Use one issue form and a reviewed Ready checklist #2667

Problem

The accepted Base governance design and implementation plan identify package 2 as a required deliverable. This issue translates that package into a reviewed, bounded issue/PR train; it does not authorize implementation before the issue reaches Ready.

Expected behavior

Replace category-specific issue intake with one issue form whose sections and ordering follow the accepted design. Put Bug reproduction steps inside Problem, use the existing native Task/Bug/Feature types, and remove category prefixes from new titles. Define the manual Ready checklist for Type, acceptance-to-test mapping, named slices, risk, ten impact dispositions and open questions. Changing Type after Ready invalidates the readiness approval. The form is not the enforcement boundary for API/CLI-created issues; package 7 verifies those later.

Scope and non-goals

Scope: Replace category-specific issue intake with one issue form whose sections and ordering follow the accepted design. Put Bug reproduction steps inside Problem, use the existing native Task/Bug/Feature types, and remove category prefixes from new titles. Define the manual Ready checklist for Type, acceptance-to-test mapping, named slices, risk, ten impact dispositions and open questions. Changing Type after Ready invalidates the readiness approval. The form is not the enforcement boundary for API/CLI-created issues; package 7 verifies those later.

Non-goals: Do not silently expand scope, activate unreviewed policy, mirror issue fields onto PRs, grant agents merge/release authority, or make changes outside the named affected areas. Any new product decision or materially new work gets a separate issue and decision record.

Affected areas

• .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/, docs/github-workflow.md, CONTRIBUTING.md and examples used to explain issue readiness.
• Accepted source: governance design and implementation plan, PR #2664
• Parent tracker: #2665

Impact and evidence

1. Product intent: Implements only the accepted governance design and plan; any product-requirement change must be filed separately.
2. Architecture and contracts: Destination is the package-specific section of the merged governance design/implementation plan plus the affected canonical contract named above.
3. User guidance: The issue identifies likely guidance paths; the implementation PR must name updated user/FAQ/README paths or give a change-specific reason why none is affected.
4. CLI/API and reference: The affected-area list determines whether CLI/API/reference docs change; the implementation PR must cite the exact reference path or justify no impact.
5. Operations and safety: No privileged automation or merge authority is implied; the PR must list operational/security effects and any rollback.
6. Validation and testing: The issue lists the planned tests; the PR must report executed validation and explain any unavailable test.
7. Examples and downstream use: The implementation PR must identify affected examples/consumers or give evidence that this change has no downstream surface.
8. Governance and contributor process: This package changes or preserves the contributor/governance contract as described in Scope; links must point to the canonical rules.
9. Decision records: No new decision is accepted by this issue; any durable deviation requires a proposed decision record and explicit maintainer acceptance.
10. Release notes: The PR must include a user-facing release-note line or a reasoned none; this issue does not pre-decide that disposition.

These are issue-stage dispositions to refine during Triage. Before Ready, every category must have its exact destination or evidence-based no-impact reason; the PR repeats the ten-category evidence for actual changes.

Open questions

• None known. If implementation exposes an unresolved contract, return this issue to Triage and record the decision before implementation continues.

Plan

• S1: One focused PR for this issue. Use Fixes #N only if no additional slice is needed; if the maintainer approves multiple PRs, name each S1…Sn here before the first is opened and use Part of #N.
• Dependencies: the P1 issue
• Acceptance criteria:
• One issue form presents the shared contract without fragile type-specific form routing; the current Type is checked when an issue moves to Ready.
• Bug reports collect reproduction steps under Problem; switching Type after Ready makes the prior readiness approval stale.
• The form does not duplicate Project fields or Agent Assignment in the body and does not invent issue types.
• The manual checklist explains Triage versus Ready and requires no unresolved blocking question at Ready.
• New titles use plain outcome/problem wording without category prefixes.
• Validation:
• Validate issue-form YAML and render its fields/requiredness.
• Exercise Bug, Feature and Task examples, including a Type change after Ready.
• Search current form and contributor guidance for conflicting title and Agent Assignment rules.
• Risks and rollback: Issue forms apply only to web-created issues; do not claim API/CLI enforcement until package 7 ships. Revert the form PR if it blocks valid issue types or duplicates canonical Project metadata.
• Decision impact: No decision is accepted merely by implementing the issue. Record the relevant accepted decision/ADR and file a superseding record if the maintainer approves a change.