Triage Open Issues and PRs

Goal: in one pass, turn the live state of stickerdaniel/linkedin-mcp-server into a maintainer-grade priority list. Read-only. No checkout, no edits, no reproduction. Reproduction belongs in /2-repro-issue; PR verification in /3-verify-pr-fix.

Inputs

$ARGUMENTS is optional. If set, treat as a label name (bug, enhancement) or freetext filter to narrow the scope. Otherwise scan everything open.

Phase 1 — Gather

REPO=stickerdaniel/linkedin-mcp-server

# Issues  (gh calls the reactions field `reactionGroups`, not `reactions`)
gh issue list --repo $REPO --state open --limit 200 \
  --json number,title,labels,createdAt,updatedAt,author,comments,reactionGroups,body

# PRs
gh pr list --repo $REPO --state open --limit 100 \
  --json number,title,labels,createdAt,updatedAt,author,mergeable,mergeStateStatus,statusCheckRollup,additions,deletions,changedFiles,reviewDecision,isDraft,headRepositoryOwner

# Cross-link issues ↔ PRs via body references
gh search prs --repo $REPO --state open --json number,body,title --limit 100

Build a map issue_number → [referencing_pr_numbers] by scanning PR bodies for Closes #, Fixes #, Resolves #, plain #N.

If $ARGUMENTS is given, filter both lists down before scoring.

Phase 2 — Score each issue

For every open issue, compute four signals. Cite the evidence inline so the user can audit.

• Severity (1–5): 5 = data loss / broken-for-all-users / security; 4 = core tool unavailable (e.g. get_person_profile returning empty); 3 = degraded output for a subset (locale, edge-case profile); 2 = annoyance / cosmetic; 1 = question / docs. Read the body + labels (bug, critical, security, regression).
• Reach (1–5): comment count, distinct commenters, +1/👍 reactions, references from other issues.
• Age vs activity: createdAt → days old; updatedAt → days since last activity. Stale-but-high-severity ranks higher than fresh-but-cosmetic.
• Has fix in flight: did anyone open a PR (look up in cross-link map)? Is that PR ready to merge?

Phase 3 — Score each PR

For every open PR, on top of its linked-issue score:

• Mergeability: mergeable: MERGEABLE + mergeStateStatus: CLEAN + statusCheckRollup all green → ✓. Otherwise note what blocks (CI red, conflicts, requested changes, draft).
• Scope: additions + deletions and changedFiles. Flag scope creep — does it touch unrelated files? Cross-check gh pr diff <N> --name-only.
• Locale + DOM safety audit: do gh pr diff <N> | grep -E "['\"](Connect|Follow|Message|Pending|1st|2nd|3rd)['\"]" (matches both Python-style 'Connect' and JS/Go-style "Connect"). Any string match on locale-dependent button text is a red flag per CLAUDE.md → Scraping Rules → detection must be locale-independent. Also flag class-name selectors (.entity-result__item), minimal generic selectors only.
• One-section-one-navigation: if the PR touches PERSON_SECTIONS / COMPANY_SECTIONS in scraping/fields.py, check that each entry still maps to exactly one URL.
• Test coverage: does the diff add a test in tests/test_scraping.py? Mandatory for new tool surfaces, strongly preferred for bug fixes.
• Contributor audit:

  gh search prs --repo $REPO --author <login> --state merged --json number,createdAt,mergedAt,additions,deletions --limit 20
  gh search prs --repo $REPO --author <login> --state closed --json number,closedAt,state --limit 10
  

  Compute: prior merged PRs in this repo, average time-to-merge, ratio of merged-vs-closed-unmerged. First-time contributors are not penalised — but a contributor whose previous PRs were all closed-unmerged with maintainer pushback is a yellow flag, especially on a large diff. Cite specific PR numbers in the rationale.

For very large or architecturally-loaded PRs (changes to scraping/extractor.py, client/, or session/auth code), spawn an Explore subagent to deep-dive how the PR integrates with the codebase and report integration risk. Use this sparingly — only for PRs over ~200 LOC or PRs touching core paths.

Phase 4 — Rank and report

Two ranked tables, plus a short verdict. Imperative, no fluff.

## Issues — top 10

| # | Issue | Severity | Reach | Age | PR? | Why this rank |
|---|-------|----------|-------|-----|-----|---------------|
| 1 | #366  | 4        | 8     | 12d | #366 ready | Core tool broken, contributor inactive |
| 2 | #389  | 3        | 2     |  5d | none | Pydantic version regression, blocks installs |
| ...

## PRs — production-readiness ranking

| # | PR | Linked issue | Mergeable | Scope | Locale-safe | Tests | Contributor | Verdict |
|---|----|--------------|-----------|-------|-------------|-------|-------------|---------|
| 1 | #386 | #385       | ✓         | +120/-40, 3 files | ✓ | ✓ | 5 prior merged | Ready — merge |
| 2 | #366 | #365       | ✗ conflict | +800/-200, 12 files | ✗ uses "Connect" text | ✗ | 0 prior, 2 closed | Needs maintainer rewrite |
| ...

## Recommended order this week

1. Merge #386 — clean fix, ready.
2. Take over #366 via maintainer-edits — issue is core but PR has locale-issues and stalled contributor.
3. Investigate #389 — needs reproduction first (→ `/2-repro-issue 389`).

End with one paragraph naming the next concrete action the maintainer should take, and which downstream skill applies (/2-repro-issue <N> to confirm bug, /3-verify-pr-fix <N> to test the candidate fix).

Non-negotiables

• Read-only. Do not check out, do not start the MCP server, do not run scrapers. Those are downstream skills.
• Cite evidence inline (PR/issue numbers, file paths, contributor PR history). Never assert "looks risky" without a referenceable signal.
• Locale-dependence and DOM-class-selector usage are hard fails — flag them red regardless of how nice the PR otherwise looks.
• Never recommend "merge as-is" for a PR that hasn't passed the locale/test/scope checks, even if the contributor is well-known.