create-request

name	create-request
description	Create, update, or scan per-task request tickets for progress tracking. These are date-prefixed non-lifecycle docs under requests/, NOT feature-level requirements (use /req-analyze for those). Use when: tracking task progress, updating completion status, scanning incomplete requests, checking request status dashboard. Not for: feature-level problem-space analysis (use req-analyze for 1-requirements.md lifecycle doc), tech specs (use tech-spec), code implementation (use feature-dev). Output: request ticket with status tracking, referencing parent tech-spec.
allowed-tools	Read, Grep, Glob, Write, Bash, AskUserQuestion, Agent

Create/Update Request Skill

Trigger

• Keywords: create request, new request, write request, build request, update request, sync progress, scan requests, request status, incomplete requests, request dashboard

Mode Overview

flowchart LR
    A[/create-request] --> B{Mode?}
    B -->|--status| C[Scan: Discover → Parse → Filter → Report]
    B -->|--update-all| F[Batch Update: Scan → Git Verify → Batch Edit → Report]
    B -->|--update| D[Update: Load → Analyze → Map → Update → Report]
    B -->|default| E[Create: Gather → Explore → Generate → Confirm]

Modes

Mode	Trigger Condition	Action
create	No file specified / new request	Gather info -> Fill template -> Create file
update	File specified / update request	Read current state -> Check implementation -> Update progress
update-all	--update-all flag	Batch scan → git verify → update all stale docs → report
scan	--status flag	Scan all requests -> Parse metadata -> Filter incomplete -> Report

Arguments

Flag	Applies To	Description
--verify-ac	--update (single)	Dispatch Explore agent to verify AC completion with evidence (file:line). Supports auto-detected path via feature context 5-level cascade. Not available with --update-all.

When NOT to Use

• Feature-level requirements analysis (use /req-analyze — produces 1-requirements.md, a Phase 1 lifecycle doc for problem-space analysis; see Relationship section below)
• Viewing request structure (use request-tracking)
• Writing tech spec (use /tech-spec)
• Code development (use feature-dev)

Relationship with /req-analyze

Request tickets are work breakdown units derived from /tech-spec, not requirements documents themselves. They live in a different document class per @rules/docs-numbering.md.

Dimension	/create-request → requests/YYYY-MM-DD-*.md	/req-analyze → 1-requirements.md
Doc class	Request ticket (date-prefixed, non-lifecycle — per @rules/docs-numbering.md)	Lifecycle (Phase 1, numeric prefix)
Count per feature	Many (one per task)	One (upsert)
Position in workflow	After /tech-spec (execution phase)	Before /tech-spec (design phase)
Content focus	Execution — Status, Progress, AC checklist, Related Files	Problem space — 5-Why, FR/NFR, MoSCoW, stakeholders
Granularity	Single task (≤ 8 substantive ACs; gate receipts excluded from the budget, never from the lifecycle count)	Feature-wide
Update pattern	Status tracking (scan / update / update-all / --verify-ac)	Document upsert
Audience	Executors, progress trackers	Designers, decision-makers

Workflow ordering

/req-analyze → /tech-spec → /create-request → /feature-dev
   (Phase 1)    (Phase 2)    (ticket per task)    (implement)

A request ticket references its parent /tech-spec for technical detail and may optionally link to 1-requirements.md for problem-space rationale (when /req-analyze was run).

Anti-patterns to avoid

Anti-pattern	Correct approach
Writing 5-Why / stakeholder analysis inside a request ticket	Put it in 1-requirements.md via /req-analyze; ticket just references it
Adding ## Progress / ## Status tables to 1-requirements.md	Progress tracking belongs in request tickets, not the lifecycle requirements doc
Creating one request ticket per whole feature (AC > 8)	Split by layer or functional area; see Granularity Guide in references/template.md
Treating 1-requirements.md as a prerequisite for creating requests	It is advisory-only; requests work standalone when only tech-spec exists

---

Create Mode Workflow

Phase 1: Gather     -> Collect feature, title, priority, requirements
Phase 1.5a: Quick   -> AC count + layer keyword scan (pre-Explore)
Phase 2: Explore    -> Search related code + tech specs
Phase 1.5b: Refined -> Layer mixing (Related Files) + scope breadth + WBS (post-Explore)
Phase 3: Generate   -> Fill template + create file(s)
Phase 4: Confirm    -> Display result + suggest next steps

Phase 1.5: Granularity Check

Assess whether the request should be split into multiple focused tickets. This runs in two passes to balance early detection with accurate analysis.

Signal Detection

Signal	Detection	Weight
AC count > 8	Count per § Pre-Render AC Count below — this whole phase runs in Create Mode, where no ticket is rendered yet — then exclude receipts per § Quality-Gate AC Classifier	Primary
Layer mixing	1.5a: keyword scan for rules/, hooks/, scripts/ in requirements text. 1.5b: classify Related Files into behavior-layer (.md rules/skills) vs code-layer (.sh/.js hooks/scripts)	Primary
Scope breadth	Requirements has 3+ functionally independent areas	Primary
WBS groups ≥ 2	Tech spec has Work Breakdown heading with 2+ independent task groups (secondary, high-confidence only)	Secondary (×0.5)
Effort > 3 days	Tech spec WBS has multiple M/L items	Secondary (×0.5)

Pre-Render AC Count

Phase 1.5 runs inside the Create Mode workflow, before Phase 3 renders anything, so § Live Checkbox ACs — which reads a rendered ## Acceptance Criteria section — has no input here and would count zero, silently suppressing every split suggestion this phase exists to produce.

One rule, governing every count taken before the ticket exists: the overall {N}, and each {AC_count_A} / {AC_count_B} in the split suggestion after grouping. Count the criteria gathered at Phase 1 item 6, one per list item, whatever form the user wrote them in — numbered, hyphenated or plain lines. Then exclude receipts per § Quality-Gate AC Classifier, applied to those same strings — one of that classifier's two permitted uses. The subgroup counts are the same units as the total, or a split "into two tickets of ≤ 8" can be proposed out of groups that were never measured the same way as the number that triggered it.

Live Checkbox ACs

Every path that counts ACs in a ticket that exists — Scan Mode's AC Progress, the § AC-Form Preflight, Phase 2.5's verification input and decision table, Phase 3's Progress mapping, Phase 4 and batch mode — counts the same items, or the same ticket gets two different AC counts depending on who is looking.

The qualifier is load-bearing: this definition reads a rendered section, so the only counts that do not come from here are Create Mode's, defined at § Pre-Render AC Count.

An AC is a top-level hyphen-form task-list item inside ## Acceptance Criteria that is live document text — ^ {0,3}-\s+\[(?: |x|X)\] after live-text masking. The indent bound is load-bearing: a deeper indent under a paragraph is a continuation of that paragraph, so Example only: followed by an indented - [x] illustrative checkbox is visible prose, not a task list, and an unbounded ^\s*[-*] counts it as a checked AC. CommonMark also allows * and + bullets and ordered task items; this repo's template emits hyphens and the corpus contains no other form, so the extractor accepts the hyphen form only and anything else reaches the § AC-Form Preflight's Need Human exit rather than being promoted. A checkbox inside a fenced block, an HTML comment, or an indented code example is illustration, not an acceptance criterion, and a section holding nothing else has no ACs at all — which is the § AC-Form Preflight's no-mutation exit, not an empty AC set. Some tickets record ACs as an AC → evidence table instead; that is a valid form which none of these paths can count, and it takes the same exit.

Quality-Gate AC Classifier

Scope: display and granularity only. This classifier never touches status derivation. Exactly two paths use it — Scan Mode's AC Progress (what the dashboard shows) and Phase 1.5's split signal. Phase 2.5's decision table, Phase 4's lifecycle and batch mode's Status rule count every AC and do not consult it.

That boundary is the point. Classifying free-text ACs with a regex is inherently approximate: six successive refinements each measured clean against the whole corpus, and each was then shown to admit a behavioural requirement or drop a real receipt. Where a misread only shifts a displayed count it is visible; where it shifts the split suggestion it may not be, since an undercount can suppress the suggestion silently. Both are advisory and reversible, which is the property that matters. Where it fed status derivation, a false positive removed an AC from the set a ticket had to satisfy — so a ticket could reach Completed without the work. The fix is not a better regex; it is not letting an approximate signal decide a durable record.

One consequence, and it is the correct one: an unchecked Pass /precommit keeps a ticket at In Progress until that gate actually runs. A ticket whose gates have not run is not finished.

An AC is a quality gate only when it is a receipt — its content is that a gate ran, or why it has not. Neither containing a gate command nor merely opening with one is the test: `/precommit` — Try script -> fallback + graceful skip opens with a gate command and is an implementation requirement for /precommit. A receipt is a gate command plus one of:

Receipt marker	Example
a receipt word — Pass / Passed / passes / 通過	Pass /codex-review-doc
a round N citation	`/codex-review-fast` round 1
a named verdict sentinel after a dash — exactly these six pairs: ✅ PASS / ✅ Ready / ✅ Mergeable / ⛔ Blocked / ⛔ Needs revision / ❌ FAIL	`/precommit` — ✅ PASS
a gate lifecycle tail — superseded or pending followed within a bounded window by a round N or verdict reference, or tracked below	— pending Codex round 30 verdict

A bare marker must also end the receipt — the intended semantics, subject to § Known residuals below, which names the forms the published regex still accepts against this rule. pass, round N and tracked below are ordinary English too, so each must be followed by end-of-AC, a parenthetical, or a paired verdict sentinel — otherwise /precommit passes selected flags through to the underlying runner, round 3 results must be persisted and failure details are tracked below the originating step all read as receipts. A receipt is short; a requirement continues into a sentence.

superseded and pending need that bounded follow-on precisely because they are ordinary English: `/precommit` — pending jobs must resume after the build finishes is a behavioural requirement, and dropping it from the displayed count understates what is left. (Under the old design, where this classifier fed status derivation, the same misread could let a ticket advance without the AC. That is why it no longer does — the consequence is now a wrong number on a dashboard or a misfired split suggestion.) Labels are optional and may be bold or plain (AC-8:, **AC-Q1**).

^(?:(?:\*\*[^*]{1,24}\*\*|[A-Za-z][\w.-]{0,12})\s*[:：]?\s+)?(?:(?:pass(?:ed|es)?|通過)\s+`?/(?:codex-review-fast|codex-review-doc|codex-review|precommit-fast|precommit|pr-review)\b|`?/(?:codex-review-fast|codex-review-doc|codex-review|precommit-fast|precommit|pr-review)`?(?:[^—(（:：]{0,40}?(?:\bpass(?:ed|es)?\b|通過|\bround\s+\d+\b)(?=\s*$|\s*[（(]|\s*[,，—–]\s*[✅⛔❌])|[^—(（:：]{0,60}?\s*[—–]\s*(?:round\s+\d+|(?:superseded|pending)[^—]{0,30}?(?:round\s+\d+|verdict)|[^—]{0,40}?\btracked below\b(?=\s*$|\s*[（(]|\s*[,，—–]\s*[✅⛔❌])|(?:✅\s*(?:PASS|Ready|Mergeable)|⛔\s*(?:Blocked|Needs revision)|❌\s*FAIL))))

Case-insensitive (/i) — `/codex-review-doc` pass is as much a receipt as Pass /codex-review-doc.

Three ways to be a receipt: a receipt word then a gate command; a gate command followed closely by one; or a gate command whose line ends in an explicit verdict tail after a dash — — round 3, — ✅ PASS, — ⛔ Blocked. That third branch is why a separator is not an unconditional boundary: `/codex-review-fast` re-review after the round-2 fixes — round 3, ⛔ Blocked is a receipt whose decisive token sits past the dash. What the tail must not be is prose — `/precommit` — Try script -> fallback has a dash and is an implementation requirement, and a bare ✅ is not enough either (— ✅ 已驗證 stays substantive). Only a named verdict sentinel counts, and only as one of the six pairs above — the mark and the word are matched together, not as a cross-product, so ✅ FAIL, ❌ Ready and ⛔ PASS are not receipts. A contradictory sentinel is malformed text, and reading it as a receipt would hide a real AC from the displayed count — or a gate lifecycle tail in the bounded form the table above requires, because an unchecked gate AC recording why its gate has not run yet is still bookkeeping, not work. Two real ones live in docs/features/auto-loop-evolution/requests/2026-08-08-receipt-integrity-issues-9-10-11.md. The bounded window still stops at ( and （, so a gate AC whose tail sits past a parenthetical stays counted as work. Two real ones do: docs/features/auto-loop-evolution/requests/2026-08-08-receipt-integrity-issues-9-10-11.md lines 860 and 878, `/precommit` then `/codex-review-doc` … (task #85) — pending …. These are known, intentional exceptions, not oversights: widening past parentheses is where behavioural ACs live, and the failure direction here overstates the displayed remainder rather than understating it. It does not hold the lifecycle open — under the all-AC rule an unchecked receipt does that on its own. Revisit only with a corpus measurement showing the widened form adds no false positive.

Excluded — a receipt that a gate ran	Kept — the command is the subject of real work
Pass /codex-review-doc（✅ Mergeable）	`/precommit` — Try script -> fallback + graceful skip
Pass `/codex-review-fast` → `/precommit`	`/pr-review` 整合：自動呼叫 fast mode
`/codex-review-doc` 通過	…Stop 回報的事實…且不含 `/codex-review-fast`
AC-8: Pass /codex-review-doc … ✅ Verified	…新增 10 個測試（…`/precommit` 路由…）
`/codex-review-fast` round 1 — ⛔ Blocked	Skill routing：支援至少 8 個 route target（…）
`/codex-review-doc` pass	`/precommit` runner 支援 ecosystem 偵測 — ✅ 已驗證
`/precommit` — ✅ PASS (comment_blocks, lint:fix, build, test)	提供 copy-pasteable 修正指令（如 …）

Every row is a real AC from this repo's requests/, and both columns are pinned by test/skills/create-request-scan.test.js. The right column is what a position-only rule got wrong: it dropped implementation work from the displayed count, so the dashboard understated what was left. The left column's last two rows are what a bold-label-only rule got wrong in the other direction — a real receipt counted as work overstates the displayed remainder. It does not hold the lifecycle open: by the all-AC rule an unchecked receipt keeps a ticket open on its own, whatever this classifier says about it.

Known residuals. The published regex is looser than the prose above in places: forms like Pass /precommit must preserve selected flags and `/precommit` — round 3 results must be persisted still match, because the terminator rule reaches the bare post-command markers but not every route. These are accepted approximation residuals, not open defects. Chasing them produced six refinements, each corpus-clean and each then shown to admit prose or drop a receipt; the seventh attempt dropped 26 real receipts. Bounding the classifier to display and granularity is what makes residuals affordable. The cost is a slightly wrong number on a dashboard, or an advisory split signal that fires when it need not (false negative) or stays silent when it should fire (false positive); the route that made them dangerous is closed. Tighten one only with a corpus measurement showing it adds no false negative.

The classifier fails toward substantive — when an AC is genuinely ambiguous, keep it. Since the classifier no longer feeds status, the cost of either error is a display figure or an advisory split signal rather than a lifecycle decision; keeping an ambiguous AC still makes the count honest about what a reader can verify.

Decision Logic

signal_count = primary_count + 0.5 × secondary_count

< 2  → proceed as single request (no suggestion)
≥ 2  → suggest split (advisory AskUserQuestion)
≥ 3  → strongly recommend split

Split Suggestion

When triggered, use AskUserQuestion:

## Granularity Assessment

This request has {N} substantive acceptance criteria (target: ≤8, gate receipts excluded) and {layer_info}.

Suggested split:
1. {Title A} — {scope A} ({AC_count_A} AC)
2. {Title B} — {scope B} ({AC_count_B} AC)

Options:
- "Split into {N} requests" (Recommended)
- "Keep as 1 request"

Split by: layer (behavior vs code) if detected, then functional area if scope breadth detected, then balanced AC groups as fallback.

Sibling Request Output

When user accepts split, create indexed files: YYYY-MM-DD-{title-slug}-r1.md, ...-r2.md, etc. (e.g., 2026-03-18-auth-fix-r1.md, 2026-03-18-auth-fix-r2.md). Each gets its own AC subset (target ≤8 substantive, counted per § Pre-Render AC Count), scoped Related Files, and conditional > **Depends On**: header if dependency exists between siblings.

Create Mode: Interaction

If incomplete info, ask:

1. Feature area: Which feature? (e.g., auth, billing, notifications)
2. Title: Brief description
3. Priority: P0 (urgent) / P1 (high) / P2 (medium)
4. Background: Why is this needed?
5. Requirements: What needs to be done? (list)
6. Acceptance criteria: How do we know it's done?

---

Update Mode Workflow

Path resolution: --update supports three forms:

Form	Behavior
--update <path>	Use explicit path (must match docs/features/*/requests/*.md)
--update (no path)	Auto-detect from feature context (see references/feature-context-resolution.md)
--update <keyword>	Resolve feature key, then find active request(s)

Auto-detection logic (when no explicit path):

1. Resolve feature context using the 5-level cascade — node scripts/resolve-feature.js, the wrapper that owns the failure payload; the CLI behind it is not the entrypoint 1b. scan_error gate — scan_error !== false ⇒ the source sets are unknown, not empty. Report it and take the ⚠️ Need Human exit. This is the step that matters most here: an unreadable requests/ directory returns the same empty set as a feature with no tickets, so without the gate step 5 below reads it as "0 active requests" and creates a duplicate ticket beside the one it could not see. Gate on !== false, not === true: a {} payload from a shell fallback carries no such field, so a non-null key is not evidence of completeness
2. Scan docs/features/<key>/requests/*.md for incomplete requests (Status not in [Completed, Done, Superseded, Archived] — the closed set is defined once in scripts/lib/request-status.js; keep this list identical to CLOSED_REQUEST_STATUS)
3. If exactly 1 active request → auto-select
4. If multiple active requests → AskUserQuestion with numbered list
5. If 0 active requests → offer to create new via create mode
6. If feature not resolved → Gate: Need Human

Phase 0: Freeze    -> Reparse Status. Closed (`CLOSED_REQUEST_STATUS`) -> no ordinary update: report frozen, exit.
                      One path continues: an explicitly authorized factual correction (Phase 4.5), which performs
                      that correction and nothing else, recorded in `Progress.Note`
Phase 1: Load      -> Read existing request document
Phase 2: Analyze   -> Analyze Related Files + git changes
Phase 2.4: Preflight -> § AC-Form Preflight (all modes, unconditional)
Phase 2.5: Verify    -> (--verify-ac only) agent-based AC verification
Phase 3: Map       -> Compare implementation with Acceptance Criteria
Phase 4: Update    -> Update Progress / Status / Checkboxes
Phase 5: Report    -> Output change summary

Phase 2: Analyze Implementation Progress

# Get changes for Related Files from request document
git log --oneline --since="<created_date>" -- <related_files>

# Check test status
grep -rE "describe|it\(" test/ --include="*<feature>*"

# Check review status
git log --oneline --grep="codex-review" -- <related_files>

AC-Form Preflight (all modes, unconditional)

This runs in every update mode — --update with or without --verify-ac, and --update-all (its step 2). It is defined here, outside the verify-only phase, because that phase declares itself "skipped otherwise": a reader following the mode instructions would otherwise skip the only definition of the check and reach mutation logic with an unparsed AC set.

Order: Phase 0 freeze check → this preflight → any status, Progress-table or checkbox mutation.

That is the whole of what it gates, and the narrowness is deliberate. An authorized factual correction — Phase 4.5's exception: a wrong path, a wrong date, an unfilled template placeholder — runs after Phase 0 and does not pass through this preflight, because it derives nothing from the AC set and asks nothing of it. Gating it here would revoke the one edit Phase 4.5 and /update-docs § Step 1.5 both keep reachable, and revoke it exactly where it is needed most: a ticket recording its ACs as an evidence table has no parsed checkboxes, so it would become the one ticket whose wrong path can never be corrected. Such a correction changes the authorized fact and Progress.Note only, and says so in the report.

Read the ticket's ACs per § Live Checkbox ACs. If there is no readable live checkbox AC set — no ## Acceptance Criteria section at all (docs/features/auto-loop-evolution/requests/2026-08-04-degraded-writer-lost-update.md is a real one); the section present but containing no checkbox items; ACs recorded as an evidence table (docs/features/scope-discipline/requests/2026-08-15-scope-discipline-implementation.md); or any other form this procedure cannot parse — or the section contains a checkbox-like item outside that grammar at all (* [ ], + [ ], 1. [ ], an item indented past three spaces), or mixes task-list items with an evidence table — then no status mutation: report it and take the ⚠️ Need Human exit. Never call an unparsed AC set empty, and never derive a status from one — "every AC is checked" is vacuously true of nothing, and that is how a ticket with no ACs at all would be promoted.

A non-empty parse is not a complete one, which is why the unsupported-form clause is not redundant with the empty-set clause. A section holding - [x] done beside * [ ] not done parses to one item, all of them checked — the unchecked AC written in an unsupported marker does not fail the check, it disappears, and the ticket promotes with outstanding work. Mixed representation is refused for the same reason: whichever form this procedure cannot read is the form whose state stops being counted. Refuse the section as a whole; never parse the part that happens to be readable.

Phase 2.5: AC Verification Agent (--verify-ac only)

Dispatched when --verify-ac flag is present on single-request --update. Supports auto-detected path via feature context 5-level cascade. Skipped otherwise (default path unchanged, <10 sec).

Input: AC_LIST is the complete live checkbox AC set the § AC-Form Preflight parsed (§ Live Checkbox ACs) — not filtered by § Quality-Gate AC Classifier. Filtering it here was the last status-path leak: gate ACs dropped out of the report, so the report could not carry one result per AC and the table read it as unaccounted — the classifier reaching status through report validity after being told it never decides status. RELATED_FILES from ## Related Files table.

Agent({
  description: "Verify AC completion for <feature>",
  subagent_type: "Explore",
  prompt: `AC verification specialist.
    AC_LIST: ${AC_LIST}
    RELATED_FILES: ${RELATED_FILES}
    For each AC: read code, verify implementation.
    A ticket is a RECORD of work done at a point in time, not a description of today's code:
    a Related File missing from the working tree is NOT evidence the AC was never met.
    For every absent path, consult git history before concluding:
      git log --diff-filter=D --oneline -- <path>    # which commit deleted it
      git show <deletion-commit>^:<path> | grep -n '<pattern>'   # NOTE the ^ — the path does
        # not exist AT the deletion commit; `git show <deletion-commit>:<path>` exits 128.
        # For a merge commit pick the parent explicitly (^1 / ^2).
      git log -S '<distinctive string>' --oneline -- <path>   # find the introducing commit
    Output per AC:
    - Status: Complete | Complete (later removed) | Partial | Not Found | Inconclusive
    - Evidence: file:line references (historical evidence as commit:file:line)
    - Confidence: High | Medium | Low
    - Gap (if Partial): what is missing`
})

Timeout: 60 sec hard limit. Unverified ACs on timeout marked Inconclusive.

Graceful degradation: Agent dispatch fails → warn the user and fall back to the git-based heuristic (Phase 2 results). A failed dispatch is not a verification result — it means --verify-ac did not run. So the run continues as ordinary --update: the decision table below is skipped entirely, checkboxes come from implementation evidence exactly as they do without the flag, and the ceiling is Candidate Complete (only a completed verification can set Completed). Reading a failed dispatch as an "empty report" instead would send it into the invalid-report rules, where Phase 4 forbids touching any checkbox — and the heuristic's whole job is to set them. Two directives, two different outcomes for the same input; this sentence is which one wins.

A deleted subject is not an unmet AC. Verification runs against the tree as it is now, but the ticket records the tree as it was. When a later change removes what an AC was about — this repo's hook-lightweighting deleted hooks/post-tool-review-state.sh and hooks/session-init.sh in 0b3b8f5, and three test/hooks/*.test.js suites in 91b5fc9 (both 2026-08-13), all of them named as Related Files by older P0 tickets — a naive run returns Not Found for every one of them and the mapping above would push a finished ticket back to In Progress. That is not a status update; it is falsifying the record, and it points the reader at work that does not exist. Resolve such an AC through git history and record it as Complete (later removed), naming the removing commit. If history cannot settle it, the AC is Inconclusive — never Not Found, and never a downgrade.

Write that finding into Progress.Note, never into a new top-level metadata field. Phase 4.5 and skills/update-docs/SKILL.md § Step 1.5 agree that --update's mutable set is exactly four fields — Status, the Progress table, AC checkboxes, Progress.Note — and adding a Note: or Verification: line to the ticket's metadata blockquote edits the record itself. A verification result is commentary on the work, so it belongs in the Progress table beside the phase it concerns.

Confidence-to-status mapping:

Ordered — the first matching rule wins. The rules are a decision procedure, not independent tests: Inconclusive is a verdict while High / Medium / Low are confidence, so one AC carries both and would match several independent descriptions at once.

In an accounted report, decisive verdicts drive the status directly; the boxes are consulted only when the report yields no usable lifecycle conclusion — an invalid or unaccounted report — or for Inconclusive. The accounting qualifier is not decoration: an unaccounted report can still be full of decisive-looking verdicts — v3.0.12 records seven Complete/High results for a nine-AC ticket — and rules 1–2 must ignore every one of them. For Complete, Complete (later removed), Partial and Not Found in an accounted report the report carries a verdict and a confidence per AC, and Phase 4 updates the boxes from that same evidence, so reading both would only invite them to disagree. Two earlier versions of this table read checkbox state for those verdicts as well, and each needed a verdict→checkbox transition matrix before it was deterministic: an AC reported Complete at Medium matched different rules depending on an unwritten rule about what the checkbox became. Confining the boxes to the cases below removes that question rather than answering it.

The boxes speak in two situations, and only two. The invalid-report rules, where the report yields no usable lifecycle conclusion — and note the distinction: an unaccounted report is not an empty one. It can carry real, valid findings (the two demoted tickets in this repo record 3-of-5 and 7-of-9 verified ACs), and those findings belong in Progress.Note. What it cannot do is settle the lifecycle, because a conclusion drawn from a partial account is not a conclusion about the whole. So the boxes decide the status and the partial evidence is kept rather than discarded. And Inconclusive, which is the one verdict carrying no completion information — "nothing was learned" is not evidence of done or not-done, so the preserved box is again the only thing that speaks. An Inconclusive result on an unchecked AC therefore reopens the ticket, while the same result on a checked one does not: collapsing those two into one status would advance unresolved work to Candidate Complete while Phase 4 leaves its box unchecked — a ticket simultaneously Candidate Complete and, by that status's own definition, not eligible for it.

The AC set is every live checkbox AC the ticket has (§ Live Checkbox ACs) — all of them, gate receipts included. This table does not consult § Quality-Gate AC Classifier: that classifier is an approximate reading of free text, and letting it decide status meant one misread could drop an AC from the set a ticket had to satisfy.

The set is accounted for when the report carries exactly one result per AC, in order, each with a verdict from {Complete, Complete (later removed), Partial, Not Found, Inconclusive} and a confidence from {High, Medium, Low}. A missing, duplicated, extra or malformed row means it is not.

#	Stage	Condition	Status
1	report validity	The report is empty, unparseable or unaccounted for, and any AC is unchecked	In Progress. The report settles nothing about the whole, so the ticket's own record stands, and it says the work is unfinished. Any partial findings it did carry go in Progress.Note
2	report validity	The report is empty, unparseable or unaccounted for, and every AC is checked	Candidate Complete, stating in Progress.Note that verification did not conclude
3	verdicts	Any AC Partial or Not Found	In Progress
4	verdicts	Any AC Inconclusive on an unchecked AC	In Progress. Nothing was learned, so the preserved box is the only evidence and it says the work is unfinished
5	verdicts	Any remaining Inconclusive (on an already-checked AC), or any confidence below High	Candidate Complete + verification summary in Progress.Note
6	verdicts	Every AC is Complete or Complete (later removed) at High	Completed. Record every removal commit in Progress.Note (the Acceptance row's Note cell) — one AC or twelve

The table's domain begins after a successful § AC-Form Preflight. An unreadable AC set exits there and never reaches here, which is why no row covers it — a row that did would be dead.

Rules 1–6 exhaust the declared input space, so there is no catch-all row: rules 1–2 take every invalid or unaccounted report, and rules 3–6 take every combination of the five verdicts and three confidence values that an accounted report can carry. A row labelled "anything else" sat here until two independent reviews enumerated the space and found nothing that reached it — a fallback nothing can reach is not safety, it is a false impression of it. If a future verdict or confidence value is added, add its row rather than relying on a fallback.

Rule 6 is the only rule that yields Completed. It never sees a report that did not conclude, because rules 1–2 have already taken those. There is no empty-set rule any more: the § AC-Form Preflight already exits on a ticket with no readable ACs, and now that gate receipts are counted, classification can no longer empty the set. Every row names exactly one outcome — a row offering two would put the choice back where this table exists to remove it.

Phase 3: Progress Mapping Rules

Implementation Status	Progress Update
Related Files have commits	Development -> In Progress
Test files added/modified	Testing -> In Progress
/codex-review-fast passed	Development -> Done
/precommit passed	Testing -> Done
Every AC checked (§ Live Checkbox ACs — all of them)	Acceptance -> Done

Phase 4: Auto-Update Items

Phase 0 and the § AC-Form Preflight must both have passed. --update reparses the Status before anything else and stops on a closed ticket, exactly as batch mode's step 1 does — the ordering is a step in the declared workflow, not a clause inside a table row, because a reader following the phases in order would otherwise reach these mutations before Phase 4.5 tells them the record is frozen. The only path that edits a closed ticket is the separately authorized factual correction Phase 4.5 defines.

Section	Update Logic
Status	Canonical lifecycle: Pending → In Progress → Candidate Complete → Completed. The Candidate Complete invariant is stated below this table, once. Under --verify-ac the status is whatever Phase 2.5's decision table yields; do not maintain a second mapping here. That table reaches Candidate Complete by more routes than a summary keeps up with — an unaccounted report with every AC checked, a remaining Inconclusive on an already-checked AC even at High, and any confidence below High — which is why this row delegates instead of enumerating. Only that table's closing rule sets Completed. Normalize variants at creation or manual authoring only: In Development/In Dev → In Progress; Done → Completed. --update must not normalize Done: it is a member of CLOSED_REQUEST_STATUS (Phase 4.5), so a ticket carrying it is frozen and an update may change nothing on it — rewriting it to Completed is an edit to a closed record, not a normalization. The freeze check runs before every Phase 4 mutation in single-update mode exactly as it does at batch step 1
Progress table	Update each phase status based on git changes
Acceptance Criteria	Under --verify-ac, the transition is per verdict and independent of confidence: Complete and Complete (later removed) → checked; Partial and Not Found → unchecked; Inconclusive → leave the box as it was (nothing was learned); an invalid or unaccounted report → change nothing. Without --verify-ac, check boxes from implementation/test evidence as before. This decides the boxes only. Phase 2.5's status table is driven by the report, with two documented fallbacks to the boxes — the invalid-report rules, and Inconclusive, which carries no completion information — so the two cannot disagree

The Candidate Complete invariant. Candidate Complete means every AC is checked — all of them, with no exception for gate receipts — and closure-grade verification has not concluded. § Quality-Gate AC Classifier is display-only and is not consulted.

Phase 4.5: Freeze — a request ticket is a record, not a living document

A request ticket states what was asked for and what happened. That makes it a record: it is appended to while the work runs, and it is never rewritten afterwards to match what the code later became. Doc sync (/update-docs) does not touch it at all — see that skill's Step 1.5.

Status	What --update may change
Any status not in CLOSED_REQUEST_STATUS — isOpenRequestStatus() is the negation, so this covers Pending, In Progress, Candidate Complete, the variants Phase 4 normalizes (In Development, In Dev), Design, Proposed, and a Status that failed to parse	Status, Progress table, AC checkboxes, Progress.Note — the fields above. Naming only the three canonical values here would leave every other open status admitted by Phase 0 with no mutable set at all, which reads as frozen and is the opposite of what the parser says
Any member of CLOSED_REQUEST_STATUS — currently Completed, Done, Superseded, Archived	Nothing. A closed ticket is frozen

The closed set is CLOSED_REQUEST_STATUS in scripts/lib/request-status.js — the same list Scan Mode filters on, and the only place it is defined.

Reopening is a decision, not an update: when work resumes on a closed ticket, say so and create a new ticket that references it, rather than editing history so it reads as though it was never finished. The one exception is a factual correction to the record itself — a wrong path, a wrong date, or an unfilled template placeholder: text that was never a statement about this ticket at all, such as a trailing **Status**: Pending / In Progress / … legend the author never replaced.

The exception authorizes only that correction, and its eligible targets are closed: a non-lifecycle recorded fact (a path, a date, a reference), or the removal of an unfilled placeholder. It must never change Status, a Progress phase status, or AC checkbox state — those are the lifecycle fields, and they stay governed by the freeze, the AC-form preflight and the ordinary transition rules whatever else is being corrected. Without that exclusion the exemption swallows the rule it follows: a wrong Status on a closed ticket is a "fact" in ordinary language, so an agent could relabel a lifecycle edit as a correction and walk straight past the preflight. Unrelated tidying is not authorized either — the correction is the named fact and nothing beside it. Removing one is not cleanup of record content, because it never was record content; leaving it is worse than removing it, since a second Status field that parseRequestStatus() does not read and no later update maintains will drift into contradicting the real one. Correcting it in place — writing today's status into it — is the one thing not allowed: that manufactures the duplicate rather than removing it. State the removal in Progress.Note as with any other correction — which is a correction, not a re-sync, and is stated as such in the report.

This is what stops the cost this skill's tickets kept paying: a frozen ticket is reviewed under the record-diff profile, whose whole point is that drift from today's code is not a finding (skills/doc-review/SKILL.md § Review Profiles).

Update Mode: Interaction

If confirmation needed, ask:

1. Confirm target request document path
2. Any manually completed items to check off?
3. Any blocked items to mark?

---

Scan Mode Workflow

Phase 1: Discover  -> Glob docs/features/*/requests/*.md (exclude archived/)
Phase 2: Parse     -> Extract Status, Priority, Created, AC progress from each doc
Phase 3: Filter    -> Keep incomplete (Status ∉ CLOSED_REQUEST_STATUS: Completed, Done, Superseded, Archived)
Phase 4: Report    -> Group by status, sort by priority then date, output markdown

Phase 1: Discovery

Glob: docs/features/*/requests/*.md
Exclude: docs/features/*/requests/archived/*.md

Count total, active, and archived separately.

Phase 2: Metadata Parsing

Status is parsed by parseRequestStatus() in scripts/lib/request-status.js — that module is the contract; the Status column below only restates it. It recognises three conventions, and it is what skills/next-step/scripts/analyze.js and scripts/lib/fc-extractor.js already call. A hand-rolled scan implementing only some of them reports real tickets as unknown — a ## Status: Completed ticket read as unknown lands in the report as open work, which is the opposite of what it says. Priority and Created have no such module: parse them per this table.

Format	Status Pattern	Priority Pattern	Created Pattern
Blockquote	> **Status**: <value>	> **Priority**: <value>	> **Created**: <value>
Heading	^#{1,6}\s*Status\s*:\s*<value> — e.g. ## Status: Completed	—	—
Table	/^|\s*status\s*|([^|\n]+)|/im — the parser's actual expression: a negated class for the cell (three competing quantifiers over one run measured cubic, ~20s on a malformed row), case-insensitive on the word status only. Bold is stripped from the extracted, trimmed cell afterwards, never by a second whole-line pattern	^| Priority | <value> |	^| Created | <value> |

Order is blockquote → heading → table, first match wins. The scan window is the first 30 lines (HEAD_LINES in that module), measured against this repo's corpus — not 15.

Fallback: If metadata missing, extract date from filename (YYYY-MM-DD-*), default status to unknown, priority to --. unknown classifies as open in Phase 3, matching isOpenRequestStatus(): an unlabelled ticket is unfinished work, never finished work.

AC Progress: Derive the checked and total counts per § Live Checkbox ACs — that section owns the item syntax (including [X]) and the live-text rule; restating either here is how they drifted — then report the count excluding gate receipts, per § Quality-Gate AC Classifier. Note gate ACs separately if at all.

This is one of the classifier's two permitted uses, and it is why it exists: on this repo there are open tickets whose only unchecked ACs are gate receipts. Without this exclusion their raw checkbox ratio would read as incomplete even though every substantive AC is done — which is the misreading the exclusion prevents, not one it leaves behind. Said the other way round: after the exclusion those tickets display a complete substantive ratio, and the deficit exists only in the pre-filter count.

(No corpus count is quoted: the number depends on the exact measurement procedure, and the rationale does not need it.)

This is a display figure, not the lifecycle. Status is derived from every AC (Phase 2.5, Phase 4, batch mode), so a ticket showing 6/6 here can still be In Progress because a gate has not run. That is not an inconsistency — the dashboard answers "how much of the work is left" and the status answers "is this ticket finished", and an un-run gate means it is not.

Report AC progress as —, never as 0/0 and never as a finding, for every unreadable AC form § Live Checkbox ACs names: an evidence table (docs/features/scope-discipline/requests/2026-08-15-scope-discipline-implementation.md), a ticket with no ## Acceptance Criteria section (docs/features/auto-loop-evolution/requests/2026-08-04-degraded-writer-lost-update.md), a section holding no live checkbox items, or an unsupported syntax. Scan Mode is display-only, so it does not take the preflight's Need Human exit — but rendering any of these as 0/0 would publish "this ticket has no ACs" when the truth is "this procedure cannot read them".

Feature name: Extract from path — the segment immediately after docs/features/, i.e. the third path segment (e.g., docs/features/auth/requests/... → auth; two segments after the prefix is requests, the same for every ticket).

Phase 3: Filter & Classify

Status	Classification	Include in Report
Completed	Done	No
Done	Done	No
Superseded	Done	No
Archived	Done	No
In Progress / In Development / In Dev	Active	Yes
Candidate Complete	Active (needs verification)	Yes — group after In Progress
Pending	Backlog	Yes
Design / Proposed	Pre-work	Yes
unknown	Backlog (grouped with Pending)	Yes

Stale detection: Pending requests with Created date > 30 days ago → mark [stale].

Phase 4: Report Format

Console-only markdown output (no file creation). Group by status in actionability order:

1. In Progress — active work, highest actionability
2. Candidate Complete — all ACs checked, not closure-grade verified (heuristic-only, or a --verify-ac run that did not conclude); needs a closure-grade --verify-ac
3. Pending — backlog, includes stale detection
4. Design / Proposed — pre-implementation

Each group as a table with columns: #, Request, Feature, Priority, Created, AC, Path. Pending group adds a Stale column.

Sort order within each group: Priority descending (P0 > P1 > P2 > --), then Created ascending (oldest first).

Bottom summary table: status counts + average age (days since Created).

Summary line at top: N incomplete / M total (K archived excluded).

---

Batch Update Mode (--update-all)

Scan all incomplete requests, cross-reference with git history, and batch-update docs where implementation evidence exists. This automates what would otherwise require running --update on each doc individually.

Phase 1: Discover  -> Reuse Scan Mode Phase 1-3 to find incomplete docs
Phase 2: Verify    -> For each doc, check git log for Related Files commits
Phase 3: Classify  -> Sort into: updatable (has commits) vs unchanged (no commits)
Phase 4: Batch Edit -> Update Status, AC checkboxes, Progress table for each updatable doc
Phase 5: Report    -> Output change summary table

Phase 2: Git Verification

For each incomplete request doc, extract the feature name from path and search for evidence:

Priority: Use Related Files from request doc when available (most accurate). Fall back to feature slug heuristic only when Related Files section is absent.

# Priority 1: Use Related Files from request doc (if present)
# Parse "## Related Files" table → extract file paths → git log per path

# Priority 2: Feature slug heuristic (fallback)
git log -5 --oneline --all -- skills/<feature>/

Read git's own exit status, and do not pipe it away. git log … | head -5 reports the status of head, which is 0 even when git exited 128 — so a non-repository, an unreadable object store and a genuine "no commits" all look identical, and the tri-state below collapses to NO_COMMITS exactly where it must not. Use -5 on git itself. Status 0 with output → HAS_COMMITS; status 0 with no output → NO_COMMITS; any non-zero status → EVIDENCE_UNKNOWN. A shallow clone is the same class: it can answer "nothing found" without having the history to know, so treat a repository reporting --is-shallow-repository as true as EVIDENCE_UNKNOWN rather than as an answer.

Exclude docs-only commits: Filter out commits that only touch docs/ paths — these are doc-sync commits, not implementation evidence. A valid evidence commit must touch at least one non-docs file.

Report one of three results per document, never a bare boolean: HAS_COMMITS, NO_COMMITS, or EVIDENCE_UNKNOWN when the probe did not conclude (nonzero git log, unreadable repository, missing history). Phase 3 row 4 is only sound over NO_COMMITS; EVIDENCE_UNKNOWN takes the ⚠️ Need Human exit before classification.

Phase 3: Classification

Classification queues an action; nothing here edits a document. Every Action below is a proposal that Phase 4 executes only after its freeze and AC-form preflights pass — which is what makes those preflights a guarantee rather than a convention.

Ordered first-match: a doc takes the action of the first row it satisfies and no other. The rows overlap by construction — a Pending ticket with unchecked ACs and no commits satisfies more than one — so an unordered reading queues two contradictory actions for one document. How the Status is written (blockquote, heading, table, or absent) is deliberately not a category here: representation decides the shape of the edit, never whether to edit, and it is settled in Phase 4 step 6.

#	Category	Condition	Action
1	FROZEN	Status ∈ CLOSED_REQUEST_STATUS per parseRequestStatus()	Skip, report as frozen. First because a closed ticket must never be reached by a later row
2	ALL_CHECKED	Checkbox ACs parsed successfully (not an evidence-table ticket — see the AC-form preflight) and every AC is checked per § Live Checkbox ACs (all of them) but Status ≠ Completed/Candidate Complete	Update Status → Candidate Complete (heuristic-only, not Completed)
3	HAS_COMMITS	Git commits exist for Related Files	Read doc → verify AC → update
4	OTHERWISE	No earlier row matched, and Phase 2 returned NO_COMMITS	Skip, report as unchanged, naming the reason where it is an unreadable AC set

Phase 2 returns one of three results, and row 4 depends on which: HAS_COMMITS, NO_COMMITS, or EVIDENCE_UNKNOWN — a git log that exited nonzero, an unreadable repository, any probe that did not conclude. EVIDENCE_UNKNOWN never reaches classification at all: report it and take the ⚠️ Need Human exit, exactly as the scan_error gate does for an unreadable requests/ directory and for the same reason. Unknown evidence is not absent evidence, and the whole of row 4 rests on that difference: "no earlier row matched" entails "no qualifying commits" only when the probe actually answered. Read the other way, a repository that could not be searched would be reported as a document with nothing to do.

Row 4 is the residual, deliberately: every document Scan Mode returns must match some row, and a document that matches no row has no defined action — the same defect as two contradictory ones.

A Status that parseRequestStatus() resolved from the heading or table form is not a category and not "missing metadata" — Phase 2 lists all three forms as canonical, and this repo has real ## Status: Completed tickets. It classifies by its value like any other, and row 1 catches it when that value is closed. A parseRequestStatus() of null is open by isOpenRequestStatus() and classifies on evidence. Both are then edited per Phase 4 step 6, which owns the form question.

Phase 4: Batch Edit Rules

For each updatable doc:

1. Frozen docs (preflight — before any mutation): A doc whose Status is in CLOSED_REQUEST_STATUS is skipped and reported as frozen — Phase 4.5 applies to batch mode identically. Scan Mode already filters these out, so a closed doc reaching Phase 4 means the status was misparsed — a stale scan or a misclassification. That is exactly why the check must run first: reparse the Status here and stop, rather than editing a historical record through steps that would otherwise have already run.
2. AC form (preflight — before any status or checkbox edit): Apply § AC-Form Preflight (all modes, unconditional). A ticket recording its ACs as an evidence table has no parsed checkboxes, and "zero parsed checkboxes" must never read as "all checked" — that is how a table-form ticket would be set to Candidate Complete vacuously. Report it and leave it unmutated, exactly as single-request mode does.
3. AC checkboxes: Cross-reference git diff to determine which ACs are met. Only check ACs with clear implementation evidence. This runs before the Status step, not after it. Status is derived from the checkboxes, so deriving it first reads the pre-update state: a Pending 0/14 ticket whose commits satisfy every AC would be written In Progress and then have all fourteen boxes checked, leaving In Progress 14/14 — and making this section's own Pending 0/14 → Candidate Complete 14/14 example unreachable.
4. Status: Count every AC per § Live Checkbox ACs — the gate classifier is display-only and is not consulted here, so an unchecked Pass /precommit does hold the ticket open, which is what an un-run gate means. If all ACs are checked (heuristic) → Candidate Complete. If only some are → In Progress. Only --verify-ac (single update) can set Completed.
5. Progress table: Update phase statuses based on commits found.
6. Missing metadata: Table format is a valid canonical format (Phase 2, parseRequestStatus()), so a table-format ticket is not missing metadata — never add a blockquote header beside it. Blockquote outranks table in the parser's precedence, so doing that silently changes the value every consumer reads. Update the Status field the ticket already has, in place and in its own format. Only when parseRequestStatus() returns null may a field be added, and then a bare > **Status**: <value> line — not a whole metadata header.

Phase 5: Report Format

## Batch Update Report

| # | Request | Feature | Before | After | Changes |
|---|---------|---------|--------|-------|---------|
| 1 | Bug-fix redesign | bug-fix-redesign | Pending 0/14 | Candidate Complete 14/14 | Status + AC + Progress |
| 2 | Safe-remove | safe-remove | Pending 0/12 | Candidate Complete 12/12 | Status + AC |
| 3 | Multi-ecosystem | multi-ecosystem | Pending 0/23 | Pending 0/23 | (no changes — no commits) |

**Updated**: N / **Unchanged**: N / **Total scanned**: N

Write-Time Budget

A ticket is a work unit, not a narrative. It stays readable only if it is written to a budget and updated by overwriting rather than appending.

Item	Budget
Whole ticket	~100 lines (wc -l). Past 150, the ticket is doing a tech spec's job — move the design out and link to it
Acceptance Criteria	≤ 8 substantive (Phase 1.5 splits above that). Gate receipts do not count toward it and are not deducted from the rendered ticket — a ticket may legitimately render 8 substantive ACs plus its receipts
Background	≤ 10 lines — why this exists, not how it will be built
Progress table	Cells are overwritten, never appended to

Overwrite, do not accumulate. Each update replaces the phase status and its note; it does not add a round. A ticket carrying "Round 1 … Round 7 …" is a review log wearing a ticket's name — that belongs in review-log-<topic>.md, and moving it there costs nothing because the ticket never needed it. This is where request tickets grow without anyone deciding they should.

The budget is a write-time target, not a gate. A ticket already over it is trimmed at the next substantive edit — unless it is closed, in which case it is frozen (Phase 4.5) and left alone.

Trimming is authoring, never updating, and never rides along on a correction. --update and --update-all do not trim at any length: their mutable set is the four fields Phase 4.5 names, and Background, Requirements, Scope and Related Files are frozen record content however far over budget the ticket runs. Nor does Phase 4.5's factual-correction exception authorize it — that exception covers only what it names (the erroneous fact, or an unfilled template placeholder) and nothing else in the document. Trimming is not a correction, so it never rides along on one. Letting a one-line correction carry a rewrite of unrelated sections would reopen the whole record through the narrowest door in the contract. "The next substantive edit" therefore means authoring the ticket before it becomes a record; trimming an existing record is a separately authorized refactor, stated as such.

File Naming

Format: YYYY-MM-DD-kebab-case-title.md

Location: docs/features/{feature}/requests/

Output

• Request document at docs/features/<feature>/requests/YYYY-MM-DD-<title>.md
• Sections: Background, Requirements, Scope, Related Files, Acceptance Criteria, Progress, References
• Status: New or Updated

Verification

• File naming follows convention
• All template sections are filled
• Related file links are correct
• Acceptance criteria are written per § Live Checkbox ACs — that section owns the syntax; restating it here would make this a second extraction contract, which is the drift this delegation exists to prevent. Authoring a form it does not accept means the ticket could never be updated. A ticket may instead record ACs as an AC → evidence table; that is a valid form which no update mode can count, so such a ticket is reported and left unmutated rather than verified

After Creation

Request tickets are created after /tech-spec exists (see Relationship section). Suggest execution-oriented next steps:

1. /feature-dev — Start implementation following the ticket's Acceptance Criteria
2. /verify — Run tests after implementation
3. /create-request --update — Sync progress as work completes

Exception: If the ticket was created before a tech spec exists (emergency or exploratory work), consider running /tech-spec first to capture the technical design the ticket will execute against.

References

• references/template.md - Request template + naming convention

Related Skills

Skill	Purpose
request-tracking	Request structure knowledge base
tech-spec	Tech spec writing
feature-dev	Development workflow

Examples

Create Mode

Input: /create-request Feature: Auth Title: Fix validation Priority: P1
Action: Explore related code -> Fill template -> Create file -> Suggest next steps

Input: Create a request document
Action: Ask for required info -> Explore -> Create -> Confirm

Update Mode

Input: /create-request --update docs/features/auth/requests/2026-01-23-fix-login-validation.md
Action: Read request -> Analyze git changes -> Update Progress -> Output summary

Input: Update request progress
Action: Identify request from context -> Analyze implementation -> Auto-update -> Confirm

Input: (after development complete) Sync request document
Action:
  1. Read Related Files
  2. git log to check changes
  3. Update: Development unchecked -> done, Testing unchecked -> in progress
  4. Check completed Acceptance Criteria
  5. Status: Pending -> In Progress