build-ticket
Skill1 starsChanged 11 days agoMITView on GitHub
Builds one ready ticket through to a reviewed result with evidence, unattended unless the user asks to be in the loop: checks it's ready, builds to its design, runs its done checks, reflects, reviews, and reports. Use when the user asks to build, implement, or pick up a ticket.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- hoophq/hooptheir own version, first seen Oct 17, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- hoophq/hoop★ 848same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository16 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- arenaSkill
- deep-reviewSkill
- design-it-twiceSkill
- designSkill
- domain-modelingSkill
- grillingSkill
- land-to-mainSkill
- lets-buildSkill
- lets-designSkill
- model-tiersSkill
- prepare-commitSkill
- ready-ticketSkill
- reflectSkill
- review-diffSkill
- to-ticketsSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
16 rules. About 0 are common, 15 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈15
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 18
If the user asks to be in the loop (e.g.
- Distinctive: line 24
If the user passes a ticket reference, fetch it from the issue tracker and state its title before starting.
- Distinctive: line 25
If the reference is ambiguous, ask.
- Distinctive: line 27
Read the ticket in full, and the spec or design document its context points to.
- Distinctive: line 31
Don't expand scope from them.
- Distinctive: line 35
Read the code the ticket touches, to know what the system does today.
- Very specific: line 40
Run the readiness check in the /ready-ticket skill.
- Distinctive: line 41
If any answer is no, stop: report which answers are no and what's missing, and release the claim.
- Distinctive: line 42
Don't fill gaps with guesses.
- Distinctive: line 44
If the user is in the loop, confirm the approach with them against the ticket's design and done checks, and name anything still assumed.
- Distinctive: line 54
Always stop, rather than picking a default, when:
- Distinctive: line 62
Run typechecking regularly, single test files regularly, and the full test suite once at the end.
- Distinctive: line 66
Run each of the ticket's done checks and keep its evidence.
- Distinctive: line 68
If a check can't be run as written and you adapt it, the adaptation is a decision: report it.
- Distinctive: line 78
Don't commit. Don't close the ticket: tickets close only when the change lands on main.
- Distinctive: line 79
Add a short note to the ticket: what was built, the done-check results, and decisions you made.
≈ “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.
Files
Build ticket
Implement the work described by a ticket, and stop with a result the user can review: built, checked, reflected on, reviewed, and with evidence for each done check. Work unattended by default. Stop early only where this skill says to.
If the user asks to be in the loop (e.g. "with me", "let's collaborate"), pause and ask them instead wherever this skill says to pick a default, make a significant decision, or carry a question into the report. Continue with their answer.
1. Load the ticket
If the user passes a ticket reference, fetch it from the issue tracker and state its title before starting. If the reference is ambiguous, ask.
Read the ticket in full, and the spec or design document its context points to. Claim the ticket in the tracker, if the tracker supports that.
Skim other open tickets, and read the ones related to this one: for context, sequencing, and collisions. Don't expand scope from them.
2. Ground in the code
Read the code the ticket touches, to know what the system does today. Where the ticket and the code disagree, trust the code for what is true today.
3. Check it's ready
Run the readiness check in the /ready-ticket skill.
If any answer is no, stop: report which answers are no and what's missing, and release the claim.
Don't fill gaps with guesses.
If the user is in the loop, confirm the approach with them against the ticket's design and done checks, and name anything still assumed. Wait for their confirmation.
4. Build
Build to the ticket's design. Keep it the minimum that meets the ticket.
For anything the ticket leaves to the builder, and forks that come up while building, pick a sensible default, keep going, and note it for the report.
Always stop, rather than picking a default, when:
- the design can't be built as written (the code has moved on, or the design doesn't fit): don't redesign;
- the ticket turns out too big for one session: don't silently trim scope;
- a decision would change user-visible behaviour or be hard to reverse, and the ticket doesn't settle it.
Unattended, report why and hand off. In the loop, ask the user and continue with their answer.
Run typechecking regularly, single test files regularly, and the full test suite once at the end.
5. Run the done checks
Run each of the ticket's done checks and keep its evidence. An inconclusive result, or evidence from the wrong surface, is not a pass: say so. If a check can't be run as written and you adapt it, the adaptation is a decision: report it.
6. Reflect and review
Apply the /reflect skill, then the /review-diff skill.
Carry their open questions and design questions into the report.
Re-run any done check whose evidence the changes since step 5 could affect.
7. Hand off
Don't commit. Don't close the ticket: tickets close only when the change lands on main.
Add a short note to the ticket: what was built, the done-check results, and decisions you made.
Report to the user:
- Built: the ticket's title, and what changed.
- Done checks: each check with its result and its evidence, or where the evidence is.
- Assumptions & decisions: defaults you picked, builder's calls you made, and done checks you adapted.
- Open: questions from reflection and review, and anything unfinished.
- Human review: what the ticket asks a person to look at, if anything.
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
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.

