to-tickets

# To Tickets Break a plan, spec, or conversation into **tickets** - tracer-bullet vertical slices, each declaring the tickets that **block** it. ## Process ### 1. Gather context Work from whatever is already in the conversation context. If the user passes a reference (a spec path, an issue number or URL) as an argument, fetch it and read its full body and comments. ### 2. Explore the codebase (optional) If you have not already explored the codebase, do so to understand the current state of the code. Ticket titles and descriptions should use the project's domain glossary vocabulary, and respect ADRs in the area you're touching. Look for opportunities to prefactor the code to make the implementation easier. "Make the change easy, then make the easy change." ### 3. Draft vertical slices Break the plan into **tracer bullet** tickets. Each ticket 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. <vertical-slice-rules> - Each slice delivers a narrow but COMPLETE path through every layer (schema, API, UI, tests) - A completed slice is demoable or verifiable on its own - Each slice is sized to fit in a single fresh context window - Prefer many thin slices over few thick ones - Any prefactoring should be done first </vertical-slice-rules> Give each ticket its **blocking edges** - the other tickets that must complete before it can start. A ticket with no blockers can start immediately. #### Wide refactors are the exception to vertical slicing A **wide refactor** is one mechanical change - rename a column, retype a shared symbol - whose **blast radius** fans across the whole codebase, so a single edit breaks thousands of call sites at once and no vertical slice can land green. Don't force it into a tracer bullet; sequence it as **expand-contract**: 1. **Expand**: add the new form beside the old so nothing breaks. 2. **Migrate**: move the call sites over in batches sized by blast radius (per package, per directory), each batch its own ticket blocked by the expand. CI stays green batch to batch because the old form still exists. 3. **Contract**: delete the old form once no caller remains, in a ticket blocked by every migrate batch. When even the batches can't stay green alone, keep the sequence but let them share an integration branch that all block a final integrate-and-verify ticket - green is promised only there. ### 4. Quiz the user Present the proposed breakdown as a numbered list. For each ticket, show: - **Title**: short descriptive name - **Type**: HITL / AFK - **Blocked by**: which other tickets (if any) must complete first - **What it delivers**: the end-to-end behaviour this ticket makes work - **User stories covered**: which user stories this addresses (if the source material has them) Ask the user: - Does the granularity feel right? (too coarse / too fine) - Are the blocking edges correct - does each ticket only depend on tickets that genuinely gate it? - Should any tickets be merged or split further? - Are the correct tickets marked as HITL and AFK? Iterate until the user approves the breakdown. ### 5. Publish the tickets to the issue tracker For each approved ticket, publish a new issue to the issue tracker. Use the ticket body template below. Apply the `needs-triage` triage label so each ticket enters the normal triage flow. Publish tickets in dependency order (blockers first) so you can reference real issue identifiers in the "Blocked by" field. Use the platform's native blocking / sub-issue relationship where it has one; otherwise set each ticket's "Blocked by" to the blocking issues. <ticket-template> ## Parent A reference to the parent issue on the issue tracker (if the source was an existing issue, otherwise omit this section). ## What to build The end-to-end behaviour this ticket makes work, from the user's perspective - not layer-by-layer implementation. ## Acceptance criteria - [ ] Criterion 1 - [ ] Criterion 2 - [ ] Criterion 3 ## Blocked by - A reference to each blocking ticket, or "None - can start immediately". </ticket-template> 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 and note briefly that it came from a prototype. Trim to the decision-rich parts - not a working demo, just the important bits. Do NOT close or modify any parent issue. Work the frontier - any ticket whose blockers are all done - one ticket at a time, clearing context between tickets. --- ## Issue tracker: GitHub Issues and specs for this repo live as GitHub issues. Use the `gh` CLI for all operations. ### Conventions - **Create an issue**: `gh issue create --title "..." --body "..."`. Use a heredoc for multi-line bodies. - **Read an issue**: `gh issue view <number> --comments`, filtering comments by `jq` and also fetching labels. - **List issues**: `gh issue list --state open --json number,title,body,labels,comments --jq '[.[] | {number, title, body, labels: [.labels[].name], comments: [.comments[].body]}]'` with appropriate `--label` and `--state` filters. - **Comment on an issue**: `gh issue comment <number> --body "..."` - **Apply / remove labels**: `gh issue edit <number> --add-label "..."` / `--remove-label "..."` - **Close**: `gh issue close <number> --comment "..."` Infer the repo from `git remote -v` - `gh` does this automatically when run inside a clone. ### When a skill says "publish to the issue tracker" Create a GitHub issue. ### When a skill says "fetch the relevant ticket" Run `gh issue view <number> --comments`.