spec-to-issues
Skill1 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Break a spec, PRD, or design into independent first-principles tasks and publish them as tracker issues — GitHub for now, adapter-shaped for other platforms. Decomposes into tracer-bullet vertical slices with dependencies and acceptance criteria, gets your approval, then creates an epic + linked child issues. Use to turn a spec into a trackable backlog ("break this spec into issues", "push these as GitHub issues"). Pairs with issue-to-pr.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- luminik-io/alfredtheir own version, first seen Aug 16, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- luminik-io/alfred★ 4same 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 repository24 other files it gives its agents.
- api-designSkill
- brainstormingSkill
- councilSkill
- dispatching-parallel-agentsSkill
- document-toolkitSkill
- executing-plansSkill
- gui-input-automationSkill
- humanizeSkill
- hyprland-controlSkill
- incremental-implementationSkill
- issue-to-prSkill
- litreviewSkill
- mcp-builderSkill
- rust-reviewSkill
- screen-captureSkill
- session-handoffSkill
- shadcn-auditSkill
- subagent-driven-developmentSkill
- teachSkill
- unslopSkill
- using-git-worktreesSkill
- visual-computer-use-loopSkill
- writing-flowSkill
- writing-plansSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
13 rules. About 0 are common, 10 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈10
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
- Distinctive: line 22
Keep these separate. Decomposition is platform-agnostic — the same vertical slices whether you use GitHub, GitLab, or Linear.
- Distinctive: line 39
If there's no spec yet, stop and point them at brainstorming / to-prd — don't invent requirements.
- Distinctive: line 44
If you haven't already, skim the code so issue titles and bodies use the project's real domain vocabulary and respect existing structure.
- Distinctive: line 57
Prefer many thin slices over a few thick ones.
- Distinctive: line 76
Iterate until the user approves: Do not publish before sign-off.
- Very specific: line 80
Run the adapter's preflight (for GitHub: gh auth status, confirm the repo, ensure labels exist).
- Distinctive: line 88
Create the epic tracking issue (title + spec summary + empty checklist).
- Distinctive: line 89
Create each child issue with the body template below.
- Distinctive: line 90
Update the epic body with a checklist linking every child.
- Very specific: line 163
Create the epic first, then children (so you have real numbers), then link_children to fill the epic checklist.
- Very specific: line 170
Write a new adapter section (e.g.
- Distinctive: line 176
No spec exists yet · preflight fails (not authed, wrong repo) · the breakdown isn't approved · a dependency cycle appears (two slices block …
- Distinctive: line 184
Never publish before the user approves the breakdown.
≈ “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
Spec to Issues
Turn a spec/PRD/design into independently-workable issues on your tracker, so every later change traces back to a reason. This is the front half of the lifecycle:
brainstorming → spec → [spec-to-issues] → tracker issues → issue-to-pr → PR (Closes #N) → mergeSay at the start: "Using spec-to-issues — decompose → approve → publish to
<platform>."
Two layers: decomposition vs. publishing
Keep these separate. Decomposition is platform-agnostic — the same vertical slices whether you use GitHub, GitLab, or Linear. Publishing goes through an adapter. Only the adapter knows the tool's CLI/API.
- v0 ships the GitHub adapter (
gh). It's the only one implemented now. - To support another platform later, write a new adapter that satisfies the same contract (see Adapter contract below) — the decomposition steps don't change.
Decomposition method follows the tracer-bullet approach from the to-issues skill; the new part here is publishing to a real git remote tracker.
Process
1. Gather the spec
Work from the spec in context. If the user passes a path or URL, read it in full. If there's no spec yet, stop and point them at brainstorming / to-prd — don't invent requirements.
2. Explore the codebase (optional)
If you haven't already, skim the code so issue titles and bodies use the project's real domain vocabulary and respect existing structure. A subagent (Explore) is good for this.
3. Draft vertical slices
Break the spec into tracer-bullet issues — each a thin slice that cuts through ALL layers end-to-end (schema → API → UI → tests), NOT a horizontal slice of one layer.
<vertical-slice-rules>
- Each slice delivers a narrow but COMPLETE path through every layer.
- A completed slice is demoable or verifiable on its own.
- Prefer many thin slices over a few thick ones.
- Mark each slice AFK (can be built + merged autonomously) or HITL (needs a human
decision — architecture, design review). Prefer AFK where honest.
</vertical-slice-rules>For each slice capture: title, type (AFK/HITL), blocked by (which slices must finish first), what to build (end-to-end behavior), and acceptance criteria (checkable).
4. Quiz the user — approval gate
Present the breakdown as a numbered list: title · type · blocked-by · user stories covered. Ask:
- Granularity right? (too coarse / too fine)
- Dependencies correct?
- Any slices to merge or split?
- AFK/HITL marked correctly?
Iterate until the user approves. Do not publish before sign-off.
5. Preflight the target
Run the adapter's preflight (for GitHub: gh auth status, confirm the repo,
ensure labels exist). Stop and ask if it fails.
6. Publish
Through the adapter, in dependency order (blockers first) so child references resolve:
- Create the epic tracking issue (title + spec summary + empty checklist).
- Create each child issue with the body template below; set its labels.
- Update the epic body with a checklist linking every child.
<child-issue-template>
## What to build<end-to-end behavior of this slice — not layer-by-layer implementation>
Acceptance criteria
- Criterion 1
- Criterion 2
Blocked by
<reference(s) to blocking issue(s), e.g. "#11"> — or "None — can start immediately".
Epic
<reference to the parent epic issue>
</child-issue-template>Labels (the adapter creates any that are missing):
epic— the tracking issue.ready— no open blockers; safe to grab now.blocked— has at least one unfinished blocker.afk/hitl— autonomy class from step 3.
A slice with no blockers gets ready; one with blockers gets blocked. When a
blocker closes, its dependents should flip blocked → ready (do this by hand
for v0, or via a future automation).
7. Report + hand off
List what was created: the epic and each child (number, title, labels, blocked-by),
and the epic URL. Then point the user at issue-to-pr to start working the
ready ones, one per run.
Adapter contract
Any platform adapter must implement these. v0 = GitHub.
| Operation | Meaning |
preflight | Auth is valid, target repo/project identified |
ensure_labels(labels) | Create any missing labels |
create_epic(title, body) → id | Create the tracking issue, return its id |
create_issue(title, body, labels) → id | Create a child, return its id |
link_children(epic_id, [child_ids]) | Write the checklist into the epic |
GitHub adapter (v0)
# preflight
gh auth status
gh repo view --json nameWithOwner -q .nameWithOwner
# ensure_labels — safe to re-run
for l in epic ready blocked afk hitl; do gh label create "$l" 2>/dev/null || true; done
# create_epic / create_issue — capture the issue number from the printed URL
num=$(gh issue create --title "<title>" --body "<body>" \
--label "<comma,labels>" | grep -oE '[0-9]+$')
# link_children — rewrite the epic body to include the checklist
gh issue edit <epic-num> --body "<spec summary>
## Slices
- [ ] #<child1> <title>
- [ ] #<child2> <title>
"Create the epic first, then children (so you have real numbers), then
link_children to fill the epic checklist. Encode Blocked by #N as text in
each child body — that's the same signal issue-to-pr's selector reads, so it
works even before labels are flipped.
Adding another platform
Write a new adapter section (e.g. GitLab via glab, Linear via API) that
implements the contract above. Reuse steps 1–4 and 7 unchanged; only step 5–6
calls swap.
Stop and ask when
No spec exists yet · preflight fails (not authed, wrong repo) · the breakdown isn't approved · a dependency cycle appears (two slices block each other — split one).
Remember
- Decomposition is platform-agnostic; only the adapter is GitHub-specific.
- Vertical tracer-bullet slices, not horizontal layers.
- Never publish before the user approves the breakdown.
- Publish blockers first so
#Nreferences resolve. Blocked by #Ntext is the contract with issue-to-pr's selector.
Related
- to-issues — the same decomposition method, publishing to the Matt-Pocock backlog instead of a git remote.
- issue-to-pr — the back half: picks a
readyissue and drives it to a PR. - brainstorming / to-prd — produce the spec this consumes.
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.

