.agents/skills/issue-repro/references/response-guidelines.md
How to write the proposedResponse.body Markdown GitHub comment after reproduction.
| Status | When |
|---|---|
ready | Confidence ≥ 0.85 — comment can be posted as-is |
needs-human-edit | Confidence < 0.85, or sensitive/ambiguous situation |
do-not-post | Internal-only findings, not suitable for public comment |
Thanks for reporting this! We were able to reproduce the issue with SkiaSharp {reporter_version}.
The good news is that this appears to be fixed in {fixed_version}. Could you try upgrading?
**Tested versions:**
| Version | Result |
|---------|--------|
| {reporter_version} | ❌ Reproduced |
| {fixed_version} | ✅ Fixed |
{workaround_section_if_any}
Thanks for the report. We attempted to reproduce this on {environment} with SkiaSharp {reporter_version} but were unable to observe the reported behavior.
Could you share the following to help us investigate further?
{missing_info_list}
We've confirmed this issue. The reported behavior reproduces on {platforms} with SkiaSharp {reporter_version}.
We're tracking this for a fix. {workaround_section_if_any}
Thanks for the suggestion! We investigated and can confirm that {feature_description} is not currently available in SkiaSharp.
**Investigation:**
{investigation_summary}
{related_infrastructure_if_any}
We've flagged this for consideration. {workaround_section_if_any}
Thanks for pointing this out. We can confirm that the documentation for {topic} is {missing_or_incorrect}.
**Finding:**
{investigation_summary}
We'll work on updating the documentation.
Thanks for the report. We investigated and found that {feature_or_topic} {actually_exists_or_is_documented}.
{evidence_summary}
Could you take a look and let us know if we're missing something?
{missing_info_list_if_any}