|
| 1 | +name: Feature Request |
| 2 | +description: Propose a new feature or improvement |
| 3 | +title: "[Feature]: " |
| 4 | +labels: ["enhancement"] |
| 5 | +type: "Feature" |
| 6 | +projects: ["rmottanet/7"] # projeto pelo número |
| 7 | +assignees: |
| 8 | + - rmottanet |
| 9 | + |
| 10 | +body: |
| 11 | + - type: markdown |
| 12 | + attributes: |
| 13 | + value: | |
| 14 | + Feature requests should align with UnauthScout design principles: |
| 15 | + unauthenticated, minimal, provider-focused, schema-driven. |
| 16 | +
|
| 17 | + - type: textarea |
| 18 | + id: problem |
| 19 | + attributes: |
| 20 | + label: Problem statement |
| 21 | + description: What limitation or problem does this feature solve? |
| 22 | + placeholder: Describe the problem clearly. |
| 23 | + validations: |
| 24 | + required: true |
| 25 | + |
| 26 | + - type: textarea |
| 27 | + id: proposal |
| 28 | + attributes: |
| 29 | + label: Proposed solution |
| 30 | + description: Describe the feature or change you are proposing. |
| 31 | + placeholder: Be explicit and concrete. |
| 32 | + validations: |
| 33 | + required: true |
| 34 | + |
| 35 | + - type: checkboxes |
| 36 | + id: scope |
| 37 | + attributes: |
| 38 | + label: Scope / Impacted areas |
| 39 | + description: Select all areas impacted by this feature. |
| 40 | + options: |
| 41 | + - label: CLI / UX |
| 42 | + - label: Provider – GitHub |
| 43 | + - label: Provider – GitLab |
| 44 | + - label: Cross-provider (shared logic) |
| 45 | + - label: Schemas / Output contracts |
| 46 | + - label: Documentation |
| 47 | + - label: Tests |
| 48 | + - label: Internal / Refactor |
| 49 | + validations: |
| 50 | + required: true |
| 51 | + |
| 52 | + - type: input |
| 53 | + id: scope_extra |
| 54 | + attributes: |
| 55 | + label: Additional scope (optional) |
| 56 | + description: Any other area impacted not listed above. |
| 57 | + placeholder: e.g. New provider, tooling, CI |
| 58 | + validations: |
| 59 | + required: false |
| 60 | + |
| 61 | + - type: textarea |
| 62 | + id: alternatives |
| 63 | + attributes: |
| 64 | + label: Alternatives considered |
| 65 | + description: Any alternative approaches or trade-offs? |
| 66 | + validations: |
| 67 | + required: false |
| 68 | + |
| 69 | + - type: textarea |
| 70 | + id: tradeoffs |
| 71 | + attributes: |
| 72 | + label: Trade-offs acknowledged |
| 73 | + description: What are the known downsides, limitations, or risks of this approach? |
| 74 | + placeholder: e.g. Increased API calls, reduced portability, partial provider support |
| 75 | + validations: |
| 76 | + required: true |
| 77 | + |
| 78 | + - type: textarea |
| 79 | + id: success_metrics |
| 80 | + attributes: |
| 81 | + label: Success metrics |
| 82 | + description: How will we know this feature is successful? |
| 83 | + placeholder: e.g. New CLI flag documented, schema updated, test coverage added |
| 84 | + validations: |
| 85 | + required: true |
| 86 | + |
| 87 | + - type: checkboxes |
| 88 | + id: terms |
| 89 | + attributes: |
| 90 | + label: Code of Conduct |
| 91 | + description: By submitting this issue, you agree to follow the Code of Conduct. |
| 92 | + options: |
| 93 | + - label: I agree to follow this project's Code of Conduct |
| 94 | + required: true |
0 commit comments