agentleFS
forcedotcomforcedotcom/salesforcedx-vscode/.claude/skills/backlog-grooming/SKILL.md

backlog-grooming

Skill1k starsChanged 27 days agoBSD-3-ClauseView on GitHub

Triage the team's open GUS backlog — propose closing done-but-open work items (with code/test citations), flag under-specified items for grilling, catch wrong-epic / orphan / unpointed / dead-link items, and close completed epics. User-invoked.

10 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Steady: 0 new projects took it in the last 4 weeks, none the 4 weeks before.thin data

Week of Sep 13: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 20: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 27: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 4: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 11: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 18: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 25: 0 new projectsWeek of Nov 1: 0 new projects
Sep 2026Oct 2026Nov 2026
New projects taking a version of this file each week, over the 8 weeks our latest run read: only 0 in all, so this is a hint, not a trend.

Most recently taken up by

Who's talking about forcedotcom/salesforcedx-vscode

The biggest 5 of 52 mentions linking to the repository that our crawl found. Each line is their own headline.

See all 52

Talked about on GitHub and Stack Overflow (52 times).

On GitHub · 50

45 more on GitHub

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 9 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 5

    Distinctive

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Ask the scope: (a) team-wide aggregates only (epics + bulk counts — fast), or (b) also deep-groom one epic (per-WI checks).

    line 24
  2. Distinctive:

    Done when: every team-wide check in checks.md has a count or list.

    line 38
  3. Distinctive:

    Done when: every open WI in the epic evaluated by every per-WI check.

    line 44
  4. Distinctive:

    Done when: every filtered candidate has a verdict.

    line 52
  5. Very specific:

    Write .claude/backlog-grooming-<YYYY-MM-DD>.md (gitignored).

    line 56
  6. Distinctive:

    Done when: every approved write succeeded (verify per gus-cli), report annotated with actioned vs deferred.

    line 66

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 9 edited versions of this file we could read. “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

Backlog grooming

Triage pass over open GUS work items + epics. Every finding is a proposal — never auto-write. Output: one report file, then confirm-and-execute.

CLI mechanics (queries, statuses, IDs, create/update, Duplicate handling, aggregate-query limits, 15-vs-18-char Ids) live in gus-cli — this skill never restates them.

Scale is real: ~900+ open WIs across ~45 epics. Two tiers:

  • Team-wide aggregates (counts, GROUP BY) — run once, cover everything. Cheap.
  • Per-WI checks (readiness, done-but-open, wrong-epic, dup, dead-link, sequencing) — too many for one whole-team pass. Scope to one epic per run, or a user-chosen subset.

Steps

1. Preflight + scope

  • Resolve gus alias + runner identity per gus-cli.
  • Ask the scope: (a) team-wide aggregates only (epics + bulk counts — fast), or (b) also deep-groom one epic (per-WI checks). Default (a); offer the epic list if (b).

Done when: alias resolves, scope chosen.

2. Team-wide pass (always — runs under both scope a and b)

Aggregates over the whole team — one query each, no per-WI memory. Mind the gus-cli ## CLI tips aggregate-paginate cap (200 rows, needs LIMIT) + 15-vs-18-char Id rule.

  • Open WI count + orphan + unpointed: scope by Scrum_Team__c = <team> (the authoritative "team backlog" set; see gus-cli ## Work items "Team's open"). Use the whitelist Status__c IN (<open list>) from gus-cli ## Open queries — NOT a NOT IN exclusion (legacy statuses like Closed-U/Ftest/Tested leak through a blacklist). orphan = + Epic__c=null, unpointed = + Story_Points__c=null. For bulk-point cleanup, also filter RecordType.Name IN ('User Story','Bug').
  • Open epics + Description__c, Development_Lead__c, Scheduled_Build__c. Drop separator epics (names like ===== below the line =====) — board dividers, not real.
  • Per-epic counts: GROUP BY Epic__c for open-WIs (whitelist Status__c IN (<open list>), same as above) and for total-WIs (any status), each scoped Epic__c IN (<the open-epic Ids>) LIMIT 200. Join GROUP-BY keys to the epic list on first 15 chars (truncate both sides). Note: GROUP BY only returns epics that HAVE WIs — derive empty-epic by set difference (open-epic list MINUS total-WI keys), not from the query rows. Then epic-complete = in total-keys, not in open-keys; epic-ownerless = Development_Lead__c null. See checks.md.

(Scope by Scrum_Team__c and by epic-membership can diverge — an orphan WI belongs to the team but no epic; per-epic sums won't equal the team total. Both are intended: team count for headline, epic-IN for per-epic.)

Done when: every team-wide check in checks.md has a count or list. High-volume counts (orphans, unpointed, ownerless) reported as a number + sample, not a per-item list.

3. Per-epic deep pass (scope b only)

For the chosen epic, pull its open WIs (whitelist Status__c IN (<open list>); SELECT Id, Name, Subject__c, Status__c, Story_Points__c, RecordType.Name, Details__c, Details_and_Steps_to_Reproduce__c (Bug-type body — see checks.md Readiness), Assignee__c). Run the per-WI checks in checks.md: readiness (grill / ai-auto), wrong-epic, open-vs-open dup, dead-link, merged-not-Completed, sequencing-health. Then the gated done-but-open investigation (step 4).

Done when: every open WI in the epic evaluated by every per-WI check; each emits a list (possibly empty) of {WI, evidence, proposed action}.

4. Gated code investigation (done-but-open, scope b)

  1. Filter the epic's open WIs to plausible done-but-open candidates — has a PR/issue link, names a greppable feature/file, or has shipped siblings. Skip pure-design / coordination WIs.
  2. Log the drop count: "investigating N of M; skipped M−N (reason)." Never silently truncate.
  3. Fan out one investigator subagent per candidate (caveman:cavecrew-investigator or Explore). Note: WIs may reference PRs in other repos (e.g. forcedotcom/apex-language-support) — the investigator follows those via gh. Each: blame the cited/likely area → introducing commit → PR → owning WI name. Returns {tier, citation, causingPR, relatedWI}. See checks.md for tier bar + subagent prompt.

Done when: every filtered candidate has a verdict; drop count logged.

5. Write the report

Write .claude/backlog-grooming-<YYYY-MM-DD>.md (gitignored). Section per check; each finding = WI/Epic Name + link + evidence/citation + proposed action + tier (done-but-open only). Order high-confidence → low. Top summary: counts per check, scope, investigation drop count.

Done when: file written, every finding present with its citation, chat shows the summary table.

6. Confirm and execute

(Dry-run mode: if the user asked for read-only / validation, stop here — list what would be proposed, perform no writes.)

Walk findings with the user. Per gus-cli ## Safety: present each write, act only on explicit yes. High-volume buckets (orphans, unpointed) → offer bulk action or top-N, not one-by-one. Execute approved writes (Close/Duplicate+Related_Work__c, epic close, [ai-auto] tag, epic move, dev-lead tag, point=2). Grill candidates not executed here — user later runs grill-me on ones they pick.

Done when: every approved write succeeded (verify per gus-cli), report annotated with actioned vs deferred.

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.