edkuksa/skills
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/mattpocock/skills.git synced 2026-07-29 02:52:42 +07:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

refactor: unify planning skills into /to-spec + /to-tickets

Browse Source 
Executes the `unify-to-tickets` decision (personal-wiki #23), reworking
this PR from "add /to-plan" into the full planning-skills unification.

- Rename /to-prd → /to-spec. "spec" is now the single through-line term
  (the skill still opens with "you may know this document as a PRD" for
  discoverability).
- Merge /to-plan + /to-issues into one /to-tickets skill; delete
  /to-issues. /to-tickets emits a set of tickets, each declaring its
  blocking edges — one medium-agnostic artifact that reads as a
  sequential plan (local `tickets.md`, edges as text) or a parallelizable
  DAG (real tracker, native blocking links). The edges live in the ticket
  either way; the medium only decides whether anything acts on them in
  parallel.
- ask-matt now routes idea → /to-spec → /to-tickets → /implement.
- Sweep every cross-reference (docs pages, chain diagrams, CONTEXT.md,
  ADRs, .agents, setup templates) to the new names and vocabulary.
- Rewrite the changeset to describe the unification.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Matt Pocock
2026-07-08 14:18:36 +01:00
co-authored by Claude Opus 4.8
parent c5a4a8c2e9
commit 386d4ff719
35 changed files with 304 additions and 433 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
.out-of-scope/mainstream-issue-trackers-only.md
+1 -1
View File
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
## Why this is out of scope
Every issue-tracker backend hard-codes a CLI shape into the skills (commands, flags, output parsing). Each new backend is permanent maintenance surface — it has to keep working as the tool's CLI evolves, and it has to keep being tested against `/to-prd`, `/to-issues`, `/triage`, and friends. That cost is only worth paying for trackers a meaningful fraction of users actually have.
Every issue-tracker backend hard-codes a CLI shape into the skills (commands, flags, output parsing). Each new backend is permanent maintenance surface — it has to keep working as the tool's CLI evolves, and it has to keep being tested against `/to-spec`, `/to-tickets`, `/triage`, and friends. That cost is only worth paying for trackers a meaningful fraction of users actually have.
"Mainstream" is a judgment call, not a numeric bar: