docs(github): clarify issue taxonomy

[Astro-Han]

Summary

• Keep the primary type set to four labels: bug, enhancement, task, and documentation.
• Remove the label-policy rule that forced tech-debt to pair with task, so debt can be supplemental context on any primary type.
• Narrow the Task issue template and add a short issue triage guide to prevent task from becoming the default agent-work bucket.

Why

Closes #815.

The open issue backlog had 33 of 57 issues labeled task, including UI polish, CI false positives, and internal debt. The problematic rule was not that tech-debt existed, but that it had to be paired with task, which encouraged using task as a catch-all. This PR fixes that guardrail while preserving the PR #731 triage flow and PR #752 checklist discipline.

Related Issue

Closes #815

Human Review Status

Pending

Review Focus

• Confirm tech-debt should remain supplemental, not a primary type label.
• Confirm the label-policy change allows tech-debt with any one primary type without allowing it to replace the primary type.
• Confirm the task template wording discourages using task as the default agent-work bucket.

Risk Notes

• This changes PR label policy: tech-debt no longer satisfies the required type label by itself, but it also no longer requires task.
• The live GitHub label description for task is not changed by this PR because label descriptions are repository metadata, not files. It should be updated after merge or by a maintainer action.
• No broad backlog relabeling is included; that should happen in follow-up batches after this guardrail lands.

How To Verify

node --test .github/scripts/label-policy-check.test.js: 12 pass
Ruby YAML parse: ok for bug, feature, task issue templates plus config.yml and labeler.yml
git diff --check: no whitespace errors
Manual copy review: task template, issue triage guide, PR checklist wording, and label-policy messages checked in the final diff

Screenshots or Recordings

Not required; GitHub template and policy text changes only, with no app UI surface.

Checklist

• Type label — this PR carries exactly one of bug, enhancement, task, documentation. Type labels are author-added; the labeler bot does NOT assign them. Add the label in the GitHub UI, then tick this.
• Routing labels — this PR carries at least one of app, ui, platform, harness, ci. The labeler bot assigns these on PR open based on changed paths. Confirm the bot's choice (or override if wrong), then tick this.
• Priority label — this PR carries exactly one of P0, P1, P2, P3. The priority-triage bot suggests one on PR open. Confirm or override, then tick this.
• Human Review Status above is set to Pending, Approved by @<reviewer>, or Not required: <reason> (default is Pending; "not required" is restricted to bot-authored low-risk PRs).
• I linked the related issue, or stated in Summary why there is no issue.
• I described the review focus and any meaningful risks.
• I replaced the example block in How To Verify with the real verification steps and the key result for each.
• I did not introduce unrelated refactors, dependencies, generated files, or file changes beyond the stated scope.
• (conditional) I manually checked visible UI or copy changes when needed, with screenshots or recordings. Leave unticked only if no visible UI or copy changed.
• (conditional) I considered macOS and Windows impact for platform, packaging, updater, signing, paths, shell, or permissions changes. Leave unticked only if no platform/packaging surface was touched.
• (conditional) I called out docs, release notes, dependencies, permissions, credentials, deletion behavior, generated content, or local file changes when relevant. Leave unticked only if none of those surfaces was touched.
• I reviewed the final diff for unrelated changes and suspicious dependency changes.
• I am targeting dev, and my PR title and commit messages use Conventional Commits in English.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Rate limit exceeded

@Astro-Han has exceeded the limit for the number of commits that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 50 minutes and 45 seconds before requesting another review.

You’ve run out of usage credits. Purchase more in the billing tab.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit.

🚦 How do rate limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization.

Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout.

Please see our FAQ for further information.

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 75400e5e-71c3-4982-9a7e-e6d8b2b264fe

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 28d69a6 and 5fa5573.

📒 Files selected for processing (5)

• .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/03-task.yml
• .github/ISSUE_TRIAGE.md
• .github/pull_request_template.md
• .github/scripts/label-policy-check.js
• .github/scripts/label-policy-check.test.js

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch pawwork/issue-815-taxonomy-guardrails-cli

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[github-actions]

Suggested priority: P2 (includes non-doc, non-test paths outside the low-risk bucket).

P1/P0 are reserved for maintainer confirmation. Please relabel manually if this is a release blocker, security issue, data-loss risk, or updater/runtime failure.

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request introduces a new tech-debt issue template and elevates tech-debt to a primary type label, decoupling it from the task label. It also updates the task template, triage documentation, and label policy scripts to reflect this change. The review feedback suggests reordering the label lists across the documentation and policy scripts to ensure consistency with the triage guide, where task is treated as a fallback. Additionally, the feedback recommends using explicit label names in template instructions and expanding the pull request template to include checks for target branches and Conventional Commits.