to-tickets git:20260928.e013001A

Immutable. This exact content never changes and is served at /api/v1/blob/701f43d0e358f2b2.

---
name: to-tickets
description: Break a plan, spec, or the current conversation into a set of tracer-bullet tickets, each declaring its blocking edges, published to the configured tracker (edges as text in one file per ticket locally, or native blocking links on a real tracker).
disable-model-invocation: true
argument-hint: "[spec path, issue number, or URL]"
license: MIT
---

# To Tickets

Break a plan, spec, or conversation into a set of **tickets**: tracer-bullet vertical slices, each declaring the tickets that **block** it.

Read `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md` and `docs/agents/triage-labels.md`. If either is missing, tell the user to run `/setup-supermatt-skills` (`$setup-supermatt-skills` in Codex).

## 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, spawn an Explore subagent to do it, so the file contents stay out of this context. Have it return a summary: the current state of the code in the area, the glossary terms and ADRs that apply, and prefactor candidates. Without subagents, explore it yourself. 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 work into **tracer bullet** tickets.

<vertical-slice-rules>

- Each slice cuts a narrow but COMPLETE path through every layer (schema, API, UI, tests): vertical, NOT a horizontal slice of one layer
- A completed slice is demoable or verifiable on its own
- Each slice is sized to fit in a single fresh context window
- 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. List only direct blockers: drop an edge another blocker already implies, so a final ticket names only the tickets nothing else depends on. 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**. It takes three kinds of ticket. The expand ticket adds the new form beside the old so nothing breaks. Each migrate ticket moves one batch of call sites over, sized by blast radius (per package, per directory) and blocked by the expand; CI stays green batch to batch because the old form still exists. The contract ticket deletes the old form once no caller remains, 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
- **Blocked by**: which other tickets (if any) must complete first
- **What it delivers**: the end-to-end behaviour this ticket makes work

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?

Iterate until the user approves the breakdown.

### 5. Publish the tickets to the configured tracker

Publish the approved tickets. **How** depends on the tracker `/setup-supermatt-skills` configured; the tickets are the same either way, only the shape of the blocking edges changes:

- **Local files** → write one file per ticket under `.scratch/<feature-slug>/issues/<NN>-<slug>.md`, numbered from `01` in dependency order (blockers first). Each file's `Blocked by:` line lists the numbers it depends on. Use the per-ticket file template below: one ticket per file, never a single combined file.
- **A real issue tracker (GitHub, Linear, …)** → publish one issue per ticket in dependency order (blockers first) so each ticket's blocking edges can reference real identifiers. Use the platform's native blocking relationship where it has one (the **Blocking** operation in `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md`); otherwise put the tracker's `Blocked by:` fallback line at the top of each ticket's body. Apply the `ready-for-agent` triage label unless instructed otherwise; the tickets are agent-grabbable by construction.

If the source was a spec issue labelled `ready-for-agent`, remove that label from it: its tickets are now the work, and the spec stays open as their parent. Leave the parent issue otherwise untouched.

Then stop. Tell the user to run `/implement` (`$implement` in Codex) on a **frontier** ticket (one whose blockers are all closed) in a fresh context, one ticket per session.

<local-ticket-template>

# <NN>: <Ticket title>

Status: ready-for-agent
Blocked by: <NN, NN> (omit this line when nothing blocks it)

**What to build:** the end-to-end behaviour this ticket makes work, from the user's perspective, not a layer-by-layer implementation list.

**Seams:** the seams under test for this ticket: every seam from the spec's Testing Decisions that one of its acceptance criteria crosses (omit when there is no spec).

- [ ] Acceptance criterion 1
- [ ] Acceptance criterion 2

</local-ticket-template>

<issue-template>

Blocked by: #<n>, #<n> (only where the tracker has no native blocking; omit it when nothing blocks the ticket)

## Parent

A reference to the parent issue on the 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

## Seams

The seams under test for this ticket: every seam from the parent spec's Testing Decisions that one of its acceptance criteria crosses (omit this section when there is no spec).

</issue-template>

In either form, 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, citing its `prototype/<name>` branch. Trim to the decision-rich parts, not a working demo, just the important bits.