ticket-writing
Skill4 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when creating or drafting a ticket or issue, or standardizing ticket output for a project -- "ármame un ticket", "escribe el issue", "necesito una tarea para Jira", "create a ticket", "draft an issue".
- Commits and pushes
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- michaelsvanbeek/personal-agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Apr 9, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- michaelsvanbeek/personal-agent-skills★ 1same 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 repository42 other files it gives its agents.
- agent-contract-handoffSkill
- agent-creationSkill
- agent-protocolSkill
- agent-responseSkill
- blog-writingSkill
- brief-specSkill
- cli-loginSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- code-standardsSkill
- command-executionSkill
- deck-builderSkill
- dispatchSkill
- executionSkill
- fast-queriesSkill
- gaia-auditSkill
- gaia-checkSkill
- gaia-patternsSkill
- gaia-plannerSkill
- gaia-releaseSkill
- gaia-researchSkill
- gaia-verifySkill
- ghostwritingSkill
- git-conventionsSkill
- gmail-policySkill
- gmail-triageSkill
- gws-setupSkill
- human-registerSkill
- investigationSkill
- memorySkill
- orchestrator-present-approvalSkill
- pending-approvalsSkill
- remindersSkill
- security-tiersSkill
- session-channelsSkill
- session-reflectionSkill
- skill-creationSkill
- subagent-request-approvalSkill
- technical-explanationSkill
- technical-writingSkill
- verification-oracleSkill
- verification-rubricSkill
- visual-verifySkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 54
Move all evidence to the first comment: After the ticket is created, post a comment with: commit hashes, commands run verbatim, output …
- Distinctive: line 59
Adapt to the project's board conventions: Do not create Epics if the team does not use them.
- Distinctive: line 64
Consolidate, do not inflate: Prefer fewer well-scoped tickets over many granular ones.
- Distinctive: line 73
No implementation detail in the description.
≈ “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
Ticket Writing
The formula for tickets humans can read in ~15 seconds. The what and why go at
the top; the how and evidence go in a comment. One Story per brief or theme;
consolidate rather than inflate. The register is human-register's; this skill owns the ticket's shape.
Core principle
A Story is readable by a non-technical stakeholder in 15 seconds. This means: plain English, active voice, value-oriented title, high-level description. All implementation detail and verification evidence lands in the first comment -- never in the description -- so the description reads clean.
Story template
Title: verb + outcome, plain English, no jargon, 80 chars max.
Description fields:
| Field | Content |
| Objective | 1-2 sentences: what it achieves and why (high level) -- the plain register of technical-explanation: consequence over artifact, common nouns, no identifiers. |
| What it covers | 3-5 bullets of scope -- what, not how. |
| Acceptance criteria | Checklist "Done when..." -- verifiable, not vague. |
| Links | Brief slug / repo if applicable. |
Evidence -- first comment only, never in description: commit hashes, verbatim commands, anything reproducible.
Subtask template
Title: short action phrase, plain English. Description: one line -- what it is / done when X.
Process
- Map to a brief or theme. One Story = one brief or coherent chunk of work. If the work spans multiple unrelated concerns, split into separate Stories. If it is one theme with sequential steps, use Subtasks.
- Write the title last. Draft the Objective and What-it-covers first; the title compresses naturally from those. If the title needs jargon to be precise, the description is missing context.
- Write the Acceptance Criteria as done-when checks. Each AC is a checkbox that a person (not a CI system) can verify. Vague ACs get pushed back: "migrated" means what? "History intact" means no commit lost.
- Move all evidence to the first comment. After the ticket is created, post a comment with: commit hashes, commands run verbatim, output snippets. This keeps the description clean for stakeholders and the evidence auditable for engineers.
- Adapt to the project's board conventions. Do not create Epics if the team does not use them. Respect the active Sprint. Use existing Labels and Components, not invented ones. Check 2-3 existing tickets before creating the first one.
- Consolidate, do not inflate. Prefer fewer well-scoped tickets over many granular ones. If two Subtasks share all context, make one Subtask. If a Story has one Subtask, fold the Subtask into the Story.
Style rules
- Plain English, active voice. Write "Move repositories to Bitbucket" not "Repository migration to Bitbucket platform will be performed."
- Title is value-oriented: what the user or team gains, not the mechanism.
- No implementation detail in the description. "Configure DNS records" belongs in a Subtask description or the evidence comment, not the Story Objective.
- Subtasks are ultra-light: one-line description, action-phrase title.
- Fields: Assignee, Status (To Do / Done), Sprint -- set these before saving.
See examples.md for real tickets from the AOS migration project.
Anti-patterns
- Evidence in the description -- pollutes the readable summary; goes in the first comment instead.
- Title is the mechanism, not the outcome -- "Run git push for all repos" is a task; "Migrate AOS repositories to Bitbucket" is a Story.
- One Subtask per command -- over-granular; group related steps into one Subtask with a multi-step description.
- Inventing Epics or Labels -- inconsistency with the team's board adds noise. Adapt to what is already there.
- Vague Acceptance Criteria -- "Works correctly" is not verifiable. "History intact" is verifiable only when it means "no commit missing from git log --oneline."
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.

