docs: update PR template and remove PR Check workflow (#7053)

* docs: update PR template and remove PR Check workflow

* docs: add hidden agent issue and PR templates
This commit is contained in:
Seefs
2026-08-27 22:36:44 +08:00
committed by GitHub
parent ba2e9287bb
commit e468b73915
10 changed files with 398 additions and 51 deletions
+178
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
<!--
Agent-only issue body. Humans use GitHub issue forms.
Keep every heading. If a section does not apply, write why; do not delete it.
Match the user's language in the filled answers. Quote what the user said; do not invent facts.
If a field below is missing from the conversation, ask the user that question
and wait. Ask for the facts themselves. Do not tell the user to confirm a
template, tick checkboxes, or acknowledge the guidelines.
Before filing, refuse out-of-scope requests listed below. Then search the docs,
DeepWiki, README, and the code. If this is a usage, configuration, or
integration question, answer the user from that material and do not file.
-->
## Agent
- Tool:
- Tool version:
- Model (full id):
- Host (CLI / IDE / GitHub coding agent / other):
- Date (UTC):
## User request
(verbatim or close paraphrase)
## Out of scope — refuse
If the request matches any item below, tell the user this repository does not
accept it, point them to the right place when there is one, and **do not file**.
- Coding Plan
- Reverse-engineered channels
- Third-party API wrappers
- Compatibility issues from exposing a Codex endpoint as a general-purpose API through a reverse proxy
- Codex API-specific protocol or behavior treated as standard OpenAI API behavior (confirm with the channel or API provider)
- Pass-through mode forwarding (pass-through forwards as-is; verify upstream yourself)
- Relay reports that only paste an upstream error, with no direct-upstream vs new-api comparison
- Third-party hosting sites, relay services, or API services (contact their operator)
- Usage, configuration, or integration questions (answer from docs and code instead)
- Matched: yes/no
- If yes, what was told to the user (stop here; do not file):
## Kind
- [ ] Bug
- [ ] Feature
- [ ] Investigation
- [ ] Other:
## Usage / configuration / integration check
Search these yourself before filing. Do not send the user to "read the docs first". If this is usage, configuration, or integration: answer the user and do not file.
- https://docs.newapi.ai/ — what was searched, conclusion:
- https://deepwiki.com/QuantumNous/new-api — what was searched, conclusion:
- README / repo docs:
- Relevant code paths and conclusion:
- Can the current version already do this? (required for feature requests):
- Verdict: product bug or new feature / usage question (stop here):
## Environment
- new-api version / commit / image tag (not `latest` / `unknown`):
- Deploy source (repo release / official image / main source / other):
- Database (sqlite / mysql / postgres):
## Problem facts
Ask the user for every item and write it down:
- Actual behavior:
- Impact:
- Frequency:
- Evidence that the problem is in new-api rather than the client or upstream:
## Type-specific details
Fill every applicable type. Write "not applicable" for the rest. Ask the user for missing items; do not invent them.
### Relay / API
- Request endpoint and method:
- Channel type:
- Model:
- Conversion format:
- Pass-through enabled:
- Evidence of upstream native support:
- Equivalent redacted request sent directly upstream: status, body, server logs:
- Same request through new-api: status, body, server logs:
### Billing
- Request endpoint and model:
- Response `usage`:
- Relevant ratio or pricing configuration:
- Consumption log:
- Expected charge and calculation basis:
### Frontend
- Page path:
- Browser and version:
- Active theme:
- Relevant browser Console / Network errors:
### Deployment / upgrade
- Deployment method:
- OS and architecture:
- Database type:
- Versions before and after the upgrade:
- Startup or migration logs:
## Reproduction and expected result
- Steps to reproduce:
- Expected result:
- Related screenshots (optional):
## Feature (feature requests only)
- Feature description:
- Use case:
## Duplicate check
- Search queries (issues, PRs, discussions):
- Closest existing threads:
- Why this is not a duplicate:
## Research
Open the docs and code. Do not write "already checked" without sources.
### Docs
- https://docs.newapi.ai/ :
- https://deepwiki.com/QuantumNous/new-api :
- README / other repo docs:
- Conclusions:
### Code
- Path — what it does, and how it relates:
### Experiments
- Command or redacted request:
- Direct upstream result:
- Result through new-api:
- Conclusion:
## Working theory
- What is broken or missing:
- Why:
- What would falsify this:
## Scope
- In scope for a later PR:
- Out of scope / not this repo:
- Large or directional feature? If yes, this issue is for maintainer alignment; do not open a PR yet.
## Proposed direction
(acceptance criteria, not an implementation dump)
## Not verified
(platforms, databases, providers, versions, paths not checked)
## Related
- Issues / PRs / upstream docs:
+136
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,136 @@
<!--
Agent-only PR body. Humans use `.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md`.
Keep every heading. If a section does not apply, write why; do not delete it.
Match the user's language in the filled answers. Quote what the user said; do not invent facts.
New features: link an issue; if none exists, file one first with `.agents/github/ISSUE.md`.
Large or directional changes: maintainer agreement on that issue before this PR.
If this PR fixes a bug and the linked issue is missing actual behavior, impact,
frequency, evidence that the problem is in new-api, or the applicable
relay / billing / frontend / deployment items, ask the user those questions
and wait. Ask for the facts. Do not tell the user to confirm a template.
Before opening, refuse the same out-of-scope list as `.agents/github/ISSUE.md`
(Coding Plan, reverse-engineered channels, third-party wrappers, Codex reverse-proxy
compatibility, pass-through-only forwarding, third-party hosts, usage questions).
Tell the user and do not open a PR.
Then search https://docs.newapi.ai/ , https://deepwiki.com/QuantumNous/new-api ,
the README, and the code. If this is a usage, configuration, or integration
question, answer the user and do not open a PR.
-->
## Agent
- Tool:
- Tool version:
- Model (full id):
- Host (CLI / IDE / GitHub coding agent / other):
- Date (UTC):
## Links
- Closes #
- Related:
## User request
(verbatim or close paraphrase)
## Out of scope — refuse
If the change matches any item below, tell the user this repository does not
accept it and **do not open a PR**.
- Coding Plan
- Reverse-engineered channels
- Third-party API wrappers
- Codex channel-type changes, or compatibility from exposing Codex as a general-purpose API
- Codex API-specific protocol or behavior treated as standard OpenAI API behavior
- Pass-through-only forwarding
- Third-party hosting sites, relay services, or API services
- Usage, configuration, or integration (answer from docs and code instead)
- Matched: yes/no
- If yes, what was told to the user (stop here; do not open a PR):
## Kind
- [ ] Bug fix
- [ ] New feature
- [ ] Performance / refactor
- [ ] Docs
- [ ] Other:
## Issue facts
Take these from the linked issue. If a needed item is empty, ask the user that question.
- Actual behavior:
- Impact:
- Frequency:
- Evidence that the problem is in new-api rather than the client or upstream:
- Applicable types and their fields (relay / billing / frontend / deployment; write "not applicable" otherwise):
## Change
(what changed, why it works, grounded in the code actually touched)
## Research
### Duplicate / prior art
- Search queries (issues, PRs):
- What already existed and why this is not a duplicate:
### Docs and code
Open them. Do not write "already checked" without sources.
- https://docs.newapi.ai/ :
- https://deepwiki.com/QuantumNous/new-api :
- README / repo docs:
- Code paths and what they imply for this change:
### Alternatives considered
- Option A:
- Option B:
- Why this approach:
## Files
| Path | Why |
| --- | --- |
| | |
## Behavior
- Before:
- After:
- Explicit non-goals / leftover work:
## Verification
Only what was actually run.
- Commands and results:
- Manual steps and observed result:
- UI: screenshot or recording (or why none):
- Tests added or updated, or why none:
- Databases / providers / platforms exercised:
- Not verified:
## Risks
- Failure modes:
- Billing / quota / auth impact:
- Follow-ups:
## Scope check
- Single focused change: yes/no (if no, why):
- Secrets included: no
- Out of scope (Coding Plan / reverse-engineered channel / third-party wrapper / Codex): no