Filing Issues

Issues are opened through issue forms — a Bug report and a Feature request. Blank issues are disabled; questions and troubleshooting go to the links on that page instead.

The forms are longer than most projects’ because most issues here are implemented by a coding agent working from the issue text alone. Anything the form does not capture becomes a round-trip with you, or a guess.

What makes an issue implementable

Three questions have to be answerable without asking you:

Question	Bug report	Feature request
How do I reproduce it / what should exist?	Steps to reproduce, Expected vs actual	Proposed behaviour
How do I know I am done?	Definition of fixed	Acceptance criteria
Where do I look first?	Area, Suspected defect	Area, Where it goes
What must I not change?	Not in scope / already correct	In scope / deliberately not doing

Two fields earn more than their length suggests:

• Chat / session id (bug reports, under Evidence). It lets a maintainer replay the whole transcript and event log for that session. One id often replaces a paragraph of description.
• The scope boundary — the last row of that table. Naming what looks affected but is not, or the adjacent feature that should not be built, is what stops an implementer from changing working code.

Everything optional is genuinely optional. A bug you could not diagnose is still a good bug report: summary, reproduction and evidence, with the suspected-defect field left empty or filled with what you ruled out. A fabricated mechanism is worse than an admitted gap, because the implementer will trust it.

Area and C3

The Area dropdown maps to a C3 component — the options carry ids like c3-113. Whoever picks the issue up runs /c3 query <id> before writing code, so even a rough guess saves them a search. Pick “Not sure” over a wild guess; a wrong id sends the first look at the wrong component.

Implementation gates

Both forms end with an Implementation gates checklist that lands in the issue body unchecked. It is for the implementer, not the reporter — leave it alone. It restates conditions that already apply:

• /c3 query before, /c3 change after a boundary change
• a test written before the fix or feature
• bun run typecheck, bun run lint, bunx ast-grep test, bun run lint:usestate, bun run check:arch, bun run test — see Lint & Tests
• DESIGN.md compliance for anything under src/client/**
• docs updated in the same PR
• a conventional-commit PR title, which release-please turns into the changelog

Titles

• Bugs: <area>: <what goes wrong> — e.g. chat: transcript scrolls past the last message on long chats. Name the defect and its consequence, not the topic; Fix the sidebar is unsearchable two months later.
• Features: feat: <what a user can now do>, optionally scoped — e.g. feat(topics): add bulk selection and delete action.

Filing from an agent

An agent filing with gh issue create bypasses the web forms, so the same structure lives in the repo as the github-issue skill (.claude/skills/github-issue/). Its references/bug-report.md and references/feature-request.md hold the body templates, the rationale for each section, and an annotated real issue to aim at. The web forms mirror those sections — keep the two in step when either changes.

Secrets

Transcripts, server logs and ~/.kanna files contain OAuth tokens and API keys. Redact before pasting. A vulnerability report belongs in a private advisory, never a public issue — and if a credential leaked, rotate it first.