docs(Automation): Improve issue triage agent accuracy and add lib descriptions

[rllyy97]

Commit Type

• feature - New functionality
• fix - Bug fix
• refactor - Code restructuring without behavior change
• perf - Performance improvement
• docs - Documentation update
• test - Test-related changes
• chore - Maintenance/tooling

Risk Level

• Low - Minor changes, limited scope
• Medium - Moderate changes, some user impact
• High - Major changes, significant user/system impact

What & Why

Improves the GitHub issue triage agent's accuracy by adding critical thinking rules and detailed library description files.

The triage agent had a pattern of parroting reporter claims as its own analysis — if an issue author said "this is a caching bug" or "this is a regression", the agent would accept that as truth and repeat it back without independent verification. This led to incorrect root cause analysis and mislabeled issues.

Changes:

• Critical Thinking Rules section added to issue-triage-agent.md — prevents the agent from blindly trusting reporter diagnoses, regression claims, and component attribution
• Library description files (.github/lib-descriptions/) — gives the agent detailed context about each library's responsibilities, boundaries, and common misattribution patterns so it can independently map symptoms to the correct component
• Feedback collector update — tracks root cause accuracy and parroting patterns in issue-triage-feedback.md

Impact of Change

• Users: No user-facing changes — these files only affect the GitHub Actions triage agent
• Developers: Better triage comments on new issues with independently verified analysis, correct component labels, and explicit uncertainty signaling
• System: No runtime impact — markdown files only

Test Plan

• Unit tests added/updated
• E2E tests added/updated
• Manual testing completed
• Tested in: Reviewed all 9 lib descriptions against actual source code to verify accuracy of subsystem inventories, Redux slice lists, service interface counts, and component categories

Contributors

Screenshots/Videos

N/A — documentation only

[github-actions]

🤖 AI PR Validation Report

PR Review Results

Thank you for your submission! Here's detailed feedback on your PR title and body compliance:

✅ PR Title

• Current: docs(Automation): Improve issue triage agent accuracy and add lib descriptions
• Issue: None — title is clear, scoped, and describes the change (documentation for automation/triage + added library descriptions).
• Recommendation: Keep as-is. Optionally you can include a short parenthetical with the number of files added for faster glance (e.g., ... and add lib descriptions (12 files)), but this is optional.

---

✅ Commit Type

• Properly selected (docs).
• Note: Only one commit type selected which is correct for a documentation-only change.

---

✅ Risk Level

• The PR body selects Low and the PR is labeled risk:low — these match.

---

✅ What & Why

• Current: "Improves the GitHub issue triage agent's accuracy by adding critical thinking rules and detailed library description files..." (present and clear)
• Issue: None. The description explains the problem (parroting reporter claims) and the concrete changes made.
• Recommendation: Good. If you want to be extra-helpful to reviewers, add a one-line list of the highest-impact files changed (e.g., .github/workflows/issue-triage-agent.md, .github/lib-descriptions/*) — but this is optional.

---

✅ Impact of Change

• The PR clearly states this is documentation-only and indicates no runtime or user-facing changes.
• Recommendation: None required. Consider calling out that workflow rules changed (so triage agent comments will change) to help reviewers understand triage behavior changes.

---

✅ Test Plan

• Assessment: Adequate for documentation-only change. The PR does not add unit/E2E tests (expected for docs), and the author documents that they reviewed all 9 lib descriptions against source code.
• Recommendation: Consider adding a short note about a dry-run or calibration run (if available) in a follow-up PR or issue — for example: "run triage agent in dry-run on recent issues to verify reduced parroting" — this is optional but useful for operational validation.

---

⚠️ Contributors

• Assessment: Blank.
• Recommendation: Optional but recommended — add contributors (PMs, designers, reviewers) to give credit. If there were genuinely no additional contributors, a short line like "No additional contributors" is fine.

---

✅ Screenshots/Videos

• Assessment: N/A — documentation-only. No visual diffs required.

---

Summary Table

Section	Status	Recommendation
Title	✅	Keep as-is (optionally include file count)
Commit Type	✅	None
Risk Level	✅	Matches label (risk:low)
What & Why	✅	Clear — optionally list key files changed
Impact of Change	✅	None; consider calling out triage comment behavior change
Test Plan	✅	Adequate for docs; consider dry-run validation
Contributors	⚠️	Add credits or a short note if none
Screenshots/Videos	✅	N/A

---

Final Notes

• I reviewed the code diff: the PR adds .github/lib-descriptions/* files and updates .github/workflows/issue-triage-agent.md. All changes are documentation and workflow guidance only (770 additions, 9 deletions across 12 files) — no production code or tests were changed. Based on that, the advised risk level is low, which matches the PR label and body selection.
• Suggested small improvements (optional):
  • Add a one-line summary of the most important changed files in the What & Why section to help reviewers quickly find them.
  • Fill the Contributors section (or add a short note if no additional contributors).
  • If possible, run a short dry-run calibration of the triage agent (or capture an example triage comment before/after) and link to the result in the Test Plan or a follow-up issue.

Please update the Contributors section if appropriate and consider the dry-run suggestion; otherwise this PR is good to go. Thank you for improving the triage agent documentation and adding the library descriptions!

---

Last updated: Wed, 08 Apr 2026 20:45:48 GMT

[github-actions]

📊 Coverage Check

No source files changed in this PR.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Updates the GitHub issue triage agent documentation to reduce incorrect “parroting” of reporter diagnoses and to improve component attribution by adding structured library responsibility docs.

Changes:

• Adds “Critical Thinking Rules” to the triage agent playbook to require independent verification of root-cause and regression claims.
• Extends the triage feedback template to track root-cause accuracy/parroting patterns.
• Introduces .github/lib-descriptions/* to document each library’s scope, boundaries, and common misattribution patterns.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 12 out of 12 changed files in this pull request and generated 9 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
.github/workflows/issue-triage-feedback.md	Adds a feedback section to track root-cause accuracy and verification failures.
.github/workflows/issue-triage-agent.md	Adds critical thinking/verification rules and points to the new library description inventory.
.github/lib-descriptions/README.md	Documents the purpose and maintenance expectations for library description files.
.github/lib-descriptions/designer.md	Describes libs/designer responsibilities, major subsystems, and common issue patterns.
.github/lib-descriptions/designer-v2.md	Describes libs/designer-v2 responsibilities, key differences vs v1, and common issue patterns.
.github/lib-descriptions/designer-ui.md	Describes libs/designer-ui scope and what should/shouldn’t be attributed to it.
.github/lib-descriptions/logic-apps-shared.md	Describes libs/logic-apps-shared service interfaces/utilities and common issue patterns.
.github/lib-descriptions/data-mapper.md	Describes legacy data mapper (v1) scope and when to use it.
.github/lib-descriptions/data-mapper-v2.md	Describes current data mapper (v2) scope, architecture, and issue patterns.
.github/lib-descriptions/chatbot.md	Describes chatbot UI integration scope vs service/prompt logic boundaries.
.github/lib-descriptions/vscode-extension.md	Describes VS Code extension shared library scope and common issue patterns.
.github/lib-descriptions/a2a-core.md	Describes A2A client SDK scope and common issue patterns.