name	adlc-ticket
description	Create or evaluate Agentforce agent tickets for adlc-drive. Use standalone to help write drive-ready tickets, or called by adlc-drive to assess if a ticket has enough context to execute. Supports JIRA tickets and free text.

ADLC Ticket

Create well-structured tickets or evaluate existing ones for adlc-drive readiness.

Two Modes

Standalone: User wants help writing or improving a ticket.

adlc-ticket "I need to update the tone for our FAQ agent"
adlc-ticket ESCHAT-1117

Called by drive: Drive Phase 1 needs to know if a ticket is ready.

(drive reads this skill → evaluates ticket → returns readiness assessment)

Same evaluation logic. Output format differs by mode.

Evaluation Criteria

5 Required Elements

Every drive-ready ticket must answer:

#	Question	What to look for	Weight
1	What should change?	Specific behavior changes, not vague goals. Before/after examples.	Critical
2	Which agent and topic(s)?	Named explicitly — agent name, topic name, org.	Critical
3	What does "done" look like?	Measurable acceptance criteria — percentages, counts, pass/fail.	Critical
4	What exists today?	Baseline reference — CSV, prior eval, link to current behavior.	Important
5	Are there examples?	Before/after responses, failing conversations, data samples.	Important

Scoring

Score	Meaning	Verdict
5/5	All elements present and specific	Ready — drive can execute
4/5	One element missing or vague	Ready with gap — drive can proceed but will need to ask 1 question
3/5	Two elements missing	Needs improvement — return gaps to user before proceeding
2/5 or below	Multiple critical elements missing	Not ready — suggest rewrite or convert to SPIKE

Scope Check

Before scoring, determine if the ticket is even in scope for drive:

Ticket is about...	In scope?	Action
Instruction/prompt changes (tone, format, logic, templates)	Yes	Evaluate and proceed
Investigation with unclear problem	Yes — as SPIKE	Evaluate for SPIKE readiness
Apex/Flow/infrastructure changes	No	Flag as out of scope for drive
UI/frontend changes	No	Flag as out of scope
Process/monitoring/dashboards	No	Flag as out of scope
Mixed (instruction + infrastructure)	Partial	Identify which parts drive can handle

Quality Signals

Beyond the 5 required elements, check for:

Good signals (increase confidence):

Structured sections (Context, Requirements, Acceptance)
Before/after examples with exact text
References to prior tickets or learnings
Explicit eval criteria or baseline data
Agent and topic API names (not just display names)
Implementation details or suggested approach

Warning signals (decrease confidence):

Vague goals ("improve", "fix", "update" without specifics)
No examples of current behavior
No acceptance criteria or just "it should work better"
Multiple unrelated changes in one ticket
References to people but not to systems/agents
Screenshots with no text description

Eval Criteria Assessment

If the ticket introduces changes that affect what "good" looks like:

Flag any existing eval metrics that would need to flip (e.g., removing a prescribed phrase)
Flag any new metrics that don't exist in current evals
Note: "This ticket changes eval criteria — HITL required before drive proceeds"

Standalone Mode: Help Write a Ticket

When user provides a rough description or asks for help writing a ticket:

Ask the 5 key questions (skip any already answered)
Determine scope — is this instruction work, investigation, or infrastructure?
Generate a structured ticket following this template:

## Context
[Why are we doing this? What triggered it?]

## Requirements
[Specific, actionable changes. Number them.]

### [Sub-section per topic if multi-topic]

## Acceptance Criteria
[Measurable. Percentages, counts, or explicit pass/fail.]

## Agent & Topic
- Agent: [name] ([API name])
- Topic(s): [list]
- Org: [alias]
- Version: [which version to edit]

## Baseline
[Link to CSV, prior eval, or "needs baseline run"]

## Examples
[Before/after response text, or link to doc with examples]

Present the generated ticket for user review
User copies into JIRA

For SPIKE tickets:

## Goal
[What do we need to learn?]

## Questions
1. [Specific question]
2. [Specific question]

## Time-box
[N days]

## Output
[What the investigation produces — findings doc, recommendation, implementation ticket]

Standalone Mode: Evaluate Existing Ticket

When user provides a JIRA key:

Pull the ticket via user-atlassian MCP → getJiraIssue (Cloud ID: discover via getAccessibleAtlassianResources on first use)
Run scope check — is this in scope for drive?
Score against 5 criteria — what's present, what's missing
Check for eval criteria impact — does this change what "good" means?
Present assessment:

Ticket: ESCHAT-XXXX
Score: N/5

✅ Present:
  - [element]: [what the ticket says]

❌ Missing:
  - [element]: [what's needed]

⚠️ Eval impact:
  - [any metrics that would flip or need creating]

Verdict: [Ready / Ready with gap / Needs improvement / Not ready / Out of scope]

Suggested additions:
  - [specific text to add to the ticket]

Called by Drive: Readiness Assessment

When drive reads this skill during Phase 1:

Evaluate the ticket using the same criteria above
Return one of:

Verdict	Drive action
Ready (4-5/5)	Proceed to Phase 2
Ready with gap (4/5)	Proceed, but note the gap — drive will ask user during Phase 2
Needs improvement (3/5)	Present gaps to user, ask them to update the ticket or provide missing info in chat
Not ready (≤2/5)	Suggest converting to SPIKE or rewriting. Do not proceed.
Out of scope	Tell user this isn't instruction work. Suggest appropriate approach.

JIRA Access

Same as adlc-drive:

Uses user-atlassian MCP server (OAuth SSO, read-only)
getJiraIssue with cloudId + issueIdOrKey
getAccessibleAtlassianResources to discover cloudId on first use
If auth fails, call mcp_auth

⛔ NEVER call write tools. This skill is read-only.

Reference

The detailed ticket guides are at adlc/ticket-guides/:

ticket-authoring-prompt.md — how to write drive-ready tickets, good/bad examples, checklist
ticket-evaluation-samples.md — 15 real tickets evaluated (training material)
ticket-template.md — generic JIRA template to copy
ticket-rewrites-internal.md — 11 weak tickets rewritten (internal reference)

name	adlc-ticket
description	Create or evaluate Agentforce agent tickets for adlc-drive. Use standalone to help write drive-ready tickets, or called by adlc-drive to assess if a ticket has enough context to execute. Supports JIRA tickets and free text.

ADLC Ticket

Create well-structured tickets or evaluate existing ones for adlc-drive readiness.

Two Modes

Standalone: User wants help writing or improving a ticket.

adlc-ticket "I need to update the tone for our FAQ agent"
adlc-ticket ESCHAT-1117

Called by drive: Drive Phase 1 needs to know if a ticket is ready.

(drive reads this skill → evaluates ticket → returns readiness assessment)

Same evaluation logic. Output format differs by mode.

Evaluation Criteria

5 Required Elements

Every drive-ready ticket must answer:

#	Question	What to look for	Weight
1	What should change?	Specific behavior changes, not vague goals. Before/after examples.	Critical
2	Which agent and topic(s)?	Named explicitly — agent name, topic name, org.	Critical
3	What does "done" look like?	Measurable acceptance criteria — percentages, counts, pass/fail.	Critical
4	What exists today?	Baseline reference — CSV, prior eval, link to current behavior.	Important
5	Are there examples?	Before/after responses, failing conversations, data samples.	Important

Scoring

Score	Meaning	Verdict
5/5	All elements present and specific	Ready — drive can execute
4/5	One element missing or vague	Ready with gap — drive can proceed but will need to ask 1 question
3/5	Two elements missing	Needs improvement — return gaps to user before proceeding
2/5 or below	Multiple critical elements missing	Not ready — suggest rewrite or convert to SPIKE

Scope Check

Before scoring, determine if the ticket is even in scope for drive:

Ticket is about...	In scope?	Action
Instruction/prompt changes (tone, format, logic, templates)	Yes	Evaluate and proceed
Investigation with unclear problem	Yes — as SPIKE	Evaluate for SPIKE readiness
Apex/Flow/infrastructure changes	No	Flag as out of scope for drive
UI/frontend changes	No	Flag as out of scope
Process/monitoring/dashboards	No	Flag as out of scope
Mixed (instruction + infrastructure)	Partial	Identify which parts drive can handle

Quality Signals

Beyond the 5 required elements, check for:

Good signals (increase confidence):

Structured sections (Context, Requirements, Acceptance)
Before/after examples with exact text
References to prior tickets or learnings
Explicit eval criteria or baseline data
Agent and topic API names (not just display names)
Implementation details or suggested approach

Warning signals (decrease confidence):

Vague goals ("improve", "fix", "update" without specifics)
No examples of current behavior
No acceptance criteria or just "it should work better"
Multiple unrelated changes in one ticket
References to people but not to systems/agents
Screenshots with no text description

Eval Criteria Assessment

If the ticket introduces changes that affect what "good" looks like:

Flag any existing eval metrics that would need to flip (e.g., removing a prescribed phrase)
Flag any new metrics that don't exist in current evals
Note: "This ticket changes eval criteria — HITL required before drive proceeds"

Standalone Mode: Help Write a Ticket

When user provides a rough description or asks for help writing a ticket:

Ask the 5 key questions (skip any already answered)
Determine scope — is this instruction work, investigation, or infrastructure?
Generate a structured ticket following this template:

## Context
[Why are we doing this? What triggered it?]

## Requirements
[Specific, actionable changes. Number them.]

### [Sub-section per topic if multi-topic]

## Acceptance Criteria
[Measurable. Percentages, counts, or explicit pass/fail.]

## Agent & Topic
- Agent: [name] ([API name])
- Topic(s): [list]
- Org: [alias]
- Version: [which version to edit]

## Baseline
[Link to CSV, prior eval, or "needs baseline run"]

## Examples
[Before/after response text, or link to doc with examples]

Present the generated ticket for user review
User copies into JIRA

For SPIKE tickets:

## Goal
[What do we need to learn?]

## Questions
1. [Specific question]
2. [Specific question]

## Time-box
[N days]

## Output
[What the investigation produces — findings doc, recommendation, implementation ticket]

Standalone Mode: Evaluate Existing Ticket

When user provides a JIRA key:

Pull the ticket via user-atlassian MCP → getJiraIssue (Cloud ID: discover via getAccessibleAtlassianResources on first use)
Run scope check — is this in scope for drive?
Score against 5 criteria — what's present, what's missing
Check for eval criteria impact — does this change what "good" means?
Present assessment:

Ticket: ESCHAT-XXXX
Score: N/5

✅ Present:
  - [element]: [what the ticket says]

❌ Missing:
  - [element]: [what's needed]

⚠️ Eval impact:
  - [any metrics that would flip or need creating]

Verdict: [Ready / Ready with gap / Needs improvement / Not ready / Out of scope]

Suggested additions:
  - [specific text to add to the ticket]

Called by Drive: Readiness Assessment

When drive reads this skill during Phase 1:

Evaluate the ticket using the same criteria above
Return one of:

Verdict	Drive action
Ready (4-5/5)	Proceed to Phase 2
Ready with gap (4/5)	Proceed, but note the gap — drive will ask user during Phase 2
Needs improvement (3/5)	Present gaps to user, ask them to update the ticket or provide missing info in chat
Not ready (≤2/5)	Suggest converting to SPIKE or rewriting. Do not proceed.
Out of scope	Tell user this isn't instruction work. Suggest appropriate approach.

JIRA Access

Same as adlc-drive:

Uses user-atlassian MCP server (OAuth SSO, read-only)
getJiraIssue with cloudId + issueIdOrKey
getAccessibleAtlassianResources to discover cloudId on first use
If auth fails, call mcp_auth

⛔ NEVER call write tools. This skill is read-only.

Reference

The detailed ticket guides are at adlc/ticket-guides/:

ticket-authoring-prompt.md — how to write drive-ready tickets, good/bad examples, checklist
ticket-evaluation-samples.md — 15 real tickets evaluated (training material)
ticket-template.md — generic JIRA template to copy
ticket-rewrites-internal.md — 11 weak tickets rewritten (internal reference)

adlc-ticket

ADLC Ticket

Two Modes

Evaluation Criteria

5 Required Elements

Scoring

Scope Check

Quality Signals

Eval Criteria Assessment

Standalone Mode: Help Write a Ticket

For SPIKE tickets:

Standalone Mode: Evaluate Existing Ticket

Called by Drive: Readiness Assessment

JIRA Access

Reference

More from this repository

More from this repository

ADLC Ticket

Two Modes

Evaluation Criteria

5 Required Elements

Scoring

Scope Check

Quality Signals

Eval Criteria Assessment

Standalone Mode: Help Write a Ticket

For SPIKE tickets:

Standalone Mode: Evaluate Existing Ticket

Called by Drive: Readiness Assessment

JIRA Access

Reference