Focus organization feature intake on consumer needs and expected behavior #14

Describe the change

Let people requesting a feature describe what they need, why it matters, and what should happen without choosing an implementation. The organization-owned .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/10-feature.yml currently asks for implementation suggestions and alternatives in its one required textarea. Keep this public feedback intake approachable while distributing the confirmed consumer-focused intent through the shared form, not through consumer-local copies.

The confirmed guidance applies to Epic and PBI expectations; technical Task and Bug decisions and execution plans remain intact. MSX issue guidance and issue planning remain the canonical links. MSXOrg/docs#228 and MSXOrg/docs#230 own the source update. The coordinator has supplied the frozen, review-ready source at 1c8f98cabe64b12aaa5fa9fb5f51b9d03f5de9de. Its consumer-expectations, native-routing, Task/Bug plan, and external-feedback correspondence are verified. MSXOrg/docs#230 is not merged: shipped form links use already-resolving canonical pages, not its unpublished new anchors.

Acceptance criteria

• A requester is prompted for the goal or need, who benefits, motivation, and a short situation/action/expected-result example; implementation choices and literal Gherkin syntax are not required.
• The form retains one required textarea with id description, the existing feature name and title, and exactly the existing feature and triage labels. It adds no native issue-type classification or new mandatory fields.
• The form links the existing canonical issue and planning guidance instead of copying the full standard.
• External feedback remains input for maintainers, with internal planning linked separately rather than silently converting every submission to an internal Task or rewriting a non-contributor's report.
• Focused executable checks cover exact prompts, valid GitHub form structure, preserved intake routing, and the old implementation-first solicitation's removal. The desired prompt checks fail on the original form and pass after correction.
• One separate draft PR closes this Task and records the actual source correspondence and any open readiness gates without merging or enabling auto-merge.

Constraints and non-goals

Only the feature form and directly necessary scoped regression evidence are in scope. Bug forms, technical delivery plans, the PR fallback and README work in MSXOrg/.github#8, validation implementation/configuration/guards in MSXOrg/.github#12, hooks, permissions, rulesets, live labels, community-file copying/removal, and release documentation remain separate. Do not claim the canonical candidate or downstream adoption has shipped.

Technical decisions

Keep the existing markdown introduction and one required textarea; several new required fields would raise the minimum submission burden without improving this slice. Replace only the introduction, textarea label, and description with plain en-US consumer prompts and two already-resolving canonical planning and native-routing links. Prompt for a failure or limit example only when it changes what the requester expects; do not require Gherkin or new mandatory fields. Explain that maintainers link internal planning separately; keep native classification absent and feature/triage routing unchanged.

Add one focused .github/tests/FeatureIntake.Tests.ps1 suite using the existing Pester 6.1.0 runner, exact assertions for this form's supported metadata/element structure, and the independent existing yamllint parser for YAML syntax. The shared runner supplies Pester but does not provision powershell-yaml; therefore the committed suite must not introduce that parser dependency or require a CI change. Follow the source repository's existing Pester conventions. Use the existing Pester runner and shared yamllint/PSScriptAnalyzer settings from immutable MSXOrg/.github#12 source only as local validation tools; do not import that PR's CI implementation or configuration into this branch. First commit passing structure/routing checks and open the early draft; then demonstrate the desired prompt failures locally before changing the form. Do not push known failing tests. Record commands/results and source/readiness evidence in this Task and PR rather than expanding repository documentation or adding a general lint framework.

Implementation plan

• Add and run passing baseline GitHub form-structure, one-required-field, and routing assertions; commit the scoped suite and open a separate early draft PR.
• Add exact consumer-need, motivation, scenario, canonical-link, and external-feedback assertions; confirm the original form fails for the intended prompt changes before editing it.
• Replace the implementation-first feature prompts while preserving the existing metadata, single required textarea, and external-feedback routing; commit the coherent form change.
• Define exact frozen-guidance checks for direct planning/native-routing links and conditional failure/limit examples; confirm the previously aligned form fails those checks before its scoped refresh.
• Refresh only the feature introduction/description and scoped assertions to match the frozen guidance, preserving one required field and all existing intake routing.
• Run the focused suite, YAML lint, PowerShell lint, scope checks, and current-head automated review; record each result and any missing hosted readiness gate without changing CI or governance.
• Verify the frozen canonical source and anchors when supplied, reconcile the form and PR, and retain draft state for any unmet source or readiness prerequisite.

Final delivery evidence

Draft MSXOrg/.github#15 at 5edc236cf2bc365931483487a5a0d471b3779629 contains only the feature form and its scoped Pester suite. At that clean committed head, 12 tests pass with no failures, skips, or failed discovery containers; YAML lint and PowerShell lint pass; both current canonical page links resolve and render. The original form and wrong-native-type/quoted-required fixtures are rejected. The complete current-head Copilot review is COMMENTED with no inline/open code issues, and the review-thread API reports zero threads. Its full summary correctly retains the publication and hosted validation/enforcement gates.

Source correspondence is verified against frozen docs commit 1c8f98cabe64b12aaa5fa9fb5f51b9d03f5de9de; MSXOrg/docs#230 remains unmerged. The only completed check at this PR head is the Copilot reviewer, not Organization defaults validation; there are no commit statuses or required-status-check rules. Hosted validation remains separately tracked in #11/#12, and local hooks remain the #13 exception. This Task stays open until its reviewed PR is merged; the PR remains draft with no auto-merge, and no live governance or labels are changed.