Speed up your Issue Creation with Copilot: Feedback

[Akash1134]

To help you create higher quality issues with greater ease, you can now create issues by chatting with Copilot. This experience is currently in public preview.

Key Features

• Prompt to create an Issue: Create an issue by prompting Copilot. Copilot will transform your prompt into a fully created issue. Simply review and refine it before clicking create.
• Start with an image: Create an issue starting with an image. Copilot uploads the issue to the image.
• Review template guidance: View Copilot’s suggested templates based on your prompt. Make changes and Copilot will reformat the issue.

Still to come...

As this experience is in public preview, you may run into some bugs and missing features (let us know when you do). Some of areas we are working on include:

• Multi Issue Creation: Creating multiple issues with greater ease, rather than needing to click the Create button for each individual issue that Copilot drafts.
• Sub Issues: Nesting sub issues into parent issues.
• Updating Issues: Leveraging Copilot to update existing issues.

Try it out

To get started, go to https://github.com/copilot and try a prompt like …

• Create me an issue for..
• Create me a bug for ..

Feedback

We want to hear from you! Post your comments, questions, likes, and dislikes below.

[dserodio]

Is this also available in Copilot Free?

[elliebennett]

@KB01111 Thanks for letting us know. Can you share your steps for trying out this feature? Which URL were you on when you tried and what prompt you initially tried?

[Stevenrusski395]

//:run download token

[laniigar]

Im not seeing it

Nothing is showing damn it

[Hemalathavenkamsetty]

hi

[odazad962-maker]

const express = require("express");
const mongoose = require("mongoose");
const dotenv = require("dotenv");
const cors = require("cors");

const authRoutes = require("./routes/auth");
const coinRoutes = require("./routes/coins");

dotenv.config();
const app = express();
app.use(express.json());
app.use(cors());

// Routes
app.use("/api/auth", authRoutes);
app.use("/api/coins", coinRoutes);

mongoose.connect(process.env.MONGO_URI)
.then(() => console.log("✅ MongoDB Connected"))
.catch((err) => console.error(err));

app.listen(5000, () => console.log("🚀 Server running on port 5000"));

[gsuberland]

I would like to know the following:

• Are the created issues marked as being generated by an LLM?
• Can maintainers opt out of this feature being available on their repos?

Thanks.

[ecnepsnai]

@elliebennett

At this time, there is no opt out feature.

What is the justification for the decision that this feature is good to proceed with public preview without controls for opting out?

[gsuberland]

@elliebennett My question was not hyperbolic, could you provide an answer please?

[xmatthias]

I guess the best way is to give some of the load back to github by reporting such issues / users as "spam / inauthentic behavior".
an AI generated issue IS inauthentic behavior (especially if it contains bullshit code) - so i think that's the expected approach.

(yes, this is very sarcastic - but it'll at least drive some of the load back at github).

[Hemalathavenkamsetty]

I would like to know the following:

• Are the created issues marked as being generated by an LLM?
• Can maintainers opt out of this feature being available on their repos?

Thanks.

hi

[jfalcou]

Nobody asked for this useless feature, especially with no opt out. I don't have time as a maintainer to sift through idiotic PRs written by a stochastic parrot trained on stolen data.

[Jackenmen]

Please consider #159749

[bcoconni]

A nightmare is coming true.

In case someone did not notice, issues are already written in natural language, or close to. So basically your idea is to prompt Copilot in natural language (because it's intuitive, you know) to produce something that is otherwise written in natural language ? And what is making you think that users that are not capable of stating clearly their issue without LLMs will be able to provide a useful prompt to Copilot ?

Which brings my second point: in the example you have provided, Copilot is taking the user statement for granted, and is not challenging anything. So if the user has actually misspelled the MarkDown syntax, well that's too bad because Copilot is doing what LLMs are doing best: making up facts to fill the gaps. In your example, Copilot is assuming that the user has used the correct table syntax without having any single evidence supporting that assumption.

Which brings my third point: the example that Copilot is providing to "reproduce" the bug is not tested, neither by the user nor by Copilot. So the example may or may not be relevant. And when the example is made up by Copilot, well then the project maintainer will be delighted to find that the so-called "example to reproduce the bug" is actually working.

But, oh wait, it's up to the user to check that the report that Copilot has made up prepared is correct. We're covered ! Well, GitHub may be covered but we, project maintainers, are definitely not. This wishful thinking will violently be hit by reality.

I guess you've read real life bug reports and therefore know what the average issue/ticket looks like ? I'd be very surprised that the kind of users who will use that "feature" are the people who are writing well detailed, well explained tickets with tested examples to reproduce the bug. IMO, the users who will most likely use that "feature" are the users who are not providing any example and are just telling "It doesn't work". Are you deluding yourself in assuming that they will copy the example written by Copilot and check that it is actually triggering the bug that they are reporting ?

For all these reasons, it would be appreciated that -as some other people have suggested- these issues are properly tagged as having been generated by AI, so that project maintainers know that these should be read with a pinch of salt. That would really be the bare minimum. However I am not deluding myself in thinking that this suggestion will be taken into account, I'm a small fish maintaining an obscure, low profile GitHub project (and spare me the public relationship message "GitHub is taking very seriously the feedback from all of its users.").

Well, I guess your performance at GitHub is evaluated by how much AI you are pushing into the website no matter what. So project maintainers will have to live with good and not so good AI features.

[lux-capacitor]

Copilot is not able to make pull requests. It has complete access to all our repos and when I ask it something super simple, it says directly that it cannot make pull requests. The documentation says it can though so what is the trick to enable this? I am chatting with the current repo I am asking for the change in as the context as you'll see in the 2nd screenshot. What am I missing?

In the convo below, if I say "proceed" it just makes the code in a snippet and hands it to me. I want it to make a pull request, what do I have to do to make it make a pull request?

[Jackenmen]

You need copilot pro+ tier which gives you access to copilot agent. Then, as a maintainer, you can assign issues to copilot.
Alternatively, there's "agent mode" that you can open from issue view (and maybe directly from vs code) to interactively prompt to generate changes that you may later decide to PR.

[andrei-ivanovici]

Can we please stop throwing AI at every step ? Please ? Pretty please ? This feature feels extremely rushed and not well thought through. No project with even a moderate degree of popularity would see this useful. I can already imagine the army of trolls swamping projects with useless PRs and Issues. I don't understand how GitHub or Microsoft thinks this is a good idea? Is the use of AI this desperate that determines you to alienate your user-base over ? Keep this on and GitHub will truly become an AI platform. With AI as both the content producer and consumer and Zero users to care about it

[sugar700]

I hate how this feature can be used to make up issues that aren't even real, while making them look plausible.

And frankly, I don't think it's useful for anything else, the thing is, issues are already written in natural language, so anything that doesn't come from input is pretty much bullshit, outright lies that waste maintainers' time (as copilot cannot compile the project, and actually check what happens).

[Matiam0]

So there is no opt-out. We are for the most part unpaid and unwilling beta-tester's for a L.L.M. that is not market ready in the slightest. To top it off there is no way short of increasing work-load for maintainers to moderate its use. That is my understanding of this as it stands, if I see none of the above issues resolved I'll be moving to alternative or self hosted services. Encouraging others to do the same.

[taladar]

I don't see how this would even be a good idea if Copilot was a hyper-intelligent AGI. It still wouldn't be able to make up a sensible issue from the limited and potentially inaccurate information a user provides.

[dimitrilongo]

Create me an issue for ... prompt can work in VS CODE ? or only through https://github.com/copilot ?
Thanks

[just-joshing]

This particular announcement is just for https://github.com/copilot.
I expect the MCP server will eventually let you do this in VSCode as well though.

[MillerBoat]

The interface seems to be stuck in a loading state. Although it responds to other messages or actions, the main content doesn't load properly. This feature is really useful, but unfortunately, it's not working as expected right now. I hope this can be fixed soon.

[dipievil]

After create a full IA Driven markdown document including all details for every issue, it creates the issues correctly using the Claude Sonet 4. It also included more information and details for development all related to the planning. Amazing!

The gpt's (anyone) creates poor issues. And even after request change it, it didn't changed anything.

Using gpt:

Using claude:

Guys... Just use Sonnet 4.

Justing adding that the issue was created with copilot and it already started working on it! 😮

[bananavasso1999]

What happened that it's been saying stupid things lately, and also the VS Code extension doesn't modify the files on its own?

[ara303]

I've encountered a bug where if I ask Copilot to create an issue for me, it is capable of creating a draft issue but when I click Create to actually publish the issue it for some reason triggers another message back in the Copilot chat every single time, which appears to be malformed and unnecessary.

Secondly, Copilot didn't instruct me that it was only creating draft issues which I would have to individually publish. The response did say it'd make drafts but it was not clearly communicated I had to expand "35 references 🔽" (see screenshots below).

Thirdly, it would be really nice if there was an option to either just make them as published issues right off the bat or at least to publish them all at once.

Model: Claude 4 Sonnet.

Screenshots

1. My inital prompt:

2. The list of draft issues, which I didn't know to check because I wasn't educated that was even a thing in Copilot's response:

3. The draft issue area which does work (and is populated correctly):

4. However when I click on Create as seen above, it triggers another message to Copilot which is garbled, unhelpful, and consumed premium credits.

The bug here is twofold:

1. It didn't tell me it was making draft issues that I would have to manually publish as real issues myself, and didn't tell me I had to expand the "35 references" section in order to see the drafts.
2. It triggers another message when I click Create on the draft issue which uses my premium credits for no reason.