lisa-ticket-triage

name	lisa-ticket-triage
description	Analytical triage gate for tickets in the configured destination tracker (JIRA, GitHub Issues, or Linear). Detects requirement ambiguities, identifies edge cases from codebase analysis, and plans verification methodology. Posts findings to the ticket and produces a verdict (DUPLICATE_ALREADY_FIXED/BLOCKED/PASSED_WITH_FINDINGS/PASSED) that gates whether implementation can proceed. Vendor-neutral: the caller (jira-agent or github-agent) is responsible for fetching the ticket via lisa-tracker-read, running the pre-flight gate via lisa-tracker-verify, and posting findings via the matching vendor comment tool.
allowed-tools	["Read","Glob","Grep","Bash"]

Ticket Triage: $ARGUMENTS

Perform analytical triage on the ticket. The caller MUST have run lisa-tracker-read (or its vendor-specific underlying skill — lisa-jira-read-ticket for JIRA, lisa-github-read-issue for GitHub) first and provided the resulting context bundle — which includes the primary ticket, all linked tickets (blocks / is blocked by / relates to / duplicates), parent (Epic in JIRA, parent sub-issue in GitHub), siblings, sub-tasks / sub-issues, and remote PR state. Do not triage from a bare ticket summary — if the bundle is missing link or parent context, stop and instruct the caller to run /tracker-read first.

Repository name for scoped labels and comment headers: determine via basename $(git rev-parse --show-toplevel).

Phase 0 -- Pre-flight Description Gate

Before any analytical work, confirm the ticket carries the content an implementer needs to start. The caller should already have run lisa-tracker-verify; this phase consumes its output. If lisa-tracker-verify returned FAIL for any of the following, emit BLOCKED immediately with the missing-requirements list and skip to Phase 6:

• Parent missing (Epic parent for JIRA non-bug-non-epic; parent sub-issue for GitHub non-bug-non-epic)
• Description quality failures (no Gherkin acceptance criteria, missing audience sections)
• Validation Journey missing on a runtime-behavior ticket
• Target backend environment missing on a runtime-behavior ticket
• Sign-in credentials missing on a ticket that touches authenticated surfaces
• Relationship discovery missing (no links AND no documented git + tracker-search outcome)

Single-repo scope is handled separately — see below.

The caller (jira-agent or github-agent) is responsible for transitioning the ticket to Blocked (JIRA status) or relabeling to status:blocked (GitHub), reassigning to the Reporter / original author, and posting a comment listing the missing requirements. This skill only emits the verdict and the missing-requirements list.

Single-repo scope is split, not blocked. A cross-repo leaf work unit (Bug / Task / Sub-task / Improvement spanning repos) is a decomposition error the agent owns, not a terminal BLOCKED. Do not emit BLOCKED for it. The caller runs the work-time split procedure in the repo-scope-split rule (narrow the original to one repo, spin off a sibling per additional repo, link the producer→consumer dependency), then re-runs tracker-verify and re-enters triage on the now single-repo ticket. Only fall back to BLOCKED if the split is ambiguous (see "When to block instead of split" in that rule).

If lisa-tracker-verify returned PASS for all the above, proceed to Phase 1.

Phase 1 -- Relevance Check

Search the local codebase using Glob and Grep for code related to the ticket's subject matter:

• Keywords from summary and description
• Component names, API endpoints, database tables
• Error messages or log strings mentioned in the ticket

If NO relevant code is found in this repo:

• Output: ## Verdict: NOT_RELEVANT
• Instruct caller to add the label claude-triaged-{repo} and skip this ticket

If relevant code IS found, proceed to Phase 2.

Phase 1.5 -- Relationship & Epic Awareness

From the context bundle, evaluate relationships before analyzing this ticket in isolation:

• Open blockers (is blocked by): if any blocker is not Done or its linked PR is not merged, raise an ambiguity: "Blocker {KEY} is not shipped — work cannot meaningfully start." This is an automatic BLOCKED verdict unless the human confirms the blocker state is acceptable.
• Epic siblings in progress: if a sibling under the same epic is In Progress / In Review with a different assignee and overlapping scope, raise it as an edge case in Phase 4 ("Duplicate-work risk with {KEY}").
• duplicates / is duplicated by links:
  • If this ticket is a duplicate of an open canonical ticket whose fix is not yet merged into the base branch, verdict is BLOCKED with the recommendation to close as duplicate manually rather than implement.
  • If this ticket is a duplicate of canonical work that is already merged/deployed, verdict is DUPLICATE_ALREADY_FIXED. This verdict must carry the canonical ticket reference, the canonical PR/commit reference, and empirical evidence that the canonical fix is present on the relevant base branch. Never emit this verdict from a name/label match alone.
• relates to links with shipped PRs: flag the PRs in the verification methodology (Phase 5) as prior art worth reviewing before writing new code.

Do not re-fetch tickets — the bundle already has the context. If Phase 1.5 finds an automatic blocker condition (is blocked by not shipped, or duplicate-of-open), emit BLOCKED immediately and skip to Phase 6 output formatting. If it finds a duplicate whose canonical fix is empirically present on the base branch, emit DUPLICATE_ALREADY_FIXED immediately and skip to Phase 6 output formatting.

Phase 2 -- Cross-Repo Awareness

Parse the ticket's existing comments for triage headers from OTHER repositories. Look for patterns like:

• *[some-repo-name] Ambiguity detected*
• *[some-repo-name] Edge cases*
• *[some-repo-name] Verification methodology*

Note which phases other repos have already covered and what findings they posted. In subsequent phases:

• Do NOT duplicate findings already posted by another repo
• DO add supplementary findings specific to THIS repo's codebase

Phase 3 -- Ambiguity Detection

Examine the ticket summary, description, and acceptance criteria. Look for:

Signal	Example
Vague language	"should work properly", "handle edge cases", "improve performance"
Untestable criteria	No measurable outcome defined
Undefined terms	Acronyms or domain terms not explained in context
Missing scope boundaries	What's included vs excluded is unclear
Implicit assumptions	Assumptions not stated explicitly

Skip ambiguities already raised by another repo's triage comments.

For each NEW ambiguity found, produce:

### Ambiguity: [short title]
**Description:** [what is ambiguous]
**Suggested clarification:** [specific question to resolve it]

Be specific -- every ambiguity must have a concrete clarifying question.

Phase 4 -- Edge Case Analysis

Search the codebase using Glob and Grep for files related to the ticket's subject matter. Check git history for recent changes in those areas:

git log --oneline -20 -- <relevant-paths>

Identify:

• Boundary conditions (empty inputs, max values, concurrent access)
• Error handling gaps in related code
• Integration risks with other components
• Data migration or backward compatibility concerns

Reference only files in THIS repo. Acknowledge edge cases from other repos if relevant, but do not duplicate them.

For each edge case, produce:

### Edge Case: [title]
**Description:** [what could go wrong]
**Code reference:** [file path and relevant lines or patterns]

Every edge case must reference specific code files or patterns found in the codebase. If no relevant code exists, note that this appears to be a new feature with no existing code to analyze.

Phase 5 -- Verification Methodology

For each acceptance criterion, specify a concrete verification method scoped to what THIS repo can test:

Verification Type	When to Use	What to Specify
UI	Change affects user-visible interface	Playwright test description with specific assertions
API	Change affects HTTP/GraphQL/RPC endpoints	curl command with expected response status and body
Data	Change involves schema, migrations, queries	Database query or service call to verify state
Performance	Change claims performance improvement	Benchmark description with target metrics

Do not duplicate verification methods already posted by other repos.

Produce a table:

| Acceptance Criterion | Verification Method | Type |
|---------------------|--------------------| -----|

Every verification method must be specific enough that an automated agent could execute it.

Phase 6 -- Verdict

Evaluate the findings and produce exactly one verdict:

• NOT_RELEVANT -- No relevant code was found in this repository (Phase 1). The caller should add the triage label and skip implementation in this repo.
• DUPLICATE_ALREADY_FIXED -- This ticket duplicates canonical work whose fix is already merged/deployed and empirically confirmed present on the relevant base branch. Work MUST NOT proceed. The caller must post the triage finding, ensure the native duplicates <canonical> link exists when the tracker supports one, and return the structured canonical reference/evidence to build intake for terminal duplicate closeout.
• BLOCKED -- Blocking conditions were found in Phase 0 (missing required description content), Phase 1.5 (open blockers, duplicate-of-open), and/or Phase 3 (ambiguities). Work MUST NOT proceed until resolved by a human. When the block is from Phase 0, the caller (jira-agent) MUST transition the ticket to Blocked and reassign to the Reporter — not just leave it in place. For Phase 1.5 / Phase 3 blocks, post findings, add the triage label, and STOP.
• PASSED_WITH_FINDINGS -- No ambiguities, but edge cases or verification findings were identified. Work can proceed. The caller should post findings and add the triage label.
• PASSED -- No ambiguities, edge cases, or verification gaps found. Work can proceed. The caller should add the triage label.

Output format:

## Verdict: [NOT_RELEVANT | DUPLICATE_ALREADY_FIXED | BLOCKED | PASSED_WITH_FINDINGS | PASSED]

**Ambiguities found:** [count]
**Edge cases identified:** [count]
**Verification methods defined:** [count]

Output Structure

Structure all output with clear section headers so the caller can parse and post findings:

## Triage: [TICKET-KEY] ([repo-name])

### Ambiguities
[Phase 3 findings, or "None found."]

### Edge Cases
[Phase 4 findings, or "None found."]

### Verification Methodology
[Phase 5 table, or "No acceptance criteria to verify."]

## Verdict: [NOT_RELEVANT | DUPLICATE_ALREADY_FIXED | BLOCKED | PASSED_WITH_FINDINGS | PASSED]

The caller is responsible for:

1. Posting the findings as comments on the ticket (using whatever Jira mechanism is available)
2. Adding the claude-triaged-{repo} label to the ticket
3. If BLOCKED due to Phase 0 (missing required description content): transitioning the ticket to Blocked, reassigning to the Reporter, posting a comment listing the missing requirements, and stopping all work.
4. If DUPLICATE_ALREADY_FIXED: return the canonical ticket reference and empirical base-branch evidence to build intake so it can close the ticket as a terminal duplicate without opening a PR.
5. If BLOCKED due to Phase 1.5 (open blockers, duplicate-of-open) or Phase 3 (ambiguities): stopping all work and reporting to the human; do NOT auto-transition status in these cases.