[Issue Arborist] Issue Arborist run summary #2138
Closed
Replies: 1 comment
|
This discussion has been marked as outdated by Issue Arborist. A newer discussion is available at Discussion #2146. |
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
🌳 Issue Arborist Report
Issues analyzed: 63 (open, not already sub-issues)
Parent issues created
None this run — no orphan cluster of 5+ unlinked issues was found; all qualifying clusters already have an existing
[Parent]tracking issue.Links created
[aw] Issue Triage produced no safe outputs— a recurring non-rate-limit agentic workflow execution failure, exactly the class #1549 tracks.[aw] Issue Triage failed(engine terminated unexpectedly) — same failure class as #1549's existing sub-issues.[aw] Agent Documentation Maintainer produced no safe outputs— same recurring no-safe-output failure pattern already grouped under #1549.create-pull-requestreviewers request is a safe-output tool capability gap, matching #1321's "Safe-output tooling" section (alongside #1103, #381, #471).custom-fieldsruntime-value gap is a safe-output tool (create-work-item/update-work-item) implementation limitation, fitting #1321's safe-output tooling scope.Suggested (not linked — for maintainer review)
engine.modelfrom ADO variable) and [agent-issue]: support declarative Azure DevOps pipeline variables in workflow source #2012 (variables:front-matter field) both concern compile-time-vs-runtime configurability of theengine/pipeline surface — a plausible future parent, but only 2 issues so below the 5-issue cluster threshold.Observations
[aw]failure reports,[agent-issue]-tagged feature requests) fit cleanly into existing parents rather than needing new ones — the tree structure from prior Arborist runs is holding up well.All reactions