agentleFS
Beakpoint-InsightsBeakpoint-Insights/roost/skills/triage-ticket/SKILL.md

triage-ticket

Skill32 starsChanged 18 days agoMITView on GitHub

Decide whether a ticket (often a code-review or security finding) is accurate and needs fixing. Check each claim against the code, explain the real risk or failure scenario, and recommend fix or not. If the user says fix, fix it test-first with one commit per item. Use when the user asks to "review PROJ-X and help me determine whether we need to address it" or "is this accurate".

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

8 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈5

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 3

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Only include rows for the ticket's own claims.

    line 34
  2. Very specific:

    If the decision is not to fix anything, offer to close the ticket as tracker.statuses.wont_do (or the project's equivalent).

    line 43
  3. Distinctive:

    Run the affected unit, functional and e2e tests, and report real counts.

    line 50
  4. Very specific:

    If an item needs another repo, don't touch it: write the hand-off with cross-repo-handoff.

    line 51
  5. Very specific:

    When every item is fixed and pushed, add a short comment listing each item with its commit, and move the ticket to …

    line 53
  6. Distinctive:

    Don't defend or attack the ticket.

    line 57
  7. Distinctive:

    Don't bring up topics the user didn't ask about.

    line 58
  8. Distinctive:

    When asked "describe the tests you added", list each test by name with what it proves.

    line 59

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Triage Ticket

Many tickets come from automated reviews. Some are right, some are half right, some are wrong. Find out which before anyone writes code.

First, load the team config with roost-config.

1. Read

  • The ticket, its comments and its links.
  • Split it into separate claims. A ticket with lettered or numbered items gets one row per item.

2. Check each claim against the code

  • Find the code it's about and read it. Cite file:line for everything you conclude.
  • Decide for each claim: accurate, partly accurate (say which part) or wrong (say why).
  • For an accurate claim, describe the concrete scenario: who does what, in what order, and what goes wrong. For security findings, say who the attacker is, what they need, and what they gain.
  • Say how likely and how bad it is, in plain terms: "anyone with an invitation link", "only during the migration window", "needs the signing key, which only the API has".

3. Recommend

Anything the user must do goes first, in its own block headed 🙋 Your turn: one line per action, saying exactly what and where. Leave the block out when there's nothing; never write "nothing needed". Don't hand the user anything you can do yourself (attaching files to the tracker, retitling a PR, checking a setting through a connected tool); only sign-ins, vcs.signing_blocker and decisions are theirs. Then start with the bottom line: "2 of 3 claims are real; fix A and B, skip C." Then a table:

ItemAccurate?What happensSeverityRecommendation
AYes…Should fix before releaseFix: …
  • Give the fix in one or two sentences per item, with the file it touches.
  • Where there's a manual alternative (for example "confirm the affected accounts by hand in the database"), say whether it fully removes the risk.
  • Only include rows for the ticket's own claims. Don't add new findings to the table; list them separately, in one line each, if they matter.

4. Record the verdict in the tracker

Once the user agrees with the verdict, post it as a comment on the ticket, so the next person to open it can see why it was or wasn't fixed:

  • the bottom line and the table from step 3
  • the file:line evidence for each item
  • the decision, and who made it: "<name of the person who decided>: fix A and B, skip C"

If the decision is not to fix anything, offer to close the ticket as tracker.statuses.wont_do (or the project's equivalent). Only move it once the user says yes.

5. If the user says fix

  • Move the ticket to tracker.statuses.in_progress when the work starts.
  • Work on the branch the user names, or follow stacked-prs to put a new branch on the stack.
  • One commit per item (signed, if vcs.signed_commits), test-first: a test that fails because of the problem, then the fix.
  • Run the affected unit, functional and e2e tests, and report real counts.
  • If an item needs another repo, don't touch it: write the hand-off with cross-repo-handoff.
  • Concerns that come up while fixing, which aren't in the ticket, become new tickets when the user agrees. Each gets the epic as its parent (set at creation), Components, and a "relates to" link to this ticket.
  • When every item is fixed and pushed, add a short comment listing each item with its commit, and move the ticket to tracker.statuses.ready_for_release. If an item was handed to another repo, leave the ticket where it is and say so in the comment.

Rules

  • Don't defend or attack the ticket; check it.
  • Don't bring up topics the user didn't ask about.
  • When asked "describe the tests you added", list each test by name with what it proves.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.