القائمة
Break a plan, spec, or PRD into independently-grabbable issues on the project issue tracker using tracer-bullet vertical slices. Use when user wants to convert a plan into issues, create implementation tickets, or break down work into issues.
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
| name | to-issues |
| description | Break a plan, spec, or PRD into independently-grabbable issues on the project issue tracker using tracer-bullet vertical slices. Use when user wants to convert a plan into issues, create implementation tickets, or break down work into issues. |
Break a plan into independently-grabbable issues using vertical slices (tracer bullets).
The issue tracker and triage label vocabulary should have been provided to you — run /setup-matt-pocock-skills if not.
Work from whatever is already in the conversation context. If the user passes an issue reference (issue number, URL, or path) as an argument, fetch it from the issue tracker and read its full body and comments.
If you have not already explored the codebase, do so to understand the current state of the code. Issue titles and descriptions should use the project's domain glossary vocabulary, and respect ADRs in the area you're touching.
why-not-mechanizable: skill workflow guidance; each step requires understanding the surrounding context (repo, task shape, prior state).
Break the plan into tracer bullet issues. Each issue is a thin vertical slice that cuts through ALL integration layers end-to-end, NOT a horizontal slice of one layer.
Slices may be 'HITL' or 'AFK'. HITL slices require human interaction, such as an architectural decision or a design review. AFK slices can be implemented and merged without human interaction. Prefer AFK over HITL where possible.
- Each slice delivers a narrow but COMPLETE path through every layer (schema, API, UI, tests) `(review-time: see section note)` - A completed slice is demoable or verifiable on its own `(review-time: see section note)` - Prefer many thin slices over few thick ones `(review-time: see section note)`Present the proposed breakdown as a numbered list. For each slice, show:
(review-time: see section note)(review-time: see section note)(review-time: see section note)(review-time: see section note)Ask the user:
(review-time: see section note)(review-time: see section note)(review-time: see section note)(review-time: see section note)Iterate until the user approves the breakdown.
For each approved slice, publish a new issue to the issue tracker. Use the issue body template below. These issues are considered ready for AFK agents, so publish them with the correct triage label unless instructed otherwise.
Publish issues in dependency order (blockers first) so you can reference real issue identifiers in the "Blocked by" field.
## ParentA reference to the parent issue on the issue tracker (if the source was an existing issue, otherwise omit this section).
A concise description of this vertical slice. Describe the end-to-end behavior, not layer-by-layer implementation.
Avoid specific file paths or code snippets — they go stale fast. Exception: if a prototype produced a snippet that encodes a decision more precisely than prose can (state machine, reducer, schema, type shape), inline it here and note briefly that it came from a prototype. Trim to the decision-rich parts — not a working demo, just the important bits.
(review-time: see section note)(review-time: see section note)(review-time: see section note)(review-time: see section note)Or "None - can start immediately" if no blockers.
Do NOT close or modify any parent issue.
Code review focused exclusively on over-engineering. Finds what to delete: reinvented standard library, unneeded dependencies, speculative abstractions, dead flexibility. One line per finding: location, what to cut, what replaces it. Use when the user says "review for over-engineering", "is this over-engineered", or invokes /prune. Complements correctness-focused review; this one only hunts complexity.
Implement code incrementally with quality gates. Use when the user says 'build', 'implement', or when starting the implementation phase of an approved plan.
Grilling session that challenges your plan against the existing domain model, sharpens terminology, and updates documentation (CONTEXT.md, ADRs) inline as decisions crystallise. Use when user wants to stress-test a plan against their project's language and documented decisions.
Structured production-incident investigation. Forces evidence-first hypothesis ranking before any code change. Use when given an error message, Sentry alert, failing log, or 'investigate <X>' request.
Fetch and digest Sentry issue data (issue summary, tags, stack trace, breadcrumbs, latest event) by short ID, numeric issue ID, or sentry.io URL. Org-agnostic - works for any Sentry org the local token can access. Use when the user mentions a Sentry issue or short ID (e.g. MY-PROJECT-4X2), pastes a sentry.io issue URL, or asks to investigate/debug a Sentry error.
Create or update a diagram. Picks mermaid vs drawio per rules/diagrams.md, writes the source file, previews via MCP. Use when the user says 'diagram', '/diagram', or asks for a flowchart/architecture/sequence/state diagram.