Maintain

Double-confirmation on ALL human-facing actions

Any action that affects humans - closing issues, posting comments, merging PRs, editing issue text, labeling, assigning - requires explicit approval with the exact text/action shown first.

Feedback = still iterating. If the maintainer gives ANY feedback (questions, corrections, "but what about...", mixed responses), that means we are still thinking. Do NOT execute actions until feedback resolves into a clear, unambiguous directive. Specifically:

1. Do NOT interpret "sure", "sounds good", listing numbers, or mixed feedback (act on some + questions on others) as blanket approval.
2. After feedback is given, re-present the updated plan with exact text/messages that will be posted or executed.
3. Wait for an explicit directive ("merge", "close these", "post it").
4. If ambiguous, ask: "ready to execute?" - never assume.

PR merge rules

• CI must pass before merging. Never use --admin to bypass branch protections. If CI hasn't run (first-time contributor), approve the workflow run first, wait for green, then merge.
• Always show merge commit messages before merging. The maintainer must see and approve the exact message that lands in git history.
• Never batch-merge across feedback boundaries. If the maintainer gave feedback on 5 PRs and said "merge" on 2, only merge those 2. Re-present the others separately.

Comment voice

• Casual, lowercase, warm. Like texting a coworker.
• No mdashes (use - or commas). No "We're excited to". No AI smell.
• Credit community contributors by @mention when they helped.
• When a fix exists, ask the reporter to help verify it.
• Only mention npm i -g happy when the fix is in the CLI package.
• Keep it short: 3 sentences for dupes, 5 max for canonicals.

Milestones = Themes

Milestones on the GitHub project are broad themes, not specific bugs. Individual bugs go in the project board's Bugs tab with Priority (P0/P1/P2) and Size (XS-XL). Only assign a milestone when a bug is clearly part of a larger theme.

When creating or suggesting milestones, align with docs/roadmap.md sections. Examples of good themes:

• "table stakes" - parity with conductor, daily driver quality
• "multi-agent" - opencode, copilot, cursor, ACP
• "self-hosting" - docker, docs, standalone deployment
• "workspaces" - cross-machine project management

Bad milestone: "fix redis streams" (too specific, that's just a bug)

Workflow

Phase 0: Check for items needing my response

Before triaging anything new, scan for issues and PRs where the maintainer was mentioned or commented but hasn't responded to the latest reply. Run:

# Issues/PRs where @bra1nDump was mentioned but hasn't replied last
gh search issues --repo slopus/happy --state open --mentions bra1nDump \
  --sort updated --limit 50 --json number,title,updatedAt,comments

# PRs with review requests for bra1nDump
gh pr list --repo slopus/happy --search "review-requested:bra1nDump" \
  --json number,title,updatedAt,author

For each result, check if the last comment is from someone other than bra1nDump. Present these as "needs your response" with a one-line summary of what the person is waiting on.

Phase 1: Fetch and cluster

1. Pull all open issues from the project board
2. Group by rough topic
3. Present cluster summary with counts

Phase 2: Deep dive per cluster

For each cluster, spawn a subagent (opus) that:

1. Reads the FULL thread for every issue - body, all comments, reactions, upvotes, linked PRs, cross-references. Not just the opening body. The real context is often in the replies.
2. Identifies duplicate groups with a canonical for each
3. Notes who filed each issue - repeat contributor? filed a PR? detailed report? This matters for how we respond.
4. Credits community members who provided fixes or analysis
5. Finds related PRs (open, closed, merged, draft)

Phase 3: Code check

For each cluster's key issues, spawn a subagent that:

1. Searches the codebase on main - is the bug actually fixed?
2. Checks git log for related merged commits
3. Identifies WHO fixed it (community PR? maintainer?)
4. Verdict: FIXED_ON_MAIN, PARTIALLY_FIXED, or STILL_BROKEN

Phase 4: Draft actions

For each issue, draft ONE of:

• CLOSE_FIXED - cite the fix, ask reporter to verify
• CLOSE_DUPE - link canonical, explain the connection
• KEEP_OPEN - assign to project board with priority/size
• NEEDS_INFO - draft a question for the reporter

Phase 5: Present for review

Show the maintainer a table per cluster:

| # | Title | Author | Action | Draft comment |

Include who opened each issue and any notable context about them. WAIT for approval before executing anything.

Phase 6: Project board updates

For issues that stay open, suggest:

• Priority (P0/P1/P2)
• Size (XS/S/M/L/XL)
• Milestone (theme) if applicable
• Status (Backlog/Ready/In progress)