feat(jira): add initiative issue type support - #605
openshift-merge-bot[bot] merged 4 commits into
Conversation
openshift-ci
Bot
added
needs-rebase
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Enterprise Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
WalkthroughAdds Jira initiative documentation and updates the ChangesJira Initiative Support
Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~10 minutes Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels: Suggested reviewers: 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 10✅ Passed checks (10 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
Caution
Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.
⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)
plugins/jira/commands/create.md (1)
595-604: 🎯 Functional Correctness | 🟡 Minor | ⚡ Quick winInclude
feature-requestin the invalid-type error.The supported-type list in this error omits
feature-request, even though it is accepted elsewhere in the command docs. That will mislead users.Suggested fix
-Valid types: story, epic, feature, initiative, task, bug +Valid types: story, epic, feature, initiative, task, bug, feature-request🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@plugins/jira/commands/create.md` around lines 595 - 604, The invalid issue type message in the create command docs is missing `feature-request` from the supported-types list, which can mislead users. Update the `Invalid Issue Type` example in `create.md` so the list of valid types includes `feature-request` alongside the existing values, keeping the wording consistent with the command’s accepted types.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@plugins/jira/commands/create.md`:
- Around line 498-510: The initiative example in the docs uses unlabeled fenced
blocks, which triggers markdownlint. Update the example in the create command
docs so the command fence is tagged consistently with the surrounding docs, and
tag the explanatory fence as text or markdown; use the existing example section
around the initiative and feature-request commands to locate it.
In `@plugins/jira/skills/create-initiative/SKILL.md`:
- Around line 84-94: The doc contains bare fenced code blocks that trigger
markdownlint, so update every fence in SKILL.md to include an appropriate
language tag. Scan the affected sections around the “Problem Statement” and
other fenced examples, and tag each block consistently (for example, markdown
for prose examples or bash/python where applicable) so no fences remain
unlabeled.
---
Outside diff comments:
In `@plugins/jira/commands/create.md`:
- Around line 595-604: The invalid issue type message in the create command docs
is missing `feature-request` from the supported-types list, which can mislead
users. Update the `Invalid Issue Type` example in `create.md` so the list of
valid types includes `feature-request` alongside the existing values, keeping
the wording consistent with the command’s accepted types.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Enterprise
Run ID: 41c9a838-5200-4178-a696-7fbbf0063da8
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
.claude-plugin/marketplace.jsonPLUGINS.mddocs/data.jsonplugins/jira/.claude-plugin/plugin.jsonplugins/jira/commands/create.mdplugins/jira/skills/create-initiative/SKILL.md
| 8. **Create an initiative**: | ||
| ``` | ||
| /jira:create initiative MYPROJECT "Establish performance testing infrastructure" | ||
| ``` | ||
| → Prompts for problem statement, internal impact, success criteria, epic breakdown | ||
|
|
||
| 9. **Create a feature request**: | ||
| ``` | ||
| /jira:create feature-request RFE "Support custom SSL certificates for ROSA HCP" | ||
| ``` | ||
| → Prompts for nature/description, business requirements, affected components (4-question workflow) | ||
|
|
||
| 9. **Create with project-specific conventions** (examples vary by project): | ||
| 10. **Create with project-specific conventions** (examples vary by project): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🟡 Minor | ⚡ Quick win
Add a language to the new example fences.
Both fences in this initiative example are bare, so markdownlint will keep flagging them. Tag them (bash for the command, text/markdown for the explanatory block) to match the rest of the docs.
Example fix
-```
+```bash
/jira:create initiative MYPROJECT "Establish performance testing infrastructure"
-```
+```🧰 Tools
🪛 markdownlint-cli2 (0.22.1)
[warning] 499-499: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
[warning] 505-505: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@plugins/jira/commands/create.md` around lines 498 - 510, The initiative
example in the docs uses unlabeled fenced blocks, which triggers markdownlint.
Update the example in the create command docs so the command fence is tagged
consistently with the surrounding docs, and tag the explanatory fence as text or
markdown; use the existing example section around the initiative and
feature-request commands to locate it.
Source: Linters/SAST tools
openshift-ci
Bot
added
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
|
@cblecker — I noticed your refactor (consolidating to router skills + reference files, 5e852c5) landed after I branched this PR, so it's now stale: it modifies the deleted Before I rework it: should I adapt to the new structure (a Converting to draft in the meantime. |
880ca66 to
c123eec
Compare
openshift-ci
Bot
removed
the
needs-rebase
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
Caution
Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.
⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)
plugins/jira/commands/create.md (1)
783-785: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🟡 Minor | ⚡ Quick winList
initiativein the CNTRLPLANE skill reference.This inventory still says CNTRLPLANE covers stories, epics, features, and tasks only, but the earlier routing sections now include initiatives too.
Proposed fix
-**cntrlplane** - CNTRLPLANE project conventions (stories, epics, features, tasks) +**cntrlplane** - CNTRLPLANE project conventions (stories, epics, features, initiatives, tasks)🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@plugins/jira/commands/create.md` around lines 783 - 785, The CNTRLPLANE project skills list in the create.md guidance is missing initiative, even though the routing rules already include it. Update the “Project-specific skills” section so the cntrlplane skill reference explicitly lists initiatives alongside stories, epics, features, and tasks, using the existing CNTRLPLANE/ocpbugs wording to keep the skill inventory consistent.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@plugins/jira/commands/create.md`:
- Around line 599-604: The invalid issue type example in the create command docs
is stale because it omits feature-request from the valid type list even though
create.md already accepts it earlier; update the error example near the Action
block to include feature-request alongside the other valid types, keeping the
wording consistent with the existing issue-type guidance.
---
Outside diff comments:
In `@plugins/jira/commands/create.md`:
- Around line 783-785: The CNTRLPLANE project skills list in the create.md
guidance is missing initiative, even though the routing rules already include
it. Update the “Project-specific skills” section so the cntrlplane skill
reference explicitly lists initiatives alongside stories, epics, features, and
tasks, using the existing CNTRLPLANE/ocpbugs wording to keep the skill inventory
consistent.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Enterprise
Run ID: c64b0519-740d-4b21-a255-0fa79fafd823
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
.claude-plugin/marketplace.jsonPLUGINS.mdplugins/jira/.claude-plugin/plugin.jsonplugins/jira/commands/create.md
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (3)
- plugins/jira/.claude-plugin/plugin.json
- PLUGINS.md
- .claude-plugin/marketplace.json
| **Action:** | ||
| ``` | ||
| Invalid issue type "stroy". Valid types: story, epic, feature, initiative, task, bug | ||
|
|
||
| Did you mean "story"? | ||
| ``` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🎯 Functional Correctness | 🟡 Minor | ⚡ Quick win
Include feature-request in the invalid-type example.
The command accepts feature-request earlier in this file, but this error message omits it, so users get a stale valid-type list here.
Proposed fix
-Invalid issue type "stroy". Valid types: story, epic, feature, initiative, task, bug
+Invalid issue type "stroy". Valid types: story, epic, feature, initiative, task, bug, feature-request📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| **Action:** | |
| ``` | |
| Invalid issue type "stroy". Valid types: story, epic, feature, initiative, task, bug | |
| Did you mean "story"? | |
| ``` | |
| **Action:** |
🧰 Tools
🪛 markdownlint-cli2 (0.22.1)
[warning] 600-600: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@plugins/jira/commands/create.md` around lines 599 - 604, The invalid issue
type example in the create command docs is stale because it omits
feature-request from the valid type list even though create.md already accepts
it earlier; update the error example near the Action block to include
feature-request alongside the other valid types, keeping the wording consistent
with the existing issue-type guidance.
c123eec to
a881214
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
docs/index.html (1)
1507-1507: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🔵 Trivial | 💤 Low valueInitiative use-case missing from body_html bullet list.
The description now mentions "initiatives" but the bullet list of use cases in
body_htmlstill only covers stories, epics/features, bugs, and feature requests — no initiative-specific bullet, unlike the siblingcreate-featurepattern this skill claims to follow.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@docs/index.html` at line 1507, Update the body_html content for the jira:create entry so the use-case bullet list includes an initiative-specific item, matching the supported issue types already mentioned in the description. Locate the body_html string in the docs index content and add a clear bullet for creating initiatives, keeping the wording consistent with the existing story/epic/feature/bug/feature request bullets and the sibling create-feature pattern.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@plugins/jira/commands/create.md`:
- Around line 129-159: Update the parent validation flow in the create.md
guidance so Epic creation accepts both Feature and Initiative as valid parent
types, not just Feature. In the pre-validation hierarchy and the “Attempt
Creation with Parent Link” section, reference the Epic parent check used by the
create command logic and make sure the warning/confirmation wording and
field-selection guidance reflect Epic → Feature/Initiative consistently.
---
Nitpick comments:
In `@docs/index.html`:
- Line 1507: Update the body_html content for the jira:create entry so the
use-case bullet list includes an initiative-specific item, matching the
supported issue types already mentioned in the description. Locate the body_html
string in the docs index content and add a clear bullet for creating
initiatives, keeping the wording consistent with the existing
story/epic/feature/bug/feature request bullets and the sibling create-feature
pattern.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Enterprise
Run ID: b6d2c910-2e53-4b4b-92fa-bcb1b2c72312
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
.claude-plugin/marketplace.jsonPLUGINS.mddocs/index.htmlplugins/jira/.claude-plugin/plugin.jsonplugins/jira/commands/create.mdplugins/jira/skills/create-initiative/SKILL.md
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (3)
- .claude-plugin/marketplace.json
- plugins/jira/.claude-plugin/plugin.json
- PLUGINS.md
| # Verify parent type matches expected hierarchy: | ||
| # - If creating Story/Task with --parent, parent should be Epic | ||
| # - If creating Epic with --parent, parent should be Feature | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| **Validation rules:** | ||
| | Creating | Parent Should Be | If Wrong Type | | ||
| |----------|------------------|---------------| | ||
| | Story | Epic | Warn user, ask to confirm or correct | | ||
| | Task | Epic or Story | Warn user, ask to confirm or correct | | ||
| | Epic | Feature or Initiative | Warn user, ask to confirm or correct | | ||
|
|
||
| **If parent not found:** | ||
| ``` | ||
| Parent issue CNTRLPLANE-999 not found. | ||
|
|
||
| Options: | ||
| 1. Proceed without parent link | ||
| 2. Specify different parent | ||
| 3. Cancel creation | ||
|
|
||
| What would you like to do? | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| #### Step 2: Attempt Creation with Parent Link | ||
|
|
||
| Include the appropriate parent field based on issue type: | ||
|
|
||
| - **Story/Task → Epic:** Use `customfield_10014` (Epic Link) | ||
| - **Epic → Feature:** Use `customfield_10018` (Parent Link) | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🎯 Functional Correctness | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win
Include Initiative in Epic parent validation.
The pre-validation note and step 2 only mention Feature, even though the hierarchy and field-reference sections allow Epic → Feature/Initiative. As written, a valid Epic→Initiative link will be rejected or misreported.
Suggested fix
- # - If creating Epic with --parent, parent should be Feature
+ # - If creating Epic with --parent, parent should be Feature or Initiative
...
- - **Epic → Feature:** Use `customfield_10018` (Parent Link)
+ - **Epic → Feature/Initiative:** Use `customfield_10018` (Parent Link)📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| # Verify parent type matches expected hierarchy: | |
| # - If creating Story/Task with --parent, parent should be Epic | |
| # - If creating Epic with --parent, parent should be Feature | |
| ``` | |
| **Validation rules:** | |
| | Creating | Parent Should Be | If Wrong Type | | |
| |----------|------------------|---------------| | |
| | Story | Epic | Warn user, ask to confirm or correct | | |
| | Task | Epic or Story | Warn user, ask to confirm or correct | | |
| | Epic | Feature or Initiative | Warn user, ask to confirm or correct | | |
| **If parent not found:** | |
| ``` | |
| Parent issue CNTRLPLANE-999 not found. | |
| Options: | |
| 1. Proceed without parent link | |
| 2. Specify different parent | |
| 3. Cancel creation | |
| What would you like to do? | |
| ``` | |
| #### Step 2: Attempt Creation with Parent Link | |
| Include the appropriate parent field based on issue type: | |
| - **Story/Task → Epic:** Use `customfield_10014` (Epic Link) | |
| - **Epic → Feature:** Use `customfield_10018` (Parent Link) | |
| # Verify parent type matches expected hierarchy: | |
| # - If creating Story/Task with --parent, parent should be Epic | |
| # - If creating Epic with --parent, parent should be Feature or Initiative |
🧰 Tools
🪛 markdownlint-cli2 (0.22.1)
[warning] 135-135: Tables should be surrounded by blank lines
(MD058, blanks-around-tables)
[warning] 142-142: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@plugins/jira/commands/create.md` around lines 129 - 159, Update the parent
validation flow in the create.md guidance so Epic creation accepts both Feature
and Initiative as valid parent types, not just Feature. In the pre-validation
hierarchy and the “Attempt Creation with Parent Link” section, reference the
Epic parent check used by the create command logic and make sure the
warning/confirmation wording and field-selection guidance reflect Epic →
Feature/Initiative consistently.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Related gap in the same section: line 130 lists Feature→Outcome but not Initiative→Outcome, and the pre-validation table has no Initiative | Outcome row. Since both Feature and Initiative are hierarchyLevel 2, Initiative→Outcome should be valid per the "exactly one level above" rule.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧩 Analysis chain
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash
fd create.md plugins/jira/commands
echo "---"
sed -n '1,40p' plugins/jira/commands/create.md 2>/dev/null | head -40
echo "---line 120-170---"
sed -n '120,170p' plugins/jira/commands/create.md 2>/dev/null
echo "---search Outcome---"
rg -n 'Outcome|hierarchyLevel|hierarchy_level' plugins/jira/commands/create.md 2>/dev/nullLength of output: 686
@cblecker Good catch, and you're right — that's the same class of bug as the Epic→Feature/Initiative gap I flagged. If Feature and Initiative sit at the same hierarchy level, any rule permitting Feature → Outcome should apply symmetrically to Initiative → Outcome, and the pre-validation table should carry a matching Initiative | Outcome row for consistency.
That said, given katherinekeane's note that this PR predates the router-skill/reference-file refactor, plugins/jira/commands/create.md no longer exists on the current branch — so this fix (and my earlier one) would need to be carried into whatever replaces it, i.e., plugins/jira/reference/create-initiative.md and the routing table in plugins/jira/skills/create/SKILL.md. Worth keeping this symmetry rule (Feature/Initiative treated identically wherever hierarchy level is used for parent/child validation) in mind when that rework lands.
✏️ Learnings added
Learnt from: cblecker
Repo: openshift-eng/ai-helpers PR: 605
File: plugins/jira/commands/create.md:0-0
Timestamp: 2026-07-14T21:46:42.069Z
Learning: In the openshift-eng/ai-helpers repository, Jira issue hierarchy treats `Feature` and `Initiative` as the same hierarchy level (siblings, both Level 4/strategic objectives, one level above Epic). Any hierarchy-validation rule, parent-linking logic, or documentation table written for `Feature` (e.g., valid parent/child relationships, Feature→Outcome linking) must be mirrored for `Initiative` for consistency. This applies to plugins/jira/commands/create.md (now superseded by plugins/jira/reference/create-initiative.md and the routing table in plugins/jira/skills/create/SKILL.md after the router-skill refactor).
Note: Learnings are effective only in the context of similar code segments. To apply general coding guidelines, please configure review instructions. You can manage existing learnings in the app.
a881214 to
1b1ba2c
Compare
openshift-ci
Bot
removed
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
openshift-ci
Bot
added
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
1b1ba2c to
4e29892
Compare
openshift-ci
Bot
added
the
needs-rebase
katherinekeane
changed the title
4d27a10 to
571cf68
Compare
openshift-ci
Bot
removed
the
needs-rebase
Add initiative as a new supported issue type (Level 4, internal/architectural work — same hierarchy level as Feature but non-customer-facing). - Add reference/create-initiative.md following the create-feature.md pattern: problem statement, internal impact, success criteria, interactive workflow, description template, and anti-patterns - Update skills/create/SKILL.md: add initiative to type routing table, arguments, hierarchy diagram, parent linking table, pre-validation, error message, and usage examples - Update reference/gcp-hcp.md: add Initiative to issue types, MCP fields table, Epic Linking section, Initiative Template section, and Maintenance upstream sources — synced from openshift-online/gcp-hcp#82 - Bump jira plugin version 0.8.2 → 0.8.3 Note: docs/index.html not regenerated (Docker unavailable locally). Maintainers can run `make update` after merge if needed. Assisted-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
571cf68 to
db2cf74
Compare
|
Hey @cblecker — the lint check is failing because |
openshift-ci
Bot
removed
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
cblecker
left a comment
cblecker
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
SKILL.md line 12 — "initiatives" is missing from the introductory prose (Supports stories, epics, features, tasks, bugs, and feature requests). Every other enumeration in the file (frontmatter, arguments, routing table, error message, examples) was updated to include it.
|
|
||
| Type-specific guidance for creating Jira initiatives representing internal capability and architectural work. | ||
|
|
||
| Initiatives are at the same hierarchy level as Features (Level 4) but are **not customer-facing**. They address architectural gaps, process improvements, and engineering enablement that deliver internal value. Use a Feature instead if customers will directly interact with the capability. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"Level 4" doesn't match the hierarchy in SKILL.md, which places Feature/Initiative at Level 2 — and the Jira API confirms hierarchyLevel: 2 for Initiative. Same issue on gcp-hcp.md line 155.\n\nSimplest fix: drop the level number entirely (matching how create-feature.md handles it), e.g. "Initiatives are at the same hierarchy level as Features but are not customer-facing."
- Add "initiatives" to SKILL.md prose description (line 12) - Add Initiative→Outcome to parent field list and pre-validation table - Remove incorrect "Level 4" label from create-initiative.md and gcp-hcp.md Note: docs/index.html still requires `make update` (Docker/Podman unavailable locally) — CI check for plugins-doc-up-to-date remains failing. Assisted-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Addressed the review comments — here's what was fixed: cblecker's comments:
Also fixed (noted alongside cblecker's parent-linking observation):
docs CI:
CodeRabbit nits:
|
Fixes the plugins-doc-up-to-date CI check. Removes a spurious create-initiative entry that was manually added — reference files don't register as skills in the docs index. Assisted-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
/retest |
|
@coderabbitai resume |
✅ Action performedReviews resumed. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
plugins/jira/skills/create/SKILL.md (1)
3-12: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🔵 Trivial | ⚡ Quick winCoordinate initiative coverage with the Jira create evaluations.
MODERATE overlap: Open PR
#615currently evaluates the Jira create skill across six issue types, while this change addsinitiativeas another supported type. Add an initiative evaluation case there or coordinate the merge order so the new routing path is covered. (github.com)🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@plugins/jira/skills/create/SKILL.md` around lines 3 - 12, Update the Jira create evaluation coverage associated with PR `#615` to include an initiative issue type case, validating the new routing path and its expected behavior. If that evaluation cannot be changed here, coordinate merge order so the initiative support in the Jira create skill is not merged without corresponding coverage.Sources: Coding guidelines, MCP tools
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@plugins/jira/reference/gcp-hcp.md`:
- Line 157: Update the initiative guidance in the hierarchy and section summary
to reflect the canonical relationship Outcome → Initiative → Epic → Story, and
include the required Problem Statement, Success Criteria, and
Timeline/Milestones content. Mirror the established Feature guidance for sibling
Level 4 parent/child rules, including the Outcome relationship.
In `@plugins/jira/skills/create/SKILL.md`:
- Around line 32-33: Update the missing-project-key error message in the
create-Jira skill to include initiatives alongside stories, tasks, epics, and
features, keeping the guidance consistent with the supported type requirements.
---
Nitpick comments:
In `@plugins/jira/skills/create/SKILL.md`:
- Around line 3-12: Update the Jira create evaluation coverage associated with
PR `#615` to include an initiative issue type case, validating the new routing
path and its expected behavior. If that evaluation cannot be changed here,
coordinate merge order so the initiative support in the Jira create skill is not
merged without corresponding coverage.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Enterprise
Run ID: 57c199b0-8def-4bff-be53-c880a6ed5fb3
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
.claude-plugin/marketplace.jsondocs/index.htmlplugins/jira/.claude-plugin/plugin.jsonplugins/jira/reference/create-initiative.mdplugins/jira/reference/gcp-hcp.mdplugins/jira/skills/create/SKILL.md
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- plugins/jira/reference/create-initiative.md
- plugins/jira/.claude-plugin/plugin.json
|
/retest |
1 similar comment
|
/retest |
- Show full hierarchy Outcome → Initiative → Epic → Story in gcp-hcp.md - Update gcp-hcp.md sections list to match create-initiative.md template - Add initiatives to missing-project-key error message in SKILL.md Assisted-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
/lgtm |
openshift-ci
Bot
added
the
tide/merge-method-squash
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: cblecker, katherinekeane The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
/override ci/prow/images |
|
@cblecker: Overrode contexts on behalf of cblecker: ci/prow/images DetailsIn response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
2 participants
Summary
Adds initiative as a supported issue type in the jira plugin, following the reference-file pattern established in #561.
reference/create-initiative.md— type-specific guidance for initiatives (internal/architectural work at Level 4, same hierarchy as Feature but non-customer-facing). Covers: problem statement, internal impact, success criteria, interactive workflow, description template, and anti-patterns.skills/create/SKILL.md— add initiative to routing table, arguments, hierarchy diagram, parent linking table, pre-validation, error message, and usage examples.reference/gcp-hcp.md— add Initiative to issue types list, MCP fields table, Epic Linking section, Initiative Template section (synced from openshift-online/gcp-hcp#82), and Maintenance upstream sources.0.8.2 → 0.8.3Test plan
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Summary by CodeRabbit