jira-validate-issue-type

name: jira-validate-issue-type description: Validate whether issues have the correct type (Bug, Story, Task), align Activity Type with classification, and label standalone stories as enhancement.

Validate Issue Type

Analysis skill for the jira-triage infrastructure. Evaluates issues to determine whether the assigned type (Bug, Story, Task) matches the content, aligns Activity Type with the resolved classification, and produces SET_FIELDS and ADD_LABEL operations that flow into the Apply capability. Issues that are too large for a standalone Story are left as-is for a human to decide next steps.

Implements RHOAIENG-52420.

Before running this skill, read persona.md and jira-project-reference.md. The persona defines the execution protocol (thoroughness, verification, no assumptions). The project reference provides issue type classification criteria, classification label definitions, and field IDs.

Dashboard ownership prerequisite

This skill applies only to issues owned by the RHOAI Dashboard program team. Full Triage: run only after jira-triage Step 2a passes. If the issue belongs to another team (or the Jira Team field is not Dashboard and was not cleared by the gate), produce no operations for that issue. See jira-project-reference.md § Dashboard ownership (triage scope).

Scope

All issue types. Every issue in the input set is evaluated.

Required Fields

When fetching issues (via the triage Fetch capability or directly), request these fields:

Activity Type as a classification signal

Read jira-project-reference.md § Activity Type for option names and semantics. Jira values are exactly: Tech Debt & Quality, Learning & Enablement, New Features.

Reporter value is a hint, not ground truth. Always validate against summary and description. When Activity Type is already set and matches what the text supports, treat that as high confidence — require clearer contradictory evidence than you would on an unset field before changing issue type. When Activity Type conflicts with content (e.g. New Features on a reproducible defect narrative), trust content and fix both issue type and Activity Type together.

Mapping after you resolve issue type (apply the checks below first; Activity informs tie-breaks, not a bypass):

Constraints from the program field: Learning & Enablement implies Task; New Features implies Story. If the reporter set New Features but the issue is clearly a Bug or Task by content, reclassify the type and set Activity accordingly. If Learning & Enablement is set but the issue is user-facing enhancement work that should be a Story, reclassify to Story + New Features.

Emitting operations: Prefer a single SET_FIELDS per issue that includes every field being updated. When you change issuetype, include customfield_10464 in the same params.fields object whenever Activity Type should change or was empty. Use separate SET_FIELDS only when Activity alone needs correction.

Checks

Process each issue through the checks below in order. The first match determines the classification. Each check produces zero or more operations.

Check 1: Bug misclassification

Condition: Content describes a defect in existing functionality but the type is not Bug.

Procedure:

1. Read the issue's summary and description. Consider Activity Type: New Features with defect-like content is a strong mismatch signal; Tech Debt & Quality aligns with bugs. If Activity is unset but text is clearly a defect, classify as Bug regardless.
2. Cypress / CI flake — do not promote to Bug: If the type is Task or Story and the issue matches the flaky Cypress / CI tests (keep Task) exception in jira-project-reference.md § Issue Type Classification Criteria (flake wording, dashboard-cypress-flake or similar labels, spec-focused intermittent failure without a user-visible product defect narrative), produce no operation here and continue to Check 2. Triage must not reclassify these as Bug merely because a test fails or times out; Check 2 may reclassify a misfiled Story to Task.
3. Otherwise evaluate against the Bug signals in jira-project-reference.md § Issue Type Classification Criteria:
   • Regression, broken behavior, error/crash, incorrect output, data loss
   • Security vulnerability in existing code
   • Behavior contradicting documented or expected functionality
4. If the content clearly describes a defect and the type is not Bug, produce a SET_FIELDS operation that sets Bug and Activity Type Tech Debt & Quality (unless Activity is already correct — then omit customfield_10464):

   {
     "action": "SET_FIELDS",
     "params": {
       "fields": {
         "issuetype": { "name": "Bug" },
         "customfield_10464": { "value": "Tech Debt & Quality" }
       }
     },
     "reason": "<one-sentence justification citing the defect signal; mention Activity if correcting a prior New Features>"
   }
   

5. Stop processing further checks for this issue.

Check 2: Task misclassification

Condition: Content describes non-user-facing technical work but the type is not Task.

Procedure:

1. Read the issue's summary and description. Activity Type: Learning & Enablement strongly supports Task — give it extra weight when the text matches enablement/training. New Features with purely internal work is a mismatch; set Activity to Tech Debt & Quality or Learning & Enablement per content when you set Task.
2. Evaluate against the Task signals in jira-project-reference.md § Issue Type Classification Criteria:
   • Refactoring, code cleanup, infrastructure, CI/CD, build changes
   • Dev tooling, test improvements, documentation updates, dependency updates
3. If the content clearly describes non-user-facing work and the type is not Task, produce a SET_FIELDS operation with Task and the appropriate Activity Type (Learning & Enablement vs Tech Debt & Quality per jira-project-reference.md § Activity Type):

   {
     "action": "SET_FIELDS",
     "params": {
       "fields": {
         "issuetype": { "name": "Task" },
         "customfield_10464": { "value": "Tech Debt & Quality" }
       }
     },
     "reason": "<one-sentence justification citing the technical work signal and, if non-obvious, why Tech Debt & Quality vs Learning & Enablement>"
   }
   

4. Stop processing further checks for this issue.

Check 3: Story qualification

Condition: Content describes user-facing work (not a Bug or Task).

Evaluate whether the work qualifies as a Story. Use the criteria in jira-project-reference.md § Issue Type Classification Criteria → "Is it user-facing work?"

Path A: Qualifies as a Story

The work meets ALL of:

• Relevant to an existing feature (not a net-new product area)
• Minor in scope (single component, limited UI surface, no new pages/sections)
• Clear enough to act on without an epic or product discovery

Positive signals that an issue qualifies as a Story (not sufficient alone, but strengthen the case):

• Triggered by or linked to a RHOAIUX issue (UX department work with design direction)
• Labeled ux-debt (small UX improvements with known scope)
• Has Figma/design links, specific component references, or clear acceptance criteria

Procedure:

1. If the type is not already Story, produce a SET_FIELDS operation with Story and Activity Type New Features when Activity is unset or wrong (omit customfield_10464 only if already New Features):

   {
     "action": "SET_FIELDS",
     "params": {
       "fields": {
         "issuetype": { "name": "Story" },
         "customfield_10464": { "value": "New Features" }
       }
     },
     "reason": "<see reason text requirements below>"
   }
   

2. If the type is already Story but Activity Type is empty or incorrect, produce a SET_FIELDS with only customfield_10464 → New Features (or merge with other fields if emitted in the same batch).
3. If the enhancement label is not already present, produce an ADD_LABEL operation:

   {
     "action": "ADD_LABEL",
     "params": { "labels": ["enhancement"] },
     "reason": "<see reason text requirements below>"
   }
   

Reason text for Story classifications must explain why the issue qualifies as a standalone Story. Cover these points in 2-3 sentences:

• What existing feature this extends (not net-new)
• Why the scope is minor (what is the bounded UI surface)
• What makes it clear enough to act on (design refs, explicit AC, backend already exists, etc.)

Path B: Too large for a Story — leave as-is

Any of the following disqualify the issue from being a Story:

• Introduces a net-new product area, page, or section
• Requires significant workflow changes across multiple components
• Needs new integrations or backend capabilities that don't exist yet
• Scope is unclear or requires product discovery
• Multi-sprint effort that should be tracked under an epic
• No obvious fit with any existing feature area

Procedure:

1. Do NOT change the issue type or add labels. A human decides next steps for these issues.
2. If the type is Story and Activity Type is empty, produce SET_FIELDS with customfield_10464 → New Features so the card reflects user-facing scope. Otherwise produce no operations.

Already correct

If the issue type matches the content, required labels are satisfied, and Activity Type matches the § Activity Type mapping for that type, produce no operations.

Backfill / correction only: If the issue type is already correct but Activity Type is empty or wrong (e.g. Story with Tech Debt & Quality), produce a single SET_FIELDS updating only customfield_10464 — no duplicate issue-type change.

Content-Based Assessment Guidelines

• Read the full description. The summary alone is often insufficient -- a summary like "Add export button" could be a minor Story or a major feature depending on the description.
• Use Activity Type with the confidence rules in § Activity Type as a classification signal — stronger prior when set and consistent; override when it conflicts with clear content.
• Do not over-classify. Only produce operations when there is clear evidence of a mismatch. If the type is plausible, leave it alone.
• When ambiguous between Story (Path A) and too-large (Path B), lean toward Path B (leave as-is). It is safer to leave a large issue for human review than to prematurely classify it as a small Story.
• UX department issues with clear scope and design direction typically qualify as Stories. Look for Figma/design links, specific component references, or clear acceptance criteria as positive signals. Issues triggered by RHOAIUX issues or labeled ux-debt are often standalone stories because they represent scoped UX improvements with known design direction.
• Story classification reasons must be detailed. Unlike other checks where one sentence suffices, Story qualification is the highest-judgment call in this skill. The reason must explain which existing feature is being extended, why the scope is minor, and what evidence makes it actionable. See the reason text requirements under Path A.
• Do not evaluate priority or severity. Those are handled by the validate-priority-severity skill.

Output

Output MUST validate against operations-schema.json. This skill emits SET_FIELDS and ADD_LABEL operations.

Wrap the operations in the standard metadata envelope:

{
  "metadata": {
    "generated": "<ISO-8601 timestamp>",
    "query": "<JQL or description of how issues were selected>",
    "issueCount": "<total issues in the evaluated set (static, set from initial query)>"
  },
  "operations": [ ... ]
}

The output flows into the Apply capability of the triage infrastructure. When invoked standalone (outside Full Triage), Apply defaults to dry-run mode: it validates, presents the summary, writes the operations file to .artifacts/triage/, and stops. The user reviews the file and explicitly applies it later. To execute immediately, the user must request it (e.g., "validate issue types and apply").

Examples

Type change: Story filed as Bug

Given issue RHOAIENG-55000 ("Add dark mode toggle to cluster settings") with type=Bug:

{
  "metadata": {
    "generated": "2026-03-25T10:00:00Z",
    "query": "project = RHOAIENG AND component = \"AI Core Dashboard\" AND status = New",
    "issueCount": 1
  },
  "operations": [
    {
      "issueKey": "RHOAIENG-55000",
      "summary": "Add dark mode toggle to cluster settings",
      "action": "SET_FIELDS",
      "params": {
        "fields": {
          "issuetype": { "name": "Story" },
          "customfield_10464": { "value": "New Features" }
        }
      },
      "reason": "Describes a minor UI addition to existing cluster settings page, not a defect"
    },
    {
      "issueKey": "RHOAIENG-55000",
      "summary": "Add dark mode toggle to cluster settings",
      "action": "ADD_LABEL",
      "params": { "labels": ["enhancement"] },
      "reason": "Standalone user-facing enhancement"
    }
  ]
}

Type change: Bug filed as Story

Given issue RHOAIENG-55002 ("Pipeline run table shows wrong status after cancellation") with type=Story:

{
  "metadata": {
    "generated": "2026-03-25T10:00:00Z",
    "query": "project = RHOAIENG AND component = \"AI Core Dashboard\" AND status = New",
    "issueCount": 1
  },
  "operations": [
    {
      "issueKey": "RHOAIENG-55002",
      "summary": "Pipeline run table shows wrong status after cancellation",
      "action": "SET_FIELDS",
      "params": {
        "fields": {
          "issuetype": { "name": "Bug" },
          "customfield_10464": { "value": "Tech Debt & Quality" }
        }
      },
      "reason": "Describes incorrect display behavior after cancellation — defect in existing pipeline run table; Activity aligned to Tech Debt & Quality"
    }
  ]
}