docs: add GitHub issue forms

Bug, indicator-request, and validation-mismatch forms, plus a Q&A discussion link.

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+name: Bug report
+description: Report incorrect output or a crash, with a failing input series
+title: "[Bug] "
+labels: [bug]
+body:
+  - type: markdown
+    attributes:
+      value: |
+        A bug report without a failing input is a rumor. Include a series that reproduces the wrong result — that makes it fixable.
+  - type: input
+    id: indicator
+    attributes:
+      label: Indicator
+      description: Which indicator (and mode) misbehaves?
+      placeholder: "e.g. Sma(period=14), streamed one value at a time"
+    validations:
+      required: true
+  - type: input
+    id: version
+    attributes:
+      label: Version
+      description: Package version or commit hash.
+      placeholder: "e.g. 0.8.12 / fa325ee1"
+    validations:
+      required: true
+  - type: textarea
+    id: input-series
+    attributes:
+      label: Failing input series
+      description: A minimal input series that reproduces the wrong result, plus the expected vs actual output.
+      placeholder: "prices = [100, 101, 102, 103, 104]  # period 3\nexpected = [?, ?, 101, 102, 103]\nactual   = [?, ?, 101, 102, 104]"
+    validations:
+      required: true
+  - type: textarea
+    id: expected
+    attributes:
+      label: Expected vs actual
+      description: What should it return, and what does it return? Point to the exact values that diverge.
+    validations:
+      required: true
+  - type: textarea
+    id: repro
+    attributes:
+      label: Reproduction
+      description: Minimal code that reproduces it (C#, Python, or PineScript).
+      placeholder: |
+        using QuanTAlib;
+        var sma = new Sma(3);
+        ...
+  - type: textarea
+    id: environment
+    attributes:
+      label: Environment
+      description: OS, runtime, version, and CPU if relevant.
+      placeholder: |
+        - OS: Windows 11
+        - Runtime: .NET 10.0
+    validations:
+      required: false

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+blank_issues_enabled: false
+contact_links:
+  - name: Q&A
+    url: https://github.com/mihakralj/QuanTAlib/discussions
+    about: Ask a question in the Discussions Q&A category instead of opening an issue.

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/indicator_request.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+name: Indicator request
+description: Request a new indicator, with a reference paper or canonical source
+title: "[Indicator] "
+labels: [enhancement]
+body:
+  - type: markdown
+    attributes:
+      value: |
+        The best requests reference a paper or a canonical implementation we can validate against. A name without a reference is homework, not a spec.
+  - type: input
+    id: name
+    attributes:
+      label: Indicator name
+      description: Full name and any common abbreviation.
+      placeholder: "e.g. Random Walk Index (RWI)"
+    validations:
+      required: true
+  - type: input
+    id: reference
+    attributes:
+      label: Reference paper or source
+      description: Paper title, author, DOI/URL, or the canonical implementation.
+      placeholder: 'e.g. Poulos, "Of Trends and Random Walks", Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities (1992)'
+    validations:
+      required: true
+  - type: textarea
+    id: description
+    attributes:
+      label: What it measures
+      description: One or two sentences on what the indicator computes and when it is useful.
+  - type: textarea
+    id: formula
+    attributes:
+      label: Formula
+      description: The math, if you have it.
+      placeholder: "RWI = ... "
+  - type: textarea
+    id: expected
+    attributes:
+      label: Reference values
+      description: A couple of known input-to-output pairs from the paper or another library, for validation.

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/validation_mismatch.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+name: Validation mismatch
+description: Report where QuanTAlib disagrees with a reference library or paper
+title: "[Validation] "
+labels: [bug, validation]
+body:
+  - type: markdown
+    attributes:
+      value: |
+        Every indicator is cross-checked against TA-Lib, Tulip, Skender, and Pandas-TA. If you found a case where we disagree, capture the exact input and the two outputs.
+  - type: input
+    id: indicator
+    attributes:
+      label: Indicator
+      description: Which indicator disagrees, and with what settings?
+      placeholder: "e.g. Hull moving average, period 14"
+    validations:
+      required: true
+  - type: input
+    id: reference
+    attributes:
+      label: Reference
+      description: The library or paper you compared against, and its version.
+      placeholder: "e.g. TA-Lib 0.4.0 / Skender 2.x / the original paper"
+    validations:
+      required: true
+  - type: textarea
+    id: input-series
+    attributes:
+      label: Input series
+      description: The input used for both implementations.
+      placeholder: "prices = [100, 101, 99, 103, ...]"
+    validations:
+      required: true
+  - type: textarea
+    id: mismatch
+    attributes:
+      label: Disagreement
+      description: The values from QuanTAlib vs the reference, and the index where they first diverge.
+    validations:
+      required: true
+  - type: textarea
+    id: notes
+    attributes:
+      label: Notes
+      description: Anything about warm-up conventions, precision, or methodology that might explain the gap.