Add issue template config and PR template check workflow

[Marshall-Hallenbeck]

Description

• Disable blank issues and add contact links for the wiki and Discord.
• Add a GitHub Actions workflow that comments on PRs missing template sections.

Discussion point for maintainers (@zblurx @NeffIsBack @mpgn):

• Should we disable the blank issue (part of what this PR does) and force a feature request or bug report template? If yes, should we add a "question" template, or something for "other"?

Type of change

Insert an "x" inside the brackets for relevant items (do not delete options)

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• Deprecation of feature or functionality
• This change requires a documentation update
• This requires a third party update (such as Impacket, Dploot, lsassy, etc)

Setup guide for the review

N/A - this is a GitHub Workflow update

Screenshots (if appropriate):

N/A

Checklist:

Insert an "x" inside the brackets for completed and relevant items (do not delete options)

• I have ran Ruff against my changes (via poetry: poetry run python -m ruff check . --preview, use --fix to automatically fix what it can)
• I have added or updated the tests/e2e_commands.txt file if necessary (new modules or features are required to be added to the e2e tests)
• New and existing e2e tests pass locally with my changes
• If reliant on changes of third party dependencies, such as Impacket, dploot, lsassy, etc, I have linked the relevant PRs in those projects
• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation (PR here: https://github.com/Pennyw0rth/NetExec-Wiki)

[Marshall-Hallenbeck]

Looks like the template check worked: https://github.com/Pennyw0rth/NetExec/actions/runs/21891306791/job/63197484682?pr=1105

[NeffIsBack]

Should we disable the blank issue (part of what this PR does) and force a feature request or bug report template? If yes, should we add a "question" template, or something for "other"?

Yes absolutely, there are way too many bug reports where people don't fill out the form (e.g. OS and installation method) which makes it much harder to debug.

[NeffIsBack]

I anyway wanted to make some slight changes to the PR template, @Marshall-Hallenbeck fine if I just do it in this PR?

[Marshall-Hallenbeck]

I anyway wanted to make some slight changes to the PR template, @Marshall-Hallenbeck fine if I just do it in this PR?

No problem, go ahead!

[NeffIsBack]

I anyway wanted to make some slight changes to the PR template, @Marshall-Hallenbeck fine if I just do it in this PR?

No problem, go ahead!

Perfect, done. If you guys don't agree with the changes please let me know :D

[NeffIsBack]

Imo LGTM

[Marshall-Hallenbeck]

@NeffIsBack While we are making these updates, should we update our AI policy and add in a checkbox about if AI was used?

[NeffIsBack]

@NeffIsBack While we are making these updates, should we update our AI policy and add in a checkbox about if AI was used?

Let's do it, AI slop is increasing day by day.

[Marshall-Hallenbeck]

For reference: #1109 opened for AI policy.

[NeffIsBack]

Can/should we exclude the CI Check on the PR template for us maintainers? I think we know how to write a description (if necessary). Otherwise this is good imo

[Marshall-Hallenbeck]

Can/should we exclude the CI Check on the PR template for us maintainers? I think we know how to write a description (if necessary). Otherwise this is good imo

It just checks that the sections are there, I don't see why we wouldnt use the template.

[Marshall-Hallenbeck]

@NeffIsBack I updated the PR template as well, can you take another look?

[NeffIsBack]

Can/should we exclude the CI Check on the PR template for us maintainers? I think we know how to write a description (if necessary). Otherwise this is good imo

It just checks that the sections are there, I don't see why we wouldnt use the template.

Sure, was just an idea. There are rare cases (see AI policy PR) where i would not use the template, because i want to change something very particular that doesn't require the template. But in that case i can also just ignore the bot comment then.

[NeffIsBack]

LGTM