Update issue writer rules and workflow configurations

[hannesrudolph]

This PR updates the issue writer rules and workflow configurations in the .roo/rules-issue-writer directory.

Changes include:

• Updated workflow XML files for better issue creation process
• Updated GitHub issue templates configuration
• Updated best practices documentation
• Updated common mistakes to avoid documentation
• Removed obsolete technical analysis workflow file
• Updated .roomodes configuration

These changes improve the issue writer mode's functionality and provide better guidance for creating GitHub issues.

---

Important

This PR updates the issue writer rules and workflow configurations to enhance the issue creation process by prioritizing repository-specific templates and improving workflow steps for bug reports and feature requests.

• Workflow Updates:
  • .roo/rules-issue-writer/1_workflow.xml: Revamped workflow to treat the first user message as the issue description, initiate repository detection, and perform codebase discovery immediately.
  • Added steps for determining monorepo context and verifying user claims against code.
  • Introduced comprehensive issue scoping for contributors.
• Template Handling:
  • .roo/rules-issue-writer/2_github_issue_templates.xml: Prioritize repository-specific templates over hardcoded ones, with guidelines for parsing YAML and Markdown templates.
  • Create simple generic templates if no repository templates exist.
• Best Practices and Mistakes:
  • .roo/rules-issue-writer/3_best_practices.xml: Emphasize verifying user claims against code and using repository templates.
  • .roo/rules-issue-writer/4_common_mistakes_to_avoid.xml: Highlight common mistakes like not using repository templates and failing to verify code claims.
• GitHub CLI Usage:
  • .roo/rules-issue-writer/5_github_cli_usage.xml: Detailed command usage for issue creation, template detection, and error handling.
• Misc:
  • Updated .roomodes to reflect new mode behavior and initialization process.

^{This description was created by for ece9c64. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

This PR significantly refactors the issue writer mode configuration and workflow to improve the issue creation process. The changes shift from a hardcoded template approach to a repository-aware system that dynamically detects and uses existing templates while providing better guidance and automation.

Key changes:

• Refactored mode initialization to immediately treat user input as issue descriptions
• Replaced hardcoded templates with dynamic repository template detection
• Enhanced codebase exploration with fact-driven verification
• Removed obsolete technical analysis workflow file

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 7 out of 7 changed files in this pull request and generated 4 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
.roomodes	Updated issue writer mode definition with immediate workflow initialization and simplified description
.roo/rules-issue-writer/6_technical_analysis_workflow.xml	Completely removed obsolete technical analysis workflow (349 lines deleted)
.roo/rules-issue-writer/5_github_cli_usage.xml	Enhanced with template detection commands and repository-agnostic command patterns
.roo/rules-issue-writer/4_common_mistakes_to_avoid.xml	Added comprehensive guidance on mode initialization, technical analysis, and template usage
.roo/rules-issue-writer/3_best_practices.xml	Extensive updates focusing on template usage, fact-driven verification, and technical accuracy
.roo/rules-issue-writer/2_github_issue_templates.xml	Complete rewrite to focus on template detection and parsing rather than hardcoded templates
.roo/rules-issue-writer/1_workflow.xml	Major workflow restructuring with repository detection, monorepo context, and enhanced issue scoping

[Copilot]

The use of an unquoted environment variable $REPO_FULL_NAME in shell commands could lead to issues if the repository name contains spaces or special characters. Consider using double quotes around the variable.

Suggested change

	<command>gh issue list --repo $REPO_FULL_NAME --search "dark theme button visibility" --state all --limit 20</command>
	<command>gh issue list --repo "$REPO_FULL_NAME" --search "dark theme button visibility" --state all --limit 20</command>

[Copilot]

[nitpick] The complex sed regex pattern could be simplified or broken down for better readability and maintainability. Consider using a more readable approach or adding comments explaining the pattern.

Suggested change

	<command>git remote get-url origin 2>/dev/null | sed -E 's/.*[:/]([^/]+)\/([^/]+)(\.git)?$/\1\/\2/' | sed 's/\.git$//'</command>
	<command>
	# Get the Git remote URL for 'origin'
	git remote get-url origin 2>/dev/null |
	# Extract the repository owner and name from the URL
	sed -E 's/.*[:/]([^/]+)\/([^/]+)(\.git)?$/\1\/\2/' |
	# Remove any trailing '.git' from the repository name
	sed 's/\.git$//'
	</command>

[Copilot]

Similar to previous instances, the unquoted $REPO_FULL_NAME variable should be properly quoted to handle repository names with special characters.

Suggested change

	<command>gh issue list --repo $REPO_FULL_NAME --search "[key terms from verified analysis]" --state all --limit 10</command>
	<command>gh issue list --repo "$REPO_FULL_NAME" --search "[key terms from verified analysis]" --state all --limit 10</command>

[Copilot]

The $REPO_FULL_NAME variable should be quoted to handle repository names with spaces or special characters safely.

Suggested change

	<command>gh issue create --repo $REPO_FULL_NAME --title "[Descriptive title]" --body-file github_issue_draft.md --label "[appropriate labels]"</command>
	<command>gh issue create --repo "$REPO_FULL_NAME" --title "[Descriptive title]" --body-file github_issue_draft.md --label "[appropriate labels]"</command>

[ellipsis-dev]

Typographical inconsistency: The manual submission section refers to the draft as being saved at .tmp/github_issue_draft.md, whereas elsewhere the file is referred to as github_issue_draft.md. Please update the file path for consistency.

Suggested change

	- Inform them the draft is saved at .tmp/github_issue_draft.md
	- Inform them the draft is saved at github_issue_draft.md

[ellipsis-dev]

Reference issue: The instruction reads "Return to step 9 to ask about submission again," but there is no step 9 in the updated workflow. It seems this should refer to the step containing the submission question (perhaps step 11). Please update this reference.

Suggested change

	- Return to step 9 to ask about submission again
	- Return to step 11 to ask about submission again