Remove labeling from auto-triage workflow

- Remove add-labels safe-output from frontmatter
- Remove add_labels action instructions from workflow body
- Remove Required Context section (full .github/ scan)
- Update triage comment template (area from table, not label)
- Move AI disclaimer before Next Steps
- Recompile lock.yml

Labels will be managed via GitHub Projects and human triage instead.

Author: priyankatiwari08

.github/workflows/issue-triage.lock.yml

@@ -19,8 +19,6 @@ safe-outputs:
   add-comment:
     max: 1
     hide-older-comments: true
-  add-labels:
-    max: 5
 ---
 
 # SqlClient Issue Auto-Triage
@@ -29,10 +27,10 @@ You are a triage specialist for **Microsoft.Data.SqlClient**.
 A new issue has just been opened. Your job is to:
 
 1. Read the issue silently using GitHub read tools
-2. Apply labels silently using `add_labels`
-3. Post **one** triage summary comment using `add_comment`
+2. Post **one** triage summary comment using `add_comment`
 
 That is the entire workflow. Do NOT call `add_comment` more than once.
+Do NOT call `add_labels`. Do NOT apply any labels.
 Do NOT post intermediate findings. Do NOT post separate comments for
 area detection, duplicate checking, or environment validation.
 Everything goes into the single triage summary at the end.
@@ -90,19 +88,9 @@ Proceed with all remaining triage steps regardless of missing environment detail
 
 ---
 
-## Actions (execute in this order)
+## Actions
 
-**First**: Call `add_labels` with at most 5 labels total (safe-outputs limit):
-- `Triage Needed :new:` (always)
-- Exactly **one** `Area\*` label from the table above (pick the single best match)
-- `Needs More Info :information_source:` if critical environment details are missing (bugs only)
-- `Repro Available :heavy_check_mark:` if repro steps are provided
-- `Regression :boom:` if this appears to be a regression
-
-If the issue spans multiple areas, pick the primary area as the label and mention
-other relevant areas in the triage summary comment instead.
-
-**Then**: Call `add_comment` exactly **once** with this markdown:
+Call `add_comment` exactly **once** with this markdown:
 
 ```
 ## 🔍 Triage Summary
@@ -111,7 +99,7 @@ other relevant areas in the triage summary comment instead.
 |-------|--------|
 | Issue type | <Bug / Feature / Question / Task> |
 | Environment | <All required environment details provided for investigation / ⚠️ Missing: list specific fields> |
-| Area | <Area label applied or "no match"> |
+| Area | <Best matching area from classification table> |
 | Duplicates | <None found / Potentially related: #NNN, #NNN> |
 | Regression | <Not indicated / Likely regression from vX.Y.Z / Inconclusive> |
 
@@ -122,14 +110,15 @@ and severity assessment (P0-P3)>
 
 ### Next Steps
 
-<Actionable items. Be specific, not vague.
-- If environment details are missing: explicitly ask the author to provide the
-  specific missing fields (e.g. "@author, please provide: .NET target framework,
-  SQL Server version, and Operating system so we can proceed with investigation.")
-- If environment is complete and this is a confirmed bug: state that assign this issue to Copilot coding agent to investigate, AND include specific
-  investigation guidance based on the analysis (e.g. "Assign to Copilot coding
-  agent to investigate SqlDataReader.GetFieldValueAsync and related async internals
-  to apply the same Nullable<T> handling logic present in the synchronous path.")
+<Actionable guidance for maintainers. Be specific, not vague.
+- If environment details are missing: note which fields the author should provide
+  (e.g. ".NET target framework, SQL Server version, and Operating system are needed
+  to proceed with investigation.")
+- If environment is complete and this is a confirmed bug: suggest assigning to
+  Copilot coding agent to investigate, AND include specific investigation guidance
+  based on the analysis (e.g. "Investigate SqlDataReader.GetFieldValueAsync and
+  related async internals to apply the same Nullable<T> handling logic present in
+  the synchronous path.")
 - If duplicates were found: recommend reviewing the linked issues before proceeding.
 - If regression: note the version boundary and state that bisection is recommended.>