[Marius Storhaug (MariusStorhaug)]

Feature contributors give the current situation first, then the user benefit, the requested change, and an example of the expected result. The inherited PSModule feature form uses direct instructions and present-tense maintainer responsibilities. Its identity, declared labels, single required response, and feedback routing remain unchanged. No consumer-local edit or technical plan is necessary.

Changed: Feature requests establish the current situation before the desired change

The response remains Current situation and desired change. The introduction removes the courtesy opening. The prompts give direct instructions in the same order:

1. Tell us how things work today. Include what is not easy or is missing.
2. Tell us who the change helps and why.
3. Tell us what you want to add or change.
4. Give a real example. Include the situation, your action, and the result you expect.

Optional starters use ordinary language. Maintainers review and refine feedback, then select the issue type. The form does not require literal Gherkin syntax, architecture decisions, or a technical implementation plan. Tasks and Bugs retain their technical delivery plans.

After merge, PSModule repositories that use inherited issue templates receive the organization-owned form without local configuration or code changes. Repositories with local overrides are unchanged. The chooser metadata, title prefix, feature/triage declarations, description field ID, single required textarea, field label, and blank-issue fallback remain unchanged.

---

Technical details

Scope and source identity

Candidate: 7eedb8a44c00bfa0f38d541ea88a7d7d791eaa19 on psmodule-feature-intake. The complete PR changes only .github\ISSUE_TEMPLATE\10-feature.yml: 23 additions and 5 deletions against f424237c98b5b020f80e8c9563dbc37256fc1ec0.

The prose revision is one ordinary commit after e7a14f7eb35eb77bff8b6ba7730c8870a660185d. It changes only the introduction, textarea description, and optional placeholder text. The form's Git blob changes from 8fb4a887c15961430e78980ac695a8af83029fbc to 29b9a60ed7e77745fdcf7f0e22b66026c864036a; the earlier identical-blob claim applies only to the completed test-removal correction, not this prose revision. Other campaign sessions own README/AGENTS/profile and bug/patch/general forms; this branch does not edit those paths.

Prose acceptance evidence

Concern	Before this prose revision	After	Preserved result
Opening	Courtesy thanks before the first instruction	Starts with how things work today	Current situation first
User benefit and requested change	Questions and conditional wording	Imperative Tell/Give prompts	User benefit precedes the requested change
Expected result	A real-situation question	An example with situation, action, and expected result	Observable scenario without mandatory formal syntax
Maintainer responsibility	Will review and decide how to route	Review and refine feedback, then select the issue type	Same maintainers and native routing; present tense
Optional starters	Would help / would like	Change helps / I want	Same ordinary-language hints, not prefilled answers

A one-time read-only YAML comparison allowed changes only to body[0].attributes.value, body[1].attributes.description, and body[1].attributes.placeholder. The remaining keys and values matched the preceding source. This includes form identity, routing declarations, field ID, required flag, field label, and absence of an assigned native type. The reference URLs and untouched blank-issue configuration retain their roles. This comparison is maintenance evidence, not a retained snapshot test or a test of GitHub behavior.

Fixed writing sources and limits

The campaign uses MSXOrg/docs at 1b0d4893c8fefabe604d04393068a8ff6f848082: Documentation Model, Natural Language, Writing Guide, Markdown, Documentation, and the applicable issue/Task/PR formats. All required pages were available.

The official STE overview, FAQ, and Issue 9 DOI were available. The PDF was read in memory, and its MD5 matched the official record. The review consulted active-voice rule 3.6, procedural rules 5.1-5.3, and relevant dictionary entries for prompt wording, including Tell/Give and alternatives to Explain/Describe. Reference content was not republished.

This is a scoped manual prose review, not a full word-by-word STE certification. Domain terms retain their MSX meaning. A word count, static lint result, or automated approval does not prove complete STE conformance.

Static checks and testing boundary

Existing command or inspection	Result and limit
yamllint --strict .github\ISSUE_TEMPLATE\10-feature.yml	Passed, exit 0. Existing static YAML lint only.
git --no-pager diff f424237c98b5b020f80e8c9563dbc37256fc1ec0 HEAD --check	Passed. Whitespace inspection only.
Read-only comparison against e7a14f7eb35eb77bff8b6ba7730c8870a660185d	Only permitted display values differ; non-prose keys and values are unchanged. No comparison script is committed.
gh api repos/PSModule/.github/pulls/89/files --paginate	Exactly one changed file: the feature form, 23 additions/5 deletions.

The 198-line Pester snapshot suite remains removed. Its historical 25 assertions did not test GitHub rendering, submission, or routing; the earlier functional-coverage claim stays withdrawn. No replacement content assertions, schema snapshots, runtime simulation, test dependency, validator, workflow, hook, or test issue is added. No live GitHub form test was executed or claimed. Static/manual inspection and review do not establish that unexecuted coverage. Pre-commit alignment remains deferred, and the separate testing-policy cleanup remains independent.

Plan, review, and lifecycle

PSModule/.github#88 records the new user-directed prose acceptance decision and the preserved testing boundary. Its earlier test-removal identity is historical evidence; current prose evidence uses the candidate above.

The exact-head review approved the candidate at 2026-11-04T12:27:50Z, with zero inline comments and no active review issues. Previous-head approvals are not reused.

The existing lifecycle hold is preserved. The PR remains open, not draft, and unmerged, with GitHub autoMergeRequest=null. Native Agent merge remains disabled; actions remain address_reviews=true, fix_ci=true, resolve_conflicts=true, and merge_pr=false. No merge, enqueue, draft conversion, ready-state change, or automatic landing is performed or authorized by this revision. The separate testing-policy cleanup must not be bypassed.

Changed surface	Standards checked	Framework/domain docs checked	Result
Feature-form display prose	Fixed MSX writing baseline; relevant official STE rules/dictionary; existing YAML guidance	GitHub issue-form roles; native feedback refinement and Task/Bug planning boundaries	Fixed in this PR
Removed-test state and evidence	MSX Testing: Test supported behavior	None (no owned form runtime)	Aligned; live behavior unexecuted

The exact feature-form-path issue sweep found this Task, the separate writing campaign issues, and the broader YAML work. No additional issue is fully delivered by this feature-only branch; this PR has only PSModule/.github#88 as its closing delivery leaf. The Task remains open, and the PR is unmerged. Retired validator/governance work is not reinstated. Issue states/relationships, repository labels/protections, and other community files remain unchanged.

Related references

• Resolves PSModule/.github#88

Related work

• References MSXOrg/docs#228
• References MSXOrg/docs#230

[Copilot]

🟢 Approved

No active review issues remain for the feature-request form update.

No open issues 🎉

What changed in this PR

Updates the organization’s inherited feature-request form so contributors describe their needs, motivation, and expected behavior without proposing an implementation. Existing template identity, routing labels, and the single required response remain unchanged.

Changes:

• Replaces implementation-oriented prompts with consumer-focused questions and optional plain-language starters.
• Clarifies maintainer routing and links canonical MSX issue and planning guidance.
• Adds 23 focused Pester checks covering form structure, preserved routing, and consumer-facing prompts.

File	Description
tests/​FeatureIntake.Tests.ps1	Adds regression checks for the feature form’s structure, routing, and consumer expectations.
.github/​ISSUE_TEMPLATE/​10-feature.yml	Updates feature-request guidance and prompts while preserving submission requirements.

_{Review effort: Balanced}

[Copilot]

🟢 Approved

No active review issues were identified in the feature-request form update.

No open issues 🎉

_{Review effort: Balanced}

[Copilot]

🟢 Approved

There are no active review issues for the feature-request form guidance update.

No open issues 🎉

_{Review effort: Balanced}

[Copilot]

🟢 Approved

No active review issues are reported for the feature-request form update.

No open issues 🎉

_{Review effort: Balanced}