ticket-triage

Ticket Triage: $ARGUMENTS

Perform analytical triage on the JIRA ticket. The caller has fetched the ticket details (summary, description, acceptance criteria, labels, status, comments) and provided them in context.

Repository name for scoped labels and comment headers: determine via basename $(git rev-parse --show-toplevel).

Phase 1 -- Relevance Check

Search the local codebase using Glob and Grep for code related to the ticket's subject matter:

• Keywords from summary and description
• Component names, API endpoints, database tables
• Error messages or log strings mentioned in the ticket

If NO relevant code is found in this repo:

• Output: ## Verdict: NOT_RELEVANT
• Instruct caller to add the label claude-triaged-{repo} and skip this ticket

If relevant code IS found, proceed to Phase 2.

Phase 2 -- Cross-Repo Awareness

Parse the ticket's existing comments for triage headers from OTHER repositories. Look for patterns like:

• *[some-repo-name] Ambiguity detected*
• *[some-repo-name] Edge cases*
• *[some-repo-name] Verification methodology*

Note which phases other repos have already covered and what findings they posted. In subsequent phases:

• Do NOT duplicate findings already posted by another repo
• DO add supplementary findings specific to THIS repo's codebase

Phase 3 -- Ambiguity Detection

Examine the ticket summary, description, and acceptance criteria. Look for:

Signal	Example
Vague language	"should work properly", "handle edge cases", "improve performance"
Untestable criteria	No measurable outcome defined
Undefined terms	Acronyms or domain terms not explained in context
Missing scope boundaries	What's included vs excluded is unclear
Implicit assumptions	Assumptions not stated explicitly

Skip ambiguities already raised by another repo's triage comments.

For each NEW ambiguity found, produce:

### Ambiguity: [short title]
**Description:** [what is ambiguous]
**Suggested clarification:** [specific question to resolve it]

Be specific -- every ambiguity must have a concrete clarifying question.

Phase 4 -- Edge Case Analysis

Search the codebase using Glob and Grep for files related to the ticket's subject matter. Check git history for recent changes in those areas:

git log --oneline -20 -- <relevant-paths>

Identify:

• Boundary conditions (empty inputs, max values, concurrent access)
• Error handling gaps in related code
• Integration risks with other components
• Data migration or backward compatibility concerns

Reference only files in THIS repo. Acknowledge edge cases from other repos if relevant, but do not duplicate them.

For each edge case, produce:

### Edge Case: [title]
**Description:** [what could go wrong]
**Code reference:** [file path and relevant lines or patterns]

Every edge case must reference specific code files or patterns found in the codebase. If no relevant code exists, note that this appears to be a new feature with no existing code to analyze.

Phase 5 -- Verification Methodology

For each acceptance criterion, specify a concrete verification method scoped to what THIS repo can test:

Verification Type	When to Use	What to Specify
UI	Change affects user-visible interface	Playwright test description with specific assertions
API	Change affects HTTP/GraphQL/RPC endpoints	curl command with expected response status and body
Data	Change involves schema, migrations, queries	Database query or service call to verify state
Performance	Change claims performance improvement	Benchmark description with target metrics

Do not duplicate verification methods already posted by other repos.

Produce a table:

| Acceptance Criterion | Verification Method | Type |
|---------------------|--------------------| -----|

Every verification method must be specific enough that an automated agent could execute it.

Phase 6 -- Verdict

Evaluate the findings and produce exactly one verdict:

• NOT_RELEVANT -- No relevant code was found in this repository (Phase 1). The caller should add the triage label and skip implementation in this repo.
• BLOCKED -- Ambiguities were found in Phase 3. Work MUST NOT proceed until the ambiguities are resolved by a human. The caller should post findings, add the triage label, and STOP.
• PASSED_WITH_FINDINGS -- No ambiguities, but edge cases or verification findings were identified. Work can proceed. The caller should post findings and add the triage label.
• PASSED -- No ambiguities, edge cases, or verification gaps found. Work can proceed. The caller should add the triage label.

Output format:

## Verdict: [NOT_RELEVANT | BLOCKED | PASSED_WITH_FINDINGS | PASSED]

**Ambiguities found:** [count]
**Edge cases identified:** [count]
**Verification methods defined:** [count]

Output Structure

Structure all output with clear section headers so the caller can parse and post findings:

## Triage: [TICKET-KEY] ([repo-name])

### Ambiguities
[Phase 3 findings, or "None found."]

### Edge Cases
[Phase 4 findings, or "None found."]

### Verification Methodology
[Phase 5 table, or "No acceptance criteria to verify."]

## Verdict: [NOT_RELEVANT | BLOCKED | PASSED_WITH_FINDINGS | PASSED]

The caller is responsible for:

1. Posting the findings as comments on the ticket (using whatever Jira mechanism is available)
2. Adding the claude-triaged-{repo} label to the ticket
3. If BLOCKED: stopping all work and reporting the ambiguities to the human