to-tickets

把 plan、spec 或当前对话拆成一组 tracer-bullet tickets，每个 ticket 声明 blocking edges，并发布到已配置的 tracker；本地用每 ticket 一个文件中的文本 edge，真实 tracker 用 native blocking links。

Quality

76%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/engineering/to-tickets/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

85%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is a well-structured, highly actionable instruction-only workflow with a clear sequenced process and an explicit user-approval validation gate before publishing. Its only weakness is mild verbosity in the wide-refactor explanation, which re-teaches a pattern Claude already knows.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly lean and procedural, but the wide-refactor paragraph re-explains the expand–contract (parallel-change) pattern Claude already knows, so it could be tightened to its ticket-sequencing specifics.	2 / 3
Actionability	Guidance is concrete and copy-paste ready — exact file paths (`.scratch/<feature-slug>/issues/<NN>-<slug>.md`), numbered ticketing, full templates with required fields, and the specific `ready-for-agent` label — fully actionable for an instruction-only skill.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	A clear five-step sequence includes an explicit validation gate (step 4 'quiz the user', iterate to approval) before the batch publish, plus acceptance-criteria checklists in the templates, matching the clear-sequence-with-validation anchor.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Content is well-organized into clearly signaled sections and inline rule/template blocks, with no nested or broken references and no need for external bundle files, so navigation is clean and one level deep.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Description

67%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is specific and distinctive, clearly conveying a concrete multi-action workflow with low conflict risk. Its weakness is the missing explicit 'Use when…' trigger and reliance on methodology jargon over natural user phrasings, which leaves the when/completeness and trigger-term dimensions at the mid level.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when…' clause enumerating natural user phrasings, e.g. 'Use when breaking a plan or spec into tickets, or when the user asks to decompose work into trackable, dependency-ordered tickets', to raise completeness to 3.

Pair the specialized terms ("tracer-bullet tickets", "blocking edges") with plain-language equivalents users actually say ("split into tickets", "ticket dependencies") to broaden trigger-term coverage.

Keep the concrete local-vs-tracker distinction but move it after the trigger clause so the opening reads as a natural user-facing trigger rather than implementation detail.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description lists multiple concrete actions — "拆成一组 tracer-bullet tickets", "声明 blocking edges", "发布到已配置的 tracker", with distinct local ("文本 edge") vs real-tracker ("native blocking links") handling — matching the 'lists multiple specific concrete actions' anchor.	3 / 3
Completeness	It clearly answers what the skill does, but provides no explicit 'Use when…' trigger, so the when is only implied — the guideline caps completeness at 2 in that case.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	It includes relevant terms (plan, spec, conversation, tickets, tracker) but leans on specialized jargon ("tracer-bullet tickets", "blocking edges", "native blocking links") rather than plain phrasings a user would naturally say, so coverage of natural variations is incomplete.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The dependency-ordered tracer-bullet ticket decomposition niche is specific and distinctive, with triggers (plan/spec/conversation → tickets with blocking edges) unlikely to fire for unrelated skills.	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: vinvcn/mattpocock-skills-zh-CN
Path: skills/engineering/to-tickets/SKILL.md
Commit: f2b2464

Reviewed: 1 day ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.