agentleFS
wakqasahmedwakqasahmed/ai-engineering-workflow-skills/skills/engineering/decompose-to-issues/SKILL.md

decompose-to-issues

Skill2 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Break high-level work into independently executable GitHub issues using vertical slices. Use when a plan, PRD, roadmap item, or vague feature needs issue-sized execution units.

1 other project uses a version of this, 1 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈6

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Use decomposition as context control, not project-management ceremony.

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    Put shared setup before dependent slices only when it unlocks multiple issues.

    line 14
  3. Distinctive:

    Keep each issue small enough for a fresh agent to complete in one focused pass when possible.

    line 19
  4. Distinctive:

    Avoid horizontal slices like "build backend" and "build frontend" unless the architecture truly requires it.

    line 45
  5. Distinctive:

    Do not create issues that require inherited conversation context to understand.

    line 46
  6. Distinctive:

    Create follow-up issues for scope discovered during implementation.

    line 47

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Decompose To Issues

Use decomposition as context control, not project-management ceremony.

Workflow

  1. Identify the user-visible or operational outcome.
  2. Split by vertical slices that can be implemented, reviewed, and verified independently.
  3. Put shared setup before dependent slices only when it unlocks multiple issues.
  4. Mark dependencies explicitly. Check dependencies between issues: are they real, or are they artifacts of thinking horizontally?
    • Real dependency: Issue B cannot be compiled, tested, or deployed without Issue A's code or schema in the target branch (e.g. Issue B consumes an API contract introduced in Issue A).
    • Horizontal artifact: Dividing tasks by technical layer (e.g. Issue A for database migration, Issue B for API controller, Issue C for UI). Collapse these into vertical slices that deliver testable end-to-end functionality.
  5. Target 3-7 issues for a typical plan. Fewer than 3 usually means slices are too fat; more than 7 usually means you are decomposing tasks instead of value. If a project genuinely requires more than 7 vertical slices, organize the work into milestone phases of 3-7 issues each, completing Phase 1 before decomposing Phase 2.
  6. Keep each issue small enough for a fresh agent to complete in one focused pass when possible.

Issue Shape

Each issue should include:

  • Problem
  • Acceptance criteria
  • Verification plan
  • Expected test layers
  • Constraints / non-goals
  • Links and relevant files
  • Risk level

Wide-Refactor Exception: Expand / Contract

While feature work must always be decomposed into vertical slices, wide cross-cutting refactors (e.g. database schema migrations affecting multiple services, public API signature changes, or replacing an ORM/library across dozens of callers) cannot be delivered in a single vertical slice without risking regressions or producing unreviewable mega-PRs.

For these wide refactors, decompose using the Expand / Contract pattern (branching by abstraction):

  1. Expand Issue: Introduce the new schema, API, or abstraction alongside the old one. Add dual-writing or compatibility adapters so existing callers continue to work without disruption.
  2. Migrate Issues (in batches): Migrate existing callers in small, independently-releasable batches (e.g. one subsystem or 3-5 callers per issue). Each batch must be verified and merged independently.
  3. Contract Issue: Once all callers have migrated and verified in production, remove the deprecated API, adapter shims, or old database columns, leaving clean, non-duplicated code.

Guardrails

  • Avoid horizontal slices like "build backend" and "build frontend" unless the architecture truly requires it.
  • Do not create issues that require inherited conversation context to understand.
  • Create follow-up issues for scope discovered during implementation.

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.