[Feature]: Clarify issue readiness check comment and reference templates

[jpshackelford]

Problem Statement

The automated issue readiness check (issue-readiness-check.yml via post-readiness-comment.mjs) currently posts a verbose comment when an issue fails the readiness gate. It does not explicitly link to the repository issue template definitions (.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/*.yml), and does not explain why type labels (enhancement or bug) are missing when issues are filed outside the Web UI (e.g. via CLI or API by contributors without triage/label permissions).

Desired Behavior

Update .github/scripts/post-readiness-comment.mjs to:

1. Make the ready-for-dev failure comment concise and scannable.
2. Link directly to .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.yml and .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_template.yml for full schema reference.
3. Clarify that labels are applied automatically when using the Web UI template, and that maintainers will add missing labels during triage for CLI/API submissions.

Acceptance Criteria

• The not ready-for-dev comment is concise and links to the template files.
• The comment clarifies label triage for CLI/API submitters.
• Syntax and cross tests pass without regressions.

[github-actions]

✅ ready-for-dev label applied

This issue meets the readiness criteria and is ready for contribution.
A contributor can now open a PR that links this issue (Fixes #<number>).

This is an automated check — no AI was used to generate this comment.

[all-hands-bot]

Issue #4626 requests concise readiness comment wording, template links, and CLI/API label triage clarification in post-readiness-comment.mjs. Issue #4605 is an open issue covering the same readiness gate infrastructure — including the readiness comments — and has an active draft PR #4607 already touching the same file. The comment-content improvements requested in #4626 are a natural sub-task of #4605's broader scope and would be best tracked there to avoid competing changes to the same script.

Found 2 possible duplicate issues:

1. #4605 — Add and enforce ready-for-dev issue and PR readiness gates
2. #4463 — Port ready-for-dev issue and PR gates from OpenHands

These may not be exact duplicates, but the scope appears to overlap enough that keeping discussion in one place may be more useful.

This comment was created by an AI assistant (OpenHands) on behalf of the repository maintainer.