Apollo Issue Review

Follow this workflow to review an Apollo issue and produce a concise maintainer response.

Core Principles

• - Classify first: behavior/regression issue vs consultative/support question.
• For behavior/regression issues: reproduce first, theorize second.
• For consultative/support questions (for example "is there an official script/doc"): do evidence check first and answer directly; do not force "reproduced/not reproduced" wording.
• Solve the user ask, do not debate whether the user is right or wrong.
• If behavior is already reproduced and conclusion is stable, do not ask for extra info.
• Do not default to "version regression" analysis unless the user explicitly asks for version comparison or it changes the recommendation.
• Match the issue language: English issue -> English reply, Chinese issue -> Chinese reply (unless the user explicitly asks for bilingual output).
• Use canonical Apollo module names from repository reality (AGENTS/module layout/root pom.xml), and correct misnamed terms succinctly when needed.
• If an existing comment already answers the same ask (including bot replies), avoid duplicate long replies; prefer a short addendum that only contributes corrections or missing deltas.
• Never wrap GitHub @mention handles in backticks/code spans; use plain @handle so notifications are actually triggered.
• If a community user volunteers to implement ("认领"/"first contribution"), acknowledge and encourage first, then evaluate the proposal with explicit feasibility boundaries and concrete refinement suggestions.
• For OpenAPI-related asks, explicitly separate Portal web APIs (e.g., /users) and OpenAPI endpoints (e.g., /openapi/v1/*); only claim "OpenAPI supports X" when token-based OpenAPI path is verified.
• Before concluding "capability not available", cross-check code + docs/scripts + module/dependency hints from pom.xml to avoid false negatives caused by path assumptions.

Input Contract

Collect or derive these fields before review:

• - repo: INLINECODE5
• INLINECODE6: numeric ID
• INLINECODE7: title/body/comments
• INLINECODE8: draft-only (default) or INLINECODE10
• INLINECODE11: human (default) or INLINECODE13

Optional but recommended:

• - known_labels: existing labels on the issue
• INLINECODE15: whether user wants only triage or triage + implementation handoff

If issue_number or issue_context is missing, ask one short clarification before continuing.

Workflow

1. 1. Collect issue facts and user ask

• - Read issue body and comments before concluding.
• Extract: primary ask, symptom, expected behavior, actual behavior, and whether user asks one path or an either-or path.
• Keep user asks explicit (for example "better parsing API OR raw text API": answer both).
• Detect whether the thread includes a contribution-claim ask (for example "can I take this issue?") and treat it as a guidance+boundary response, not only a capability yes/no response.
• Detect main language from issue title/body/recent comments and set reply language before drafting.
• Decide issue type up front:

- behavior/regression (needs reproducibility check) - consultative/support (needs evidence check)

• - Normalize names to canonical module/service terms used by Apollo repo (e.g., apollo-portal, not invented service names).
• If GitHub API access is unstable, use:

CODEBLOCK0

1. 2. Run the right validation path (mandatory)

• - For behavior/regression issues:

- Build a minimal, local, runnable reproduction for the reported behavior. - Prefer repo-native unit tests or a tiny temporary script over speculation. - Record exact observed output and types, not just interpretation.

• - For consultative/support questions:

- Verify by repository evidence scan (docs/scripts/code paths), not by speculative reproduction framing. - For API availability asks, verify in three places before concluding: 1) actual controller paths, 2) docs/openapi scripts, 3) module/dependency pointers in pom.xml. - Record exact files/paths searched and what exists vs does not exist.

• - Example checks:

CODEBLOCK1

1. 3. Branch by validation result

• - Behavior/regression path:

- If reproducible: - State clearly that behavior is confirmed. - Identify whether this is supported behavior, usage mismatch, or current feature gap. - Then answer user asks directly (existing API/workaround/unsupported). - If not reproducible: - Ask for minimal missing evidence only: - input sample - exact read/access code - expected vs actual output - Keep this short and concrete.

• - Consultative/support path:

- If capability/script/doc exists: provide exact path/link and usage entry point. - If it does not exist: state "currently not available" directly and give one practical alternative. - If an existing comment already covered the same conclusion: post only a concise delta/correction instead of repeating the full answer.

1. 4. Draft maintainer reply (focus on action)

• - Start with a one-paragraph summary in the thread language:

- behavior/regression issue: reproduction summary (复现结论 / Reproduction Result) - consultative/support issue: direct conclusion summary (结论 / Conclusion)

• - Then include:

- 当前能力与边界: what is supported today and what is not. - 可行方案: exact API/command/workaround user can run now. - 后续路径: either invite PR with concrete files/tests, or state maintainers may plan it later without overpromising timeline.

• - If the thread includes a contribution-claim proposal, structure the main body as:

1) appreciation and encouragement, 2) feasibility judgment, 3) concrete implementation refinements (what to reuse vs what not to reuse directly).

• - If user ask is either-or, answer both explicitly.
• If already confirmed feature gap, do not request more logs/steps by default.
• Keep wording factual and concise.
• Use canonical module names in final wording; if the issue uses a non-canonical name, correct it briefly without derailing the answer.
• If there is already a correct prior comment, prefer "reference + minimal supplement" format.
• If you mention users/bots, keep mentions as plain text (e.g., @dosubot), not code-formatted mention strings.
• Use localized section labels and wording by issue language (for example: Reproduction Result / Current Support Boundary / Practical Path / Next Step in English threads).

1. 5. Ask for publish confirmation (mandatory gate)

• - Default behavior: generate draft only; do not post automatically.
• Present the exact comment body first, then ask for confirmation in the same thread.
• Use a direct question in the same language as the thread, e.g.:

- Chinese: 是否直接发布到 issue #<id>？回复“发布”或“先不发”。 - English: Post this to issue #<id> now? Reply "post" or "hold".

• - Treat no response or ambiguous response as not approved.

1. 6. Post the response only after explicit confirmation

• - Allowed confirmation examples: 发布 / 帮我发 / 直接回复上去.
• If user intent is unclear, ask one short clarification question before any post command.
• Preferred:

gh api repos/<owner>/<repo>/issues/<id>/comments -f body='<reply>'

• - Fallback when gh transport is unstable:

TOKEN=$(gh auth token)
curl --http1.1 -sS -X POST \
  -H "Authorization: token $TOKEN" \
  -H "Accept: application/vnd.github+json" \
  -d '{"body":"<reply>"}' \
  https://api.github.com/repos/<owner>/<repo>/issues/<id>/comments

• - After posting, return the comment URL as evidence.

Output Contract

Default (output_mode=human) output should be human-friendly:

1. 1. INLINECODE36

• - issue type + confidence
• validation result (reproduced / not reproduced / evidence result)

1. 2. INLINECODE37

• - labels to add
• missing information (if any)
• whether it is ready for implementation handoff

1. 3. INLINECODE38

• - First sentence must match issue type:

- behavior/regression: reproducibility status (已复现/暂未复现 or Reproduced/Not yet reproduced) - consultative/support: direct availability conclusion

• - Include at least one concrete API/code path/file reference.
• If unsupported today: include support boundary + practical workaround + next path.
• If reproducible and conclusion is stable: do not request extra data.
• If not reproducible: request only minimal reproducible inputs.
• If prior comment already solved the ask: provide concise delta only.
• Do not present unverified root cause as fact.
• Keep language matched to issue language unless user asks otherwise.

1. 4. INLINECODE41

• - If no explicit publish confirmation exists, end with:

- Chinese: 是否直接发布到 issue #<id>？回复“发布”或“先不发”。 - English: INLINECODE43

If output_mode=pipeline, append one machine-readable block after the human output:

CODEBLOCK4

Load References When Needed

• - Use references/diagnostic-playbook.md for scenario-specific diagnostics and command snippets.
• Use references/reply-templates.md for reusable Chinese maintainer reply skeletons.