一键导入
to-issues
Use when a plan, spec, or PRD must become an actionable backlog — break it into thin dependency-aware issues that each deliver a verifiable vertical slice
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
菜单
Use when a plan, spec, or PRD must become an actionable backlog — break it into thin dependency-aware issues that each deliver a verifiable vertical slice
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
基于 SOC 职业分类
Use when research or domain knowledge keeps getting rediscovered across sessions — build a supplementary markdown wiki that compounds synthesized knowledge without replacing GitHub or committed project guidance
Use when you need to build a new MCP server — plan the tool surface, implement the server, register it in Copilot CLI, inspect the config, and test the tools end to end.
Use when delegated work needs runtime guardrails — constrain sub-agents with loop detection, circuit breakers, and escalating sandbox levels before accepting their output
Use when reviewing the source code of an MCP server or client implementation — not just its runtime config — for authentication, session, rate-limit, schema-validation, and SDK-usage vulnerabilities, with file/line-cited findings mapped to OWASP Top 10
Use when you need to evaluate an LLM pipeline or AI feature systematically — sets up an eval harness with test cases, scoring rubrics, and pass/fail tracking rather than one-off manual spot-checks
Use when a question requires comprehensive evidence gathering from multiple sources, systematic synthesis, and traceable citations — produces a structured research brief rather than a quick answer
| name | to-issues |
| description | Use when a plan, spec, or PRD must become an actionable backlog — break it into thin dependency-aware issues that each deliver a verifiable vertical slice |
| metadata | {"category":"workflow","agent_type":"general-purpose","origin":"adapted from mattpocock/skills to-tickets (formerly to-issues)"} |
To Issues turns a plan into independently executable backlog items. The goal is not to split work by layer, but to create thin vertical slices that are reviewable, testable, and dependency-aware.
| Instead of to-issues | Use |
|---|---|
| You are still defining the feature itself | create-prd or planning first |
| You need to triage an existing issue backlog | github-issue-triage |
| The work is already small enough to execute directly | do the task |
Use a real input artifact:
Do not create issue slices from an unresolved conversation.
Each issue should represent a thin end-to-end path, not a horizontal layer split.
Good slices usually:
Bad slices are things like "database changes only" or "UI updates only" if they cannot be verified in isolation.
Exception — wide refactors: a single mechanical change (rename a column, retype a shared symbol) can have a blast radius that fans across the whole codebase, breaking thousands of call sites at once so no vertical slice can land green. Do not force this shape into a tracer bullet — see Wide Refactor Exception below.
For each proposed issue, identify:
Publish blockers first so later issues can reference them cleanly.
Show the user the proposed issue set and ask whether:
Only publish after the breakdown is approved.
Before publishing, stage each proposed issue as its own local draft file rather than one combined scratch document:
.scratch/<feature-slug>/issues/<NN>-<slug>.md
<feature-slug> groups all drafts for one plan/PRD pass<NN> is a zero-padded sequence number that reflects publish order<slug> is a short kebab-case titleOne file per issue makes it possible to publish, edit, or drop a single slice without touching the
others, and keeps the dependency-blocker references (Blocked by: #NN) resolvable against the
local draft numbering before the tracker assigns real issue numbers.
Support the tracker the project already uses.
gh issue create (or equivalent GitHub CLI workflow) when publishing approved issuesDo not assume one provider if the project uses another.
A wide refactor is one mechanical change whose blast radius fans across the whole codebase — a single edit breaks thousands of call sites at once, so no vertical slice can land green. Do not force it into a tracer bullet; sequence it as expand–contract instead:
When even individual batches cannot stay green in isolation, keep the same three-phase sequence but let the batches share an integration branch that all block a final integrate-and-verify issue — green is promised only there, not batch by batch.
Use this exception only when the change is genuinely mechanical and blast-radius-driven (renames, retyped shared symbols, signature-wide API changes). A feature that merely touches many files because it has many concerns is not a wide refactor — slice it vertically instead.
## Proposed Issue Breakdown
1. **Title:** ...
**Blocked by:** None / #123
**Delivers:** ...
**Acceptance signal:** ...
2. ...
## Parent
[Reference to the source plan, PRD, or parent issue]
## What to build
[One thin vertical slice with end-to-end value]
## Acceptance criteria
- [ ] ...
- [ ] ...
- [ ] ...
## Blocked by
None - can start immediately
| Rationalization | Reality |
|---|---|
| "Let's make one big implementation issue first." | Huge tickets hide sequencing mistakes and block delegation. |
| "We can split the layers now and connect them later." | Horizontal slices are harder to demo and easier to strand. |
| "Dependencies are obvious." | If they are not written down, the backlog will drift. |
create-prd — define the feature before turning it into backlog itemswayfinder — build the destination-centric plan first for large, multi-session initiativesgithub-issue-triage — organize and review an existing GitHub issue backlogteam-planner — assign the resulting slices across specialist agents