ci: add claude issue dedup

[Minh141120]

This pull request introduces automated deduplication of GitHub issues using Claude Code. The main changes include adding a workflow to run the deduplication process when issues are opened or manually triggered, and providing a detailed command specification for how the deduplication should be performed.

Automated Issue Deduplication

• Added a new GitHub Actions workflow (.github/workflows/claude-issue-dedup.yml) to automatically detect and comment on duplicate issues using Claude Code whenever an issue is opened or when manually triggered.

Deduplication Process Specification

• Created a comprehensive command file (.claude/commands/dedupe.md) describing the step-by-step process for finding and commenting on duplicate issues, including tool restrictions, agent instructions, and required comment format.

---

Important

Adds GitHub Actions workflow for automated issue deduplication using Claude Code with detailed process specification.

• Automated Issue Deduplication:
  • Adds .github/workflows/claude-issue-dedup.yml to detect and comment on duplicate issues using Claude Code when issues are opened or manually triggered.
• Deduplication Process Specification:
  • Creates .claude/commands/dedupe.md detailing steps for finding and commenting on duplicate issues, including tool restrictions and comment format.

^{This description was created by for 0edf963. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Caution

Changes requested ❌

Reviewed everything up to 0edf963 in 2 minutes and 13 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 75 lines of code in 2 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 7 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. .claude/commands/dedupe.md:10

• Draft comment:
  Consider updating 'Github' to 'GitHub' for consistent branding.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50% None

2. .github/workflows/claude-issue-dedup.yml:26

• Draft comment:
  Pin the action version instead of using @beta for reproducibility.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50% None

3. .github/workflows/claude-issue-dedup.yml:28

• Draft comment:
  Verify that the fallback expression (github.event.issue.number || inputs.issue_number) works as expected for manual triggers.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50% None

4. .github/workflows/claude-issue-dedup.yml:31

• Draft comment:
  Add a newline at the end of the file for POSIX compliance and consistency.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50% None

5. .claude/commands/dedupe.md:10

• Draft comment:
  Typo: Inconsistent capitalization of 'GitHub'. In this instance the term is written as 'Github', but elsewhere (e.g., line 3) it is 'GitHub'. Please update for consistency.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% While the comment is technically correct about the inconsistency, this is a very minor stylistic issue in a markdown file. It doesn't affect functionality, readability, or code quality in any meaningful way. The comment is more about documentation formatting than actual code changes. According to the rules, we should not make purely informative comments or comments that are obvious/unimportant. The inconsistency could potentially cause confusion for users or indicate a lack of attention to detail. Brand names should typically be used consistently. While consistency is good, this is an extremely minor documentation issue that doesn't impact functionality or understanding. The meaning is clear either way. Delete this comment as it's too minor and purely stylistic, violating the rule about not making obvious or unimportant comments.

6. .claude/commands/dedupe.md:12

• Draft comment:
  Typo: 'Github' appears here. Please update to 'GitHub' to maintain consistent capitalization throughout the document.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% The comment is about a real inconsistency in a new file. However, the rules say not to comment on things that are obvious or unimportant. Capitalization consistency is a minor issue that doesn't affect functionality. The author can easily spot and fix this themselves. The rules also emphasize only commenting when there's clearly a code change required - this is more of a documentation polish issue. The inconsistent capitalization could be confusing for users reading the documentation. It's a real issue in a new file that was just added. While it's a real issue, it's too minor to warrant a PR comment. The rules explicitly say not to make obvious or unimportant comments. Delete this comment as it points out a minor documentation formatting issue that doesn't require explicit feedback in the PR review.

7. .claude/commands/dedupe.md:18

• Draft comment:
  Typo: 'Github' is used here; for consistency, it should be 'GitHub'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% While technically correct about the inconsistency, this is an extremely minor formatting issue. The meaning is completely clear either way. The rules say not to make comments that are obvious or unimportant. This feels like the kind of nitpicky comment that adds noise without value. The inconsistency could be confusing to users or look unprofessional in documentation. Brand names should be used correctly. While brand consistency is good, this is such a minor issue that it doesn't warrant interrupting the PR author's workflow. Everyone knows what "Github" means. Delete this comment as it violates the rule about not making obvious/unimportant comments. The capitalization inconsistency is too minor to be worth addressing.

Workflow ID: wflow_qz64ldVyVVVpRhAl

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}