# Build a useful GitHub issue review

> Turn a bounded set of repository issues into a source-linked review with suggested next steps.

Canonical: https://hermeswatcher.com/workflows/github-issue-review  
Category: Development & operations  
Basis: An editorial blueprint: an original, source-informed approach. Check commands against the official docs for your version.

## The useful result

A review identifying recurring symptoms, actionable reports, missing reproduction information, and suggested follow-up.

## Before you begin

- The exact repository and review time window
- An authorized GitHub connection with sufficient read permissions
- A clear distinction between reviewing and modifying issues

## How to approach it

1. **Confirm identity and scope**: Name the repository, account, time window, filters, and maximum issue count. Record pagination limits so an incomplete result is visible.
2. **Retrieve before interpreting**: Collect issue titles, bodies, dates, labels, and relevant discussion where accessible. Preserve issue URLs as evidence.
3. **Group by symptom, not only keywords**: Several reports can describe one failure in different language. Keep grouping tentative when versions or reproduction steps differ.
4. **Write practical next actions**: Suggest a reproduction request, a documentation clarification, or an investigation. Separate suggestions from confirmed root causes.
5. **Recheck before acting**: If later authorized to comment or update labels, refresh the issue first to avoid responding to something already resolved.

## A prompt to adapt

Replace the brackets and run a bounded trial first.

```text
Review up to [number] issues in [owner/repository] from [date range]. Group similar symptoms, link all supporting issues, and distinguish confirmed facts from hypotheses. Suggest next actions. State access and pagination gaps. Do not comment, close, relabel, or modify anything.
```

## When it does not work

A closed issue does not prove that a fix is available in the user's installed release. Trace the resolution to its actual version before advising an update.

## Check the result

Can a maintainer trace every conclusion to an issue and understand the retrieval limits?

## Official reference (Nous Research)

- [MCP integration](https://hermes-agent.nousresearch.com/docs/user-guide/features/mcp)
- [Tools and toolsets](https://hermes-agent.nousresearch.com/docs/user-guide/features/tools)

---

HermesWatcher is an independent guide. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by Nous Research. The [official Hermes Agent documentation](https://hermes-agent.nousresearch.com/docs) and [repository](https://github.com/NousResearch/hermes-agent) from Nous Research are the authority; each page here lists the official sources it was written from. If this site and the official docs disagree, trust the official docs. Index for agents: https://hermeswatcher.com/llms.txt