agentleFS
imMamdouhaboammarimMamdouhaboammar/matts-skills-into-chatgpt/skills/to-tickets/SKILL.md

to-tickets

Skill8 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Decompose an approved specification or plan into ordered, dependency-linked tracer-bullet implementation tickets. Use when turning a spec or architectural plan into actionable tracker issues with clear acceptance criteria — even if the user says \"break this into tickets\". Do NOT use for initial requirements gathering.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 181 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 3

    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:

    Strict Vertical Tracer Slicing: Every standard ticket must cut vertically across all necessary layers (schema, domain logic, API, UI, test) …

    line 14
  2. Very specific:

    Explicit Dependency DAG: Every ticket must explicitly declare its blocking prerequisites (Blocked by:) to form an unambiguous directed …

    line 15
  3. Distinctive:

    No Parent Mutation: Never close, resolve, or corrupt parent tracker issues when authoring and publishing child tickets.

    line 18
  4. Distinctive:

    Key Point: If the existing code makes the target change difficult, create a dedicated preparatory refactor ticket as the first blocker.

    line 47

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 181 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

To Tickets

Decompose an approved specification, plan, or design document into vertically sliced, dependency-ordered tracer-bullet implementation tickets with explicit acceptance criteria.


Core Invariants

  1. Strict Vertical Tracer Slicing: Every standard ticket must cut vertically across all necessary layers (schema, domain logic, API, UI, test) rather than horizontal slices of a single layer.
  2. Explicit Dependency DAG: Every ticket must explicitly declare its blocking prerequisites (Blocked by:) to form an unambiguous directed acyclic graph.
  3. Single Context-Window Sizing: Each ticket must be sized to complete within a single agent context window without exhausting token or tool limits.
  4. Expand-Contract for Wide Refactors: Wide architectural refactors with broad blast radius must follow the Expand-Contract pattern rather than being forced into fragile single-step vertical slices.
  5. No Parent Mutation: Never close, resolve, or corrupt parent tracker issues when authoring and publishing child tickets.

Architecture & Map of Content (MOC)

[ Approved Spec / Plan ] ──► [ DAG Dependency Decomposition ] ──► [ User Granularity Review ] ──► [ Atomic Tracker Publication ]
                                            │
               ┌────────────────────────────┴────────────────────────────┐
               ▼                                                         ▼
    [ Vertical Tracer Bullets ]                               [ Expand-Contract Migrations ]
    - Narrow cross-layer path                                 - Expand (add new form beside old)
    - Independently verifiable                                - Migrate in localized batches
    - Fit in 1 context window                                 - Contract (delete old form)
ComponentResponsibilityOutput Target
Local Ticket StoreAtomic Markdown ticket files.scratch/<feature-slug>/issues/NN-<slug>.md
Tracker IssuesRemote issue creation with blocking metadataGitHub, Linear, GitLab issues
Prefactoring GateMake the change easy before making the easy changeDedicated blocker ticket #01

Step-by-Step Procedure (TWI)

Step 1: Context Ingestion & Prefactoring Identification

  • Action: Ingest the approved spec and inspect the target codebase area to identify necessary prefactoring.
  • Key Point: If the existing code makes the target change difficult, create a dedicated preparatory refactor ticket as the first blocker.
  • Why: "Make the change easy, then make the easy change" prevents intertwining architectural cleanup with functional feature additions.

Step 2: Slice Vertical Tracer Bullets & Formulate DAG

  • Action: Break the feature into vertical tracer slices and link dependencies:
    • For standard features: Vertical slices cutting through schema, API, UI, and tests.
    • For wide refactors: Sequence as Expand $\rightarrow$ Batch Migration $\rightarrow$ Contract.
  • Key Point: Assign each ticket an unambiguous "Blocked by" list. Tickets with no blockers are ready for immediate execution.
  • Inline Checklist:
    • Every vertical slice delivers an independently verifiable behavior
    • Wide refactors partitioned via expand-contract
    • Tickets strictly fit in a single fresh context window
    • Acceptance criteria are binary and testable

Step 3: Present Breakdown & Quiz User for Approval

  • Action: Present the proposed tickets with titles, blockers, and deliverables to the user.
  • Key Point: Prompt the user to verify granularity, dependencies, and ordering.
  • Why: Quick human validation ensures ticket sizing matches team velocity and avoids execution roadblocks.

Step 4: Publish to Tracker

  • Action: Publish approved tickets in topological order (blockers first) to the configured issue tracker or .scratch/<feature-slug>/issues/NN-<slug>.md.
  • Key Point: Apply the ready-for-agent triage label to all unblocked tickets.
  • Why: Topological creation ensures downstream tickets can cleanly reference live upstream ticket IDs.

Anti-Rationalization Guardrails

Tempting RationalizationBinding RuleEngineering Rationale
"I'll create horizontal tickets: 1 for DB, 1 for backend, 1 for UI."Forbidden. Enforce vertical tracer slices.Horizontal layers cannot be verified end-to-end and leave systems broken across commits.
"This ticket is huge, but one agent can manage it."Split tickets exceeding 1 context window.Oversized tickets cause context exhaustion, lost requirements, and hallucinations.
"Combine the preparatory refactor with the new feature logic."Separate prefactoring into a distinct ticket.Mixing refactoring with feature delivery obscures regressions in code review.
"Skip writing acceptance criteria since the spec has them."Mandatory atomic acceptance checklist per ticket.Implementer agents require self-contained verification criteria without re-reading the spec.

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.