ticket-writer
Ticket Writer
Pick the right ticket type, then fill in only the fields that type demands. A story is not a bug; an epic is not an initiative. Each type has a distinct audience, scope, and definition of done -- mixing them produces vague, unactionable tickets that bloat backlogs.
Core Principles
| Principle | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Type drives structure | The type decides the required fields -- never use a single template for everything |
| Outcomes over outputs | Describe the change the work creates, not the activity performed |
| Small enough to finish | Stories and subtasks fit a sprint; epics fit a quarter; initiatives span multiple quarters |
| Testable acceptance | Every story, subtask, and bug has acceptance criteria that a reviewer can verify |
| Context, not prose | Prefer tables, lists, and labelled sections over paragraphs -- readers skim |
| One ask per ticket | If a ticket has two unrelated goals, split it |
Type Hierarchy and Selection
Tickets form a hierarchy. Pick the highest level where the work still has a single, coherent purpose.
Initiative (multi-quarter strategic outcome)
Epic (quarter-scale goal, one product area)
Story (sprint-scale user-visible value)
Subtask (implementation slice of a story)
Bug (defect against current behaviour)
Issue (anything else -- chore, spike, question)
When to Use Each Type
| Type | Audience | Scope | Typical Duration | Key Question |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initiative | Execs, product leadership | Cross-team strategic goal | 1-4 quarters | What outcome do we want for the business or users? |
| Epic | Product, engineering, design | Single product area, multiple stories | 1 quarter | What capability or experience are we delivering? |
| Story | Dev team, QA, PM | One user-facing change | Fits in a sprint | As a [user], what can I now do? |
| Subtask | One developer | Technical slice of a story | Hours to 1-2 days | What specific implementation step does this cover? |
| Bug | Dev team, QA | A deviation from intended behaviour | Fix-sized | What is broken, and how do I reproduce it? |
| Issue | Dev team | Chore, spike, question, tech debt, docs | Variable | What needs attention that isn't user-facing work? |
Type Decision Tree
- Is this a deviation from intended behaviour? -> Bug
- Is this a strategic goal spanning multiple teams or quarters? -> Initiative
- Is this a large body of work that needs to be broken down but belongs to one product area? -> Epic
- Is this user-visible value that fits in a sprint? -> Story
- Is this an implementation slice of an existing story? -> Subtask
- None of the above (chore, spike, investigation, tech debt, question)? -> Issue
Workflow
Phase 1: Type Selection
If the user provided a type as an argument, use it. Otherwise present a selectable menu (use AskUserQuestion or the platform's equivalent interactive prompt) listing the six types with their one-line descriptions from the table above. Never dump the full table as plain text -- keep the menu compact.
If the user's intent is clear from context (e.g., they said "write a bug report" or "create an epic for checkout redesign"), skip the menu and confirm the inferred type with a single yes/no prompt.
Phase 2: Load the Type-Specific Reference
Read the matching reference file for the selected type:
| Type | Reference |
|---|---|
| Story | references/story.md |
| Subtask | references/subtask.md |
| Issue | references/issue.md |
| Bug | references/bug.md |
| Epic | references/epic.md |
| Initiative | references/initiative.md |
Each reference contains:
- The required fields
- The optional fields
- A field-by-field questionnaire (questions, options, follow-ups)
- The output template
- Quality checks specific to that type
Phase 3: Run the Questionnaire
Ask only the questions the reference lists for the selected type. Follow these rules:
- Batch compatible questions (3-4 per prompt) when using an interactive menu tool. Use free-text prompts only when the answer is genuinely free-form (title, description, reproduction steps).
- Skip optional fields silently if the user says "skip" or leaves them blank -- do not add empty placeholders.
- Follow-up on ambiguous answers -- if the user says "it's slow", ask "slow compared to what, and by how much?"
- Never invent facts. If the user cannot provide environment info, reproduction steps, or metrics, leave those fields out and note the gap in a
## Open Questionssection rather than fabricating values.
Phase 4: Assemble the Ticket
Use the type's output template. Apply these universal formatting rules:
- Title: Imperative mood for stories/subtasks/issues ("Add password reset via email"), descriptive for bugs ("Payment confirmation email not sent after successful charge"), outcome-oriented for epics/initiatives ("Reduce checkout abandonment by 30%").
- Body: Markdown with section headings. No emojis unless the user explicitly requests them.
- Labels: Suggest labels based on type and content (e.g.,
bug,severity:high,area:checkout). - Links: Leave placeholders for parent epic / related tickets / PRs rather than inventing IDs.
Phase 5: Quality Check
Before showing the final output, run the checks listed in the type's reference file. Common failure modes to catch:
| Symptom | Fix |
|---|---|
| Acceptance criteria describe implementation ("implement X service") | Rewrite in terms of observable outcomes ("when user does X, system does Y") |
| Bug has no steps to reproduce | Mark as "Open Questions" and ask the user to provide them |
| Epic has no success metric | Add a metric or downgrade to a story |
| Story doesn't name a user ("we need to...") | Rewrite with a concrete persona ("As a returning customer, I want...") |
| Initiative lists features instead of outcomes | Reframe key results as measurable changes, not shipped features |
| Subtask is larger than its parent story | Split the story or merge the subtasks |
Phase 6: Deliver
Show the final ticket to the user in a code block so they can copy-paste it. Then offer:
- Edit a field
- Change the type (if the content no longer fits)
- Write a related ticket (e.g., a story under the epic just written)
- Done
Quick Reference: Field Matrix
Which fields are required (R), optional (O), or not used (-) per type.
| Field | Story | Subtask | Issue | Bug | Epic | Initiative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| User persona | R | - | O | O | O | O |
| User story sentence | R | - | O | - | O | - |
| Problem statement | O | - | O | R | R | R |
| Acceptance criteria (Given/When/Then) | R | R | O | R | O | - |
| Steps to reproduce | - | - | - | R | - | - |
| Expected / actual behaviour | - | - | - | R | - | - |
| Environment | - | - | - | R | - | - |
| Severity | - | - | - | R | - | - |
| Priority | O | O | O | R | O | O |
| Scope / out of scope | O | - | O | - | R | R |
| Success metrics | - | - | - | - | R | R |
| Key results | - | - | - | - | O | R |
| Objective | - | - | - | - | O | R |
| Milestones | - | - | - | - | O | R |
| Parent link | O | R | O | O | O | - |
| Child list | - | - | - | - | O | O |
| Definition of done | R | R | O | R | O | - |
| Technical notes | O | O | O | O | O | - |
| Estimate | O | O | O | O | O | - |
| Dependencies | O | O | O | O | O | O |
Integration with Other Skills
| Situation | Recommended Skill |
|---|---|
| Writing the PRD that the stories will flow from | product-manager |
| Designing the architecture behind an epic | architect |
| Writing acceptance criteria and test plans for a story | qa-engineer |
| Planning sprints and setting sprint goals | scrum |
| Tracking initiatives as part of a delivery plan | project-manager |
| Writing the commit and PR for a story once implemented | pr-message-writer |
| Kicking off the ticket workflow after writing | ticket-workflow |
Reference Files
| Reference | Contents |
|---|---|
| story.md | User story fields, INVEST checklist, Given/When/Then acceptance criteria, full template and example |
| subtask.md | Subtask fields, parent linkage rules, technical acceptance criteria, Definition of Done guidance |
| issue.md | Generic issue template for chores, spikes, tech debt, questions, and docs tasks |
| bug.md | Bug report fields, severity vs priority matrix, environment capture, reproduction rigor |
| epic.md | Epic fields, problem statement, success metrics, in/out of scope, milestones, child stories |
| initiative.md | Initiative fields, OKR alignment, objective and key results, outcome vs output, epic roll-up |
More from krzysztofsurdy/code-virtuoso
symfony-upgrade
Symfony framework version upgrade guide using the deprecation-first approach. Use when the user asks to upgrade Symfony to a new minor or major version, fix deprecation warnings, update Symfony recipes, check bundle compatibility, migrate between LTS versions, or plan a Symfony version migration strategy. Covers PHPUnit Bridge deprecation tracking, recipe updates, bundle compatibility checks, version-specific breaking changes, and the changelog-first upgrade workflow.
87symfony-components
Comprehensive reference for all 38 Symfony framework components with PHP 8.3+ and Symfony 7.x patterns. Use when the user asks to implement, configure, or troubleshoot any Symfony component including HttpFoundation, HttpKernel, DependencyInjection, Form, Validator, Cache, Messenger, Console, EventDispatcher, Workflow, Serializer, Security, Routing, Twig, Doctrine integration, or any other Symfony component. Covers APIs, configuration, best practices, and common pitfalls.
80solid
SOLID principles for object-oriented design with multi-language examples (PHP, Java, Python, TypeScript, C++). Use when the user asks to review SOLID compliance, fix a SOLID violation, evaluate class design, reduce coupling, improve extensibility, or apply Single Responsibility, Open/Closed, Liskov Substitution, Interface Segregation, or Dependency Inversion principles. Covers motivation, violation detection, refactoring fixes, and real-world trade-offs for each principle.
46agentic-rules-writer
Interactive tool to generate tailored rules and instruction files for any AI coding agent. Use when the user asks to set up agent rules, configure Claude Code instructions, create Cursor rules, write Windsurf rules, generate Copilot instructions, or establish consistent AI coding standards for a team. Supports 13+ agents (Claude Code, Cursor, Windsurf, Copilot, Gemini, Codex, Cline, OpenCode, Continue, Trae, Roo Code, Amp) with global, team-shared, and dev-specific scopes. Defers to the `using-ecosystem` meta-skill for ecosystem discovery (skills, agents, recommendations) and runs an interactive questionnaire for workflow preferences.
46refactoring
Comprehensive skill for 89 refactoring techniques and 22 code smells with practical examples. Use when the user asks to refactor code, detect code smells, improve code quality, reduce complexity, or clean up technical debt. Covers composing methods, moving features between objects, organizing data, simplifying conditionals and method calls, dealing with generalization, and detecting smells across bloaters, OO abusers, change preventers, dispensables, and couplers with before/after comparisons and step-by-step mechanics.
41clean-architecture
Clean Architecture, Hexagonal Architecture (Ports and Adapters), and Domain-Driven Design fundamentals. Use when the user asks to design system architecture, define layer boundaries, apply DDD tactical patterns (entities, value objects, aggregates, repositories), structure a hexagonal application, enforce dependency rules, or evaluate whether a codebase needs architectural refactoring. Covers bounded contexts, use cases, domain services, and framework-independent design.
40