Adding GitHub Toolkit

[joshuajyu]

Checked

• I searched existing ideas and did not find a similar one
• I added a very descriptive title
• I've clearly described the feature request and motivation for it

Feature request

We want to enhance LangChain.js by integrating the GitHub toolkit, bringing it closer to the capabilities currently available in the Python version (found in libs/community/langchain_community/agent_toolkits/github/toolkit.py). This integration would provide all the tools that are currently available in the Python toolkit, such as getting issues, commenting on issues, creating/reading files, etc.

Motivation

Adding GitHub integration to LangChain.js aligns it with the features offered in the Python library. While the Python version already has a toolkit to interact with GitHub repositories, the JavaScript version currently lacks this, limiting developers’ ability to work with GitHub data and features within their apps. This addition would make GitHub’s resources more accessible to JavaScript developers using LangChain.js.

Proposal (If applicable)

We are a group of four students from the University of Toronto, and we’re excited to contribute to LangChain!

We are planning to use Octokit (GitHub’s recommended SDK for interacting with GitHub's REST API) for this integration.

We propose modifying these files:
libs/langchain-community/package.json:
Adding Octokit as a dependency under peerDependenciesMeta.
libs/langchain-community/langchain.config.js:
Add a new entrypoint for our GitHub toolkit, and modifying requiresOptionalDependency.

We propose adding these new files:

libs/langchain-community/src/agents/toolkits/github/toolkit.ts:
Implements the GitHubToolkit class. The Python equivalent can be found here.
libs/langchain-community/src/tools/github.ts:
Implements the GitHubAction class. The Python equivalent can be found here.
libs/langchain-community/src/utilities/github.ts:
Implements the GitHubAPIWrapper class using the Octokit library. The Python equivalent can be found here.

We're not sure if this approach is correct, as there is currently no utilities folder. We would appreciate some input on our proposal.

In addition to these proposed changes, we will also update the docs and add integration tests.

[joshuajyu]

Sorry to ping you @jacoblee93, do you think this could be something we could turn into an issue? We've already started implementation.