task.yml (1 hunks)
• .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

🪛 markdownlint-cli2 (0.18.1)

.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md

1-1: First line in a file should be a top-level heading

(MD041, first-line-heading, first-line-h1)

🪛 YAMLlint (1.37.1)

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug.yml

[error] 41-41: too many blank lines (1 > 0)

(empty-lines)

.github/DISCUSSION_TEMPLATE/rfc.yml

[error] 33-33: too many blank lines (1 > 0)

(empty-lines)

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml

[error] 6-6: too many blank lines (1 > 0)

(empty-lines)

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature.yml

[error] 23-23: too many blank lines (1 > 0)

(empty-lines)

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/task.yml

[warning] 14-14: too few spaces before comment: expected 2

(comments)

---

[warning] 14-14: missing starting space in comment

(comments)

---

[error] 24-24: too many blank lines (1 > 0)

(empty-lines)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (1)

• GitHub Check: Security Audit

🔇 Additional comments (1)

.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md (1)

1-18: PR template structure is solid, but address markdown linting rule MD041 if enforced.

The markdownlint rule MD041 expects a top-level H1 heading as the first line. PR templates often omit this in favor of starting with form content directly. If your project enforces this rule, add a heading like # Pull Request at line 1. Otherwise, ignore the warning—the current structure is functional and clear.

If you want to keep the current structure without heading, you may need to disable MD041 in .markdownlint.json or the template configuration to prevent CI failures.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 2060d08 and cdcba2e.

📒 Files selected for processing (7)

• .github/DISCUSSION_TEMPLATE/rfc.yml (1 hunks)
• .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug.yml (1 hunks)
• .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml (1 hunks)
• .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature.yml (1 hunks)
• .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/task.yml (1 hunks)
• docs/decision-log.md (2 hunks)
• docs/execution-plan.md (1 hunks)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (1)

• GitHub Check: Security Audit

🔇 Additional comments (6)

docs/decision-log.md (1)

24-25: Decision log entries accurately capture template PR scope and lint fixes.

Lines 24–25 and line 136 appropriately record the PR's aims: templates (bug/feature/task/RFC), project board config, YAML hygiene, and MD022 markdown lint fix. The dual entry (narrative in line 24–25, table summary in line 136) may feel redundant, but it aligns with the document's hybrid format. No issues.

Also applies to: 136-136

docs/execution-plan.md (1)

42-57: Execution plan entries provide clear context for template/cleanup work.

The added "Today's Intent" entries (lines 42–57) document the PR's scope well: template additions, project board config, cleanup for scope hygiene, and markdown lint fix reference. Cross-references to branches and decisions are clear. Formatting follows established patterns. No issues.

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml (1)

1-5: Issue template config is clean and well-formed.

blank_issues_enabled: false enforces template usage, and the RFC contact link correctly routes to GitHub Discussions (Ideas category). YAML is valid, trailing blank line properly removed. The config ties together the new templates and provides a gateway for RFC proposals. Solid setup.

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature.yml (1)

1-22: Feature template is well-structured and guidance is appropriate.

The template guides users through problem statement, scope/boundaries, and cross-linking—exactly what a feature proposal needs. The "feat: " title prefix is idiomatic. The inline guidance ("child tasks will capture steps") ties nicely to the Task template workflow. No YAML issues. Trailing blank line correctly removed.

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/task.yml (1)

1-23: Task template is well-designed; YAML placeholder fix is correct.

The 1–3 hour scope and 5-per-feature cap align with decomposition strategy. Parent issue linkage prevents orphaned tasks. The placeholder "e.g., #22" is now properly quoted—past YAMLlint flagged this correctly, and it's been fixed. Steps + acceptance criteria are standard. Title format consistent. No trailing blank line. Template is solid.

.github/DISCUSSION_TEMPLATE/rfc.yml (1)

1-32: RFC discussion template covers the essential decision points.

Seven sections (summary, motivation, design, alternatives, risks, rollout) follow standard RFC practice. Rollout Plan is a smart inclusion—most proposals gloss over implementation, but it's critical. The sections encourage deliberate thinking without overwhelming the proposer. No YAML issues. Trailing blank line removed. Clean.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between cdcba2e and cd1e26c.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)

• .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug.yml (1 hunks)
• docs/decision-log.md (2 hunks)
• docs/execution-plan.md (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

🪛 LanguageTool

docs/execution-plan.md

[uncategorized] ~60-~60: The official name of this software platform is spelled with a capital “H”.
Context: ... Bug template triage fields - Enhanced .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug.yml with optional f...

(GITHUB)

docs/decision-log.md

[uncategorized] ~26-~26: The official name of this software platform is spelled with a capital “H”.
Context: ...l stack_trace and version fields to .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug.yml | Capture logs ...

(GITHUB)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (1)

• GitHub Check: Security Audit

🔇 Additional comments (2)

docs/execution-plan.md (1)

42-60: Good documentation discipline. These entries track the work clearly.

Your execution-plan updates are well-timestamped and connect the template/project-board changes to concrete deliverables. Keeping this living document in sync with your PRs makes the decision trail auditable.

docs/decision-log.md (1)

24-26: Decision log entries are properly structured and complete.

Your new entries (templates scope, docs lint, bug template triage, and project config) are all populated correctly with context, decision, rationale, and consequences. This is how you keep institutional memory alive across commits.

Also applies to: 137-137