What I Learned Trying to Write Better GitHub Issues for Open-Source Contributors
Source: Dev.to
Maintaining an open‑source project taught me something I didn’t expect: writing good GitHub issues is a skill of its own. Early on, I assumed that if an issue made sense to me, it would make sense to contributors. In practice, that’s rarely true. Contributors see issues with fresh eyes, limited context, and very little patience for ambiguity.
Recently, I started deliberately improving how I write issues and asking myself a simple question: If I were a contributor seeing this issue for the first time, would I know where to start?
Here are a few lessons that helped me improve issue clarity and make them more contributor‑friendly.
Why issue quality matters more than you think
From a contributor’s perspective, an issue is often evaluated in under a minute. They scan for:
- Is the problem clearly stated?
- Is the scope reasonable?
- Is it obvious what “done” means?
- Can I tell which part of the codebase this touches?
If any of those are unclear, many contributors simply move on — even if they like the project.
From the maintainer side, unclear issues lead to:
- Long comment threads clarifying intent
- Mismatched expectations
- Abandoned PRs
Clear issues save time on both sides.
What I changed in how I write issues
1. Separate context from task
I now structure issues so contributors can quickly find the actionable part. A typical flow:
- Problem / Current State
- Why this matters
- What needs to change
- Acceptance criteria
This lets readers skim intelligently instead of reading a wall of text.
2. Make “done” explicit
One of the biggest improvements was spelling out acceptance criteria.
Instead of:
“Clean up the payout pipeline”
I aim for:
- legacy paths removed
- one canonical flow remains
- tests updated
- no behavior regression
Contributors shouldn’t have to guess when the task is complete.
3. Avoid assuming codebase familiarity
Even experienced developers are new to your code. Helpful additions:
- Naming the relevant modules
- Mentioning entry points
- Pointing to existing commands or tests
This lowers the mental cost of starting.
Example issue
Here’s one issue I wrote after applying these ideas:
👉
I’m not sharing this as a request for fixes — just as a real example of how I try to:
- Describe the current state
- Explain the goal
- Define acceptance criteria
- Reduce ambiguity for contributors
If you maintain OSS projects, you’ve probably seen (or written) issues that could benefit from this kind of structure. I’m still learning how to do this well, but being more intentional about issue writing has already:
- Made it easier for contributors to engage
If you maintain open‑source projects, I’d be curious:
- What makes a GitHub issue feel actionable to you?
- What’s the most common mistake you see maintainers make?