Archive Issue

Once an issue closes, GitHub is the source of truth for its scope — but its requirements, architecture, code-review, and QA docs under specs/ still hold reasoning worth keeping. This skill retires them out of specs/ straight into the GitHub wiki. Nothing archived is ever committed to the main repo — the wiki is the only place this content lives.

This skill resolves everything from the issue number alone via gh issue view plus the artifact naming contract (REQ-<N>-<slug>.md / ARCH-<N>-<slug>.md / TASKS-<N>-<slug>.md / QA-<N>-<slug>.md / QA-RESULTS-<N>-<slug>.md and the > **Issue:** #N metadata row) that plan-requirements, plan-architecture, generate-tasks, plan-qa, and execute-qa write. There is no separate anchor file — GitHub already holds the title, URL, and state.

Declared dependency: matching review reports to this issue reads the Target metadata row defined in review/report-template.md:8. If that row's format ever changes, review discovery here breaks — see Step 2's failure behavior for what happens when it does.

Step 0 — Ensure the local wiki clone is current

Work happens in a local working clone of the wiki repo, conventionally at .wiki/ in the main repo root:

• If .wiki/ doesn't exist: git clone <repo>.wiki.git .wiki. If the clone fails because the wiki was never initialized on GitHub, stop and tell the developer to create the first wiki page in the GitHub UI (a repo's wiki doesn't exist as a cloneable git remote until at least one page has been saved there) — do not attempt to create the wiki repo yourself.
• If it exists: git -C .wiki pull --ff-only before making any changes, so you're not archiving on top of a stale copy.
• Verify .wiki/ is listed in .gitignore; if it isn't, add it — this clone must never enter the main repo's history.
• If .wiki/Home.md and .wiki/_Sidebar.md don't exist yet (first archive ever in this repo), they're bootstrapped in Step 5, not here.

All of Steps 3–5 write into this clone, not into the main repo.

Step 1 — Resolve the issue, confirm closed

Take the issue number from the user (/archive-issue 70, or "archive issue 70"). If it isn't purely numeric, stop — this skill is GitHub-only; a Jira key or other tracker ID has no wiki page shape to produce here.

gh issue view <N> --json title,url,state,closedAt gives the title, URL, state, and close date. If the state is not CLOSED, stop and say so — this is a retirement step, not a drafting one; open-issue artifacts stay in specs/ where the active pipeline expects them. Make no changes to specs/ or .wiki/.

Step 2 — Discover the source artifacts

Resolve each source for issue <N> using this fallback order — never report "nothing to archive" while files for <N> remain unmatched under specs/:

Source	How it's found
specs/context/<N>.md	direct path
specs/requirements/REQ-<N>-*.md	glob first; if it misses, grep specs/requirements/*.md for a > **Issue:** #<N> row (covers artifacts written before the naming contract landed); if still nothing, check for an un-prefixed REQ-<slug>.md whose slug matches a {type}/<N>/{slug} branch found in git for-each-ref --format='%(refname:short)' refs/heads refs/remotes, or — when that branch was already deleted, the usual case for an old issue — the slugified issue title from Step 1
specs/architecture/ARCH-<N>-*.md	same three-tier fallback as REQ
specs/tasks/TASKS-<N>-*.md	same three-tier fallback as REQ (the TASKS file shares the <N>-<slug> stem with ARCH; ARCH's > **Tasks:** header row names it explicitly when present)
specs/reviews/CODE-REVIEW-PIPELINE-<N>-*.md	glob — the filename already carries <N> because it derives from the ARCH filename (review/SKILL.md's pipeline-mode save step)
specs/reviews/CODE-REVIEW-{PR,BRANCH,STAGED,DIFF}-*.md	read every file's Target row (review/report-template.md:8) and match it to issue <N> — never by assuming a PR number equals the issue number, and never by directory. Branch-mode: Target is a branch name — match if it is {type}/<N>/{slug}. PR-mode: Target is a PR URL — resolve its head branch (gh pr view <PR#> --json headRefName) and match that the same way. Staged/diff-mode reports carry no branch reference and can only be attributed if the report content otherwise names issue <N> explicitly
specs/qa/QA-<N>-*.md	same three-tier fallback as REQ (glob → > **Issue:** #<N> header row → slug match). A QA-PR-<number>.md fallback (general-mode plan with no issue) attributes like a PR-mode review report: resolve the PR's head branch via gh pr view <number> --json headRefName and match {type}/<N>/{slug}
specs/qa/QA-RESULTS-<N>-*.md	shares its plan's stem with a RESULTS infix (QA-21-billing.md → QA-RESULTS-21-billing.md) — attribute it exactly as its plan resolved; a results file whose plan is unattributed stays unattributed too

Most issues (bugs, chores, small enhancements) never had a REQ/ARCH/review doc — only archive what actually exists. Don't invent placeholder pages for missing docs, and don't rename anything — only the directory changes (specs/requirements/ → issue-NNN/), never the filename.

Failure mode: loud, not blocking. When a file under specs/ cannot be attributed to <N> by any tier above — a Target row absent, malformed, or naming a different issue's branch — do not stop and do not silently skip it. Archive everything you can resolve, then end your report with a prominent unresolved block:

⚠  2 file(s) under specs/ could not be attributed to issue #35 and were NOT archived:
     specs/reviews/CODE-REVIEW-PR-41.md   — Target row absent
     specs/reviews/CODE-REVIEW-BRANCH-x.md — Target 'feat/12/other' ≠ issue #35
   These remain in the repo. Attribute them manually or re-run after fixing the Target row.

Unresolved files stay exactly where they are and are excluded from Step 6's git rm — a file that was never archived must never be deleted. This is why discovery failure is non-fatal: partial archival is safe precisely because removal is scoped to what Step 4 actually wrote.

Step 3 — Write the hub page

.wiki/issue-NNN.md (zero-padded to 3 digits). The metadata line is mandatory:

**PR(s):** #NN[, #MM…] · **Closed:** YYYY-MM-DD · [GitHub issue #N](url)

• No PR found for this issue (branch-mode review, or no review at all) → **PR(s):** — (branch review) or **PR(s):** — respectively; never omit the field.
• Multiple PRs against the same issue → list all of them, comma-separated.

Below the metadata line: a paragraph of what shipped (pull from the issue body's Summary — don't re-derive it), a bullet list linking each sub-page that exists, and a one-line Outcome pulled from the acceptance criteria or review verdict.

Link sub-pages by bare basename, never full path. Write [Label](CODE-REVIEW-PR-63), not [Label](issue-NNN/CODE-REVIEW-PR-63.md) — even though the file lives at issue-NNN/CODE-REVIEW-PR-63.md. GitHub's wiki renders a .md-suffixed link as a raw-file link instead of a wiki-page link, which silently breaks navigation. Drop both the issue-NNN/ directory prefix and the .md extension; the directory nesting is only for organizing the wiki's git tree.

Step 4 — Write the sub-pages

Carry the REQ/ARCH/TASKS/review/QA content over largely as-is — these are already well-formed docs; don't rewrite them, just relocate them into .wiki/issue-NNN/ under their original filenames and drop anything that's now stale (e.g. a REQ doc's "next step: run /plan-architecture" footer no longer applies once archived). Only for documents that actually exist — never invent a placeholder, never rename one that does exist.

Step 5 — Update the index

Both .wiki/Home.md and .wiki/_Sidebar.md are a single flat list, ascending by issue number — no grouping model:

• Create both files with a one-line header if this is the first archived issue overall.
• Insert this issue's entry in ascending issue-number order among the existing entries — find the correct position, don't just append.
• If the issue was archived before (a partial or interrupted prior run), locate and update its existing entry rather than appending a duplicate.

Step 6 — Retire the sources from the main repo

git rm, in the main repo (not .wiki/): specs/context/<N>.md, whichever of specs/requirements//specs/architecture//specs/tasks//specs/qa/ were mirrored, and every review report Step 2 successfully attributed — excluding anything named in the unresolved block. Commit this separately from the wiki push in Step 7 — they're two different repos with two different histories.

This commit lands on whatever branch the main repo is currently on — normally the default branch, since archival runs post-merge. Tell the developer it is unpushed and let them decide how it reaches the remote: a protected default branch needs a PR, an unprotected one just needs a push. Never push the main repo yourself; Step 7's confirmation covers the wiki only.

Step 7 — Commit and push the wiki, with confirmation

Inside .wiki/: git -C .wiki pull --ff-only immediately before committing (not only back in Step 0 — time has passed), then git add, commit (batch multiple issues archived in one pass into one commit if convenient). Confirm with the user before pushing — this publishes to shared external state, same as any other push, even though the commit itself is harmless to make locally.

If the push is rejected (another lane pushed to the wiki first): git -C .wiki pull --rebase, then retry the push once. Never run a second --ff-only here — with a local commit present, fast-forward is impossible on diverged histories. If the rebase itself conflicts (e.g. two lanes both edited Home.md), stop and surface the conflict rather than resolving it silently.

Report what moved where (source path → wiki page) so the developer can review before/after the push.

Re-running

Archiving the same issue twice is safe: the hub and sub-pages simply overwrite, git rm is re-attempted (a no-op if already removed), and the index entry is located-and-updated rather than appended a second time.

You Must NOT

• Support non-GitHub issue trackers — the wiki target is GitHub-specific.
• Rename any archived file — only its directory changes.
• Create placeholder sub-pages for documents that don't exist.
• Add a bundled script — this skill's work is markdown authoring.
• Delete any file that was not successfully archived.
• Push to the wiki without explicit developer confirmation.