Issue descriptions library vs. filling reports from scratch

Hi all!

Arguably, it is more efficient to pull issue descriptions of typical 
accessibility issues from descriptions library versus filling in every 
bug report from scratch.

I think that consistency across different projects is an additional 
benefit, as well as having a shared understanding within the team.

On the other hand, I see that information in such fields as Summary, 
Steps, Actual behavior and Expected behavior may differdepending on the 
context in which the issue was found. Even remediation recommendations 
will often need to be adapted to a specific project which means 
additional time for editing. So, I can understand folks who think that 
writing a bug from scratch may take the same time as finding the same 
bug in the library and adapting it to the context.

Personally, I'm a boilerplate content fan. But given the above, I'm a 
bit hesitant whether it is a good idea trying to promote the same 
approach to the team. :)

Please advise: in terms of efficiency, does that make sense developing 
and maintaining the issue descriptions library or not?

Thanks in advance!


-- 
Best,
Vlad