From 12338332d621ce4cbb123987759971ea9030bb01 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Hare <kei.hiracchi.0928@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 15:10:42 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] workflow: add ticket intake

---
 .yoi/workflow/ticket-intake-workflow.md       | 272 ++++++++++++++++++
 docs/development/workflows.md                 |   7 +-
 .../artifacts/implementation-report.md        |  65 +++++
 .../artifacts/review.md                       |  55 ++++
 .../item.md                                   |   2 +-
 .../thread.md                                 | 136 +++++++++
 6 files changed, 533 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 .yoi/workflow/ticket-intake-workflow.md
 create mode 100644 work-items/open/20260605-040104-ticket-intake-workflow/artifacts/implementation-report.md
 create mode 100644 work-items/open/20260605-040104-ticket-intake-workflow/artifacts/review.md

diff --git a/.yoi/workflow/ticket-intake-workflow.md b/.yoi/workflow/ticket-intake-workflow.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..2489bba7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.yoi/workflow/ticket-intake-workflow.md
@@ -0,0 +1,272 @@
+---
+description: ユーザーの曖昧な依頼を要件同期し、合意済みの Ticket として作成・更新する Intake workflow
+model_invokation: true
+user_invocable: true
+requires: []
+---
+# Ticket Intake Workflow
+
+Yoi の multi-agent 運用で、ユーザーの依頼をいきなり実装委譲せず、まず **合意済み Ticket** に変換するための Workflow。
+
+Intake の目的は、ユーザーの意図・要件・受け入れ条件・未決定点を明確にし、Orchestrator が次の routing を判断できる Ticket を作ることである。Intake は scheduler ではなく、coder / reviewer Pod を起動しない。
+
+## 位置づけ
+
+```text
+User request / conversation
+  -> Ticket Intake Workflow
+  -> TicketCreate / TicketComment
+  -> Orchestrator routing
+  -> preflight / spike / implementation / review / blocked / close
+```
+
+- `Ticket` は durable orchestration record。
+- `Task` は session-local progress tracking。
+- `Assignment` は Orchestrator から coder / reviewer / investigator Pod への具体的委譲。
+- `IntentPacket` は Ticket から抽出して Assignment に渡す短い実装・レビュー契約。
+
+## Intake の責務
+
+Intake は以下を行う。
+
+- ユーザー依頼の主語と目的を確認する。
+- 既存 Ticket を確認し、duplicate / related work を探す。
+- 必要に応じて関連 docs / code / workflow / history を読む。
+- 不足している要件を質問する。
+- Ticket の title / slug / kind / priority / labels を提案する。
+- background / requirements / acceptance criteria / non-goals / escalation conditions を整理する。
+- readiness / needs_preflight / risk flags を明示する。
+- ユーザー合意後に Ticket を作成する。
+- 既存 Ticket の refinement を求められた場合は、TicketComment で経緯を残す。
+
+## Intake がしないこと
+
+- coder / reviewer / investigator Pod を起動しない。
+- worktree を作らない。
+- merge / close / branch cleanup をしない。
+- implementation-ready でない Ticket を実装に投げない。
+- unattended scheduler として自動実行しない。
+- ユーザー合意なしに official Ticket を作らない。
+- secrets / private context を Ticket body / thread / artifacts / diagnostics に保存しない。
+- arbitrary filesystem write で `work-items/` を編集しない。Ticket 操作は Ticket tools を使う。
+
+## 使用する Ticket tools
+
+利用可能なら、以下の typed Ticket tools を使う。
+
+- `TicketList`: 既存 Ticket の一覧・重複確認。
+- `TicketShow`: 関連 Ticket の詳細確認。
+- `TicketCreate`: 合意済み Ticket の作成。
+- `TicketComment`: 既存 Ticket refinement / decision / plan の記録。
+- `TicketDoctor`: 必要に応じた整合性確認。
+
+Intake は `TicketReview`, `TicketStatus`, `TicketClose` を通常使わない。review / status transition / close は Orchestrator または reviewer / maintainer workflow の責務である。
+
+Ticket tools が利用できない環境では、勝手に file write で代替しない。ユーザーまたは Orchestrator に「Ticket tools がないため materialize できない」と報告し、必要なら `tickets.sh` を使う人間/親 workflow に戻す。
+
+## 手順
+
+### 1. 依頼を受け取る
+
+ユーザー依頼を短く言い換え、以下を分ける。
+
+- 何を変えたいか。
+- なぜ必要か。
+- 影響を受けるユーザー / Pod / workflow / crate / docs。
+- 既に決まっていること。
+- まだ未決定のこと。
+
+この段階では Ticket を作らない。
+
+### 2. 既存 Ticket を確認する
+
+`TicketList` / `TicketShow` で duplicate / related work を探す。
+
+確認観点:
+
+- 同じ目的の open / pending Ticket がないか。
+- closed Ticket の判断・resolution と矛盾しないか。
+- umbrella Ticket / follow-up Ticket が既にあるか。
+- 既存 Ticket の refinement で足りるか、新規 Ticket が必要か。
+
+既存 Ticket の更新で足りる場合、新規 Ticket を作らず、ユーザーに更新案を提示する。
+
+### 3. 要件を同期する
+
+最低限、以下を確認する。
+
+- observable な完了条件は何か。
+- Ticket の種類は何か: feature / bug / cleanup / design / spike / workflow / docs / release / orchestration。
+- 受け入れ条件は何か。
+- やらないことは何か。
+- 後方互換が必要か。
+- authority boundary / scope / permission / history / prompt context に触れるか。
+- validation は何で確認できるか。
+- 人間判断が必要な論点は何か。
+
+不足がある場合は、Ticket 作成前に質問する。質問は多すぎず、Ticket 作成に必要な最小限に絞る。
+
+### 4. readiness を分類する
+
+Ticket 作成または更新前に、readiness を明示する。
+
+```text
+implementation_ready:
+- 要件・受け入れ条件・non-goals / invariants が明確。
+- 実装方針が一意または十分絞れている。
+- validation が書ける。
+
+requirements_sync_needed:
+- 目的は見えているが、仕様・用語・UX・責務境界・受け入れ条件が未同期。
+
+spike_needed:
+- 技術調査、依存関係、性能、license、diagnostics、現在コード map が先に必要。
+
+blocked:
+- 人間判断、外部イベント、別 Ticket の完了が必要。
+
+unspecified:
+- どうしても分類不能な時だけ使う。理由を Ticket に書く。
+```
+
+### 5. needs_preflight / risk flags を付ける
+
+以下に触れる Ticket は `needs_preflight: true` 相当として扱い、Ticket body に明記する。
+
+- profile / manifest / scope / permission。
+- session / history / Pod metadata / persistence。
+- prompt context 加工原則。
+- public API / plugin / feature boundary。
+- security / secret / credential handling。
+- storage migration / backward compatibility。
+- 複数の自然な設計方針があるもの。
+- reviewer が diff だけでは見落としやすい設計リスク。
+
+risk flags は短い語でよい。
+
+例:
+
+```text
+risk_flags: [authority-boundary, persistence, prompt-context, public-api]
+```
+
+### 6. Ticket draft を提示する
+
+ユーザーに作成前 draft を提示する。
+
+標準 draft:
+
+```text
+Title:
+
+Kind:
+Priority:
+Labels:
+Readiness:
+Needs preflight:
+Risk flags:
+
+Background:
+
+Requirements:
+
+Acceptance criteria:
+
+Non-goals:
+
+Escalation conditions:
+
+Validation:
+
+Related tickets/docs:
+```
+
+この時点ではまだ Ticket を作らない。
+
+### 7. ユーザー合意を取る
+
+以下のどちらかがあるまで official Ticket を作らない。
+
+- ユーザーが draft を明示的に承認する。
+- ユーザーが「作って」「切って」「記録して」など、作成を明示する。
+
+未決定のまま記録する場合は、`requirements_sync_needed` / `spike_needed` / `blocked` として未決定点を明示する。
+
+### 8. Ticket を作成または更新する
+
+新規 Ticket の場合:
+
+- `TicketCreate` を使う。
+- title / slug / kind / priority / labels / body を指定する。
+- body に readiness / needs_preflight / risk flags を Markdown で明記する。
+
+既存 Ticket refinement の場合:
+
+- `TicketComment` を使う。
+- role は内容に応じて `comment`, `plan`, `decision` を選ぶ。
+- 既存 `item.md` の大幅変更が必要なら、Orchestrator / maintainer に戻す。
+
+### 9. 作成後の報告
+
+ユーザーへ以下を返す。
+
+- 作成/更新した Ticket id / slug / title。
+- readiness。
+- needs_preflight / risk flags。
+- 次に Orchestrator が取るべき routing 候補。
+- 未決定点があれば、そのまま明示する。
+
+Intake はここで止まる。implementation / worktree / coder / reviewer 起動は Orchestrator routing の責務である。
+
+## Ticket body の推奨形
+
+```markdown
+## Background
+
+## Requirements
+
+## Acceptance criteria
+
+## Non-goals
+
+## Readiness
+
+- readiness: implementation_ready | requirements_sync_needed | spike_needed | blocked | unspecified
+- needs_preflight: true | false
+- risk_flags: [...]
+
+## Escalation conditions
+
+## Validation
+
+## Related work
+```
+
+Ticket の body は Markdown/freeform を維持する。すべてを strict schema に押し込まない。
+
+## secret / private context policy
+
+以下は Ticket に保存しない。
+
+- API keys / tokens / credentials。
+- secret file contents。
+- private prompts / model responses that should not become project records。
+- user private context not needed for project history。
+- raw logs containing secrets。
+
+必要なら、保存せずに「secret/config が必要」とだけ書く。
+
+## 完了条件
+
+この Workflow の完了条件は次のいずれかである。
+
+- ユーザー合意済みの新規 Ticket が作成され、Orchestrator が routing できる情報が揃っている。
+- 既存 Ticket に refinement / decision / plan が記録され、次の routing が明確である。
+- Ticket 化しない判断がユーザーに説明され、未決定の問いまたは関連 Ticket が明確になっている。
+
+## 他 Workflow への接続
+
+- `ticket-preflight-workflow`: needs_preflight が true、または implementation_ready か不安な場合に接続する。
+- `multi-agent-workflow`: Orchestrator が implementation_ready と判断した後に接続する。
+- `auto-maintain`: 候補抽出や maintenance loop から Intake に接続できる。
+- `ticket-orchestrator-routing`: この Workflow が作った Ticket を routing する後続 Workflow。
diff --git a/docs/development/workflows.md b/docs/development/workflows.md
index 4ae2dc12..78fb7047 100644
--- a/docs/development/workflows.md
+++ b/docs/development/workflows.md
@@ -6,11 +6,12 @@ Project-authored workflows live under `.yoi/workflow/`. Generated memory lives u
 
 ## Workflow role
 
-A workflow should define how to coordinate work. It should not become a private implementation branch, an unreviewed design decision, or a replacement for work items.
+A workflow should define how to coordinate work. It should not become a private implementation branch, an unreviewed design decision, or a replacement for Tickets.
 
 Current workflow themes include:
 
-- preflight before delegating uncertain ticket work
+- Intake clarification before materializing user requests as Tickets
+- preflight before delegating uncertain Ticket work
 - worktree setup and cleanup
 - sibling coder/reviewer Pod orchestration
 - human-gated maintenance and merge readiness
@@ -25,7 +26,7 @@ A parent/orchestrator must verify:
 - live/restorable state via Pod tools when relevant
 - worktree status and diff
 - validation command output
-- work item requirements and acceptance criteria
+- Ticket requirements and acceptance criteria
 
 Notifications are hints to inspect state. They are not proof of completion.
 
diff --git a/work-items/open/20260605-040104-ticket-intake-workflow/artifacts/implementation-report.md b/work-items/open/20260605-040104-ticket-intake-workflow/artifacts/implementation-report.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..81d2d8fb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/work-items/open/20260605-040104-ticket-intake-workflow/artifacts/implementation-report.md
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+# Implementation report: ticket-intake-workflow
+
+## Summary
+
+Added the user-invocable Ticket Intake workflow and lightly updated workflow development documentation.
+
+The workflow defines Intake as the clarification/materialization boundary between a user's request and Orchestrator routing. Intake clarifies the request, checks duplicate/related Tickets, prepares a draft, obtains user agreement, and creates/updates Tickets through typed Ticket tools.
+
+## Changed files
+
+- `.yoi/workflow/ticket-intake-workflow.md`
+- `docs/development/workflows.md`
+
+## Workflow behavior
+
+The new workflow covers:
+
+- user intent clarification;
+- duplicate/related Ticket checks with `TicketList` / `TicketShow`;
+- requirements, acceptance criteria, non-goals, escalation conditions, validation, and related-work capture;
+- explicit readiness classification:
+  - `implementation_ready`;
+  - `requirements_sync_needed`;
+  - `spike_needed`;
+  - `blocked`;
+  - `unspecified` only with reason;
+- `needs_preflight` and risk flag handling;
+- user agreement before official Ticket creation;
+- `TicketCreate` for new Tickets;
+- `TicketComment` for existing Ticket refinement;
+- fail-closed behavior when typed Ticket tools are unavailable;
+- secret/private-context non-persistence rules;
+- handoff to `ticket-preflight-workflow`, `multi-agent-workflow`, `auto-maintain`, and future `ticket-orchestrator-routing`.
+
+## Non-goals preserved
+
+The workflow explicitly avoids:
+
+- scheduling implementation;
+- spawning coder/reviewer/investigator Pods;
+- creating worktrees;
+- merge/close/branch cleanup;
+- unattended automation;
+- user-agreement-free Ticket creation;
+- arbitrary filesystem writes to `work-items/`.
+
+## Review status
+
+External sibling reviewer approved with no blockers.
+
+Reviewer non-blocker about an old `work items` phrase in `docs/development/workflows.md` was fixed before commit.
+
+Remaining follow-up:
+
+- If a future first-class `TicketUpdate` tool is added, the existing-Ticket refinement path should decide when to use it versus `TicketComment`.
+
+## Validation
+
+Validation passed:
+
+- `git diff --check`
+- `./tickets.sh doctor`
+- targeted grep found no `WorkItem` / old system-name wording in the new workflow.
+
+No code/package changes were made, so `cargo check`, `cargo fmt`, and `nix build` were not necessary for this workflow/docs-only change.
diff --git a/work-items/open/20260605-040104-ticket-intake-workflow/artifacts/review.md b/work-items/open/20260605-040104-ticket-intake-workflow/artifacts/review.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..29d638ed
--- /dev/null
+++ b/work-items/open/20260605-040104-ticket-intake-workflow/artifacts/review.md
@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+# Review: ticket-intake-workflow
+
+## 1. Result: approve
+
+Approve. I found no blockers for commit/close.
+
+## 2. Summary
+
+The new `ticket-intake-workflow` satisfies the ticket requirements and fits the current multi-agent direction. It defines Intake as a clarification/materialization boundary before Orchestrator routing, keeps implementation scheduling out of scope, requires user agreement before official Ticket creation, and uses typed Ticket tools instead of arbitrary `work-items/` file writes.
+
+The `docs/development/workflows.md` update is small and accurate for the new workflow theme and child-Pod review responsibilities.
+
+## 3. Requirement assessment
+
+- Ticket terminology: pass. The new workflow consistently uses `Ticket` terminology and does not introduce WorkItem or insomnia wording. The only `work-items/` mention is the explicit prohibition against arbitrary filesystem edits, which matches the ticket authority-boundary requirement.
+- Intake responsibilities: pass. The workflow covers intent clarification, duplicate/related Ticket checks, relevant repository reading when needed and permitted, clarifying questions, draft title/kind/priority/labels, and Ticket creation/update reporting.
+- Intake non-goals: pass. The workflow explicitly forbids coder/reviewer/investigator Pod spawning, worktree creation, merge/close/branch cleanup, unattended scheduling, and implementation routing from Intake.
+- User agreement: pass. It requires a pre-creation draft and official Ticket creation only after explicit approval or an explicit create/record request.
+- Typed Ticket tools: pass. It directs agents to use `TicketList`, `TicketShow`, `TicketCreate`, `TicketComment`, and `TicketDoctor`, and says not to fall back to filesystem writes when tools are unavailable.
+- Routing fields: pass. Readiness classification, `needs_preflight`, risk flags, acceptance criteria, escalation conditions, validation, and related work are represented in both the draft and recommended Ticket body.
+- Secret/private handling: pass. It explicitly forbids persisting API keys, tokens, credentials, secret file contents, private prompts/responses, unnecessary private context, and raw secret-bearing logs.
+- Workflow connections: pass. It connects to `ticket-preflight-workflow` for risk/uncertainty, `multi-agent-workflow` after implementation readiness, `auto-maintain` as an intake source, and future `ticket-orchestrator-routing` as the next routing layer.
+- Docs update: pass. The docs change adds Intake to current workflow themes and updates child-Pod verification language from old ticket/work-item wording to Ticket requirements and acceptance criteria.
+
+## 4. Blockers
+
+None.
+
+## 5. Non-blockers / follow-ups
+
+- Note: `docs/development/workflows.md` still contains the pre-existing phrase "replacement for work items" in the general workflow-role paragraph. The implementation diff did not introduce it and the changed lines use Ticket terminology, so I do not consider it a blocker. If the documentation pass is intended to eliminate all old wording globally, that line can be normalized in a follow-up.
+- Future follow-up: if a first-class `TicketUpdate` tool becomes part of the typed Ticket surface, the existing-Ticket refinement path should decide when to use it versus `TicketComment`. The current workflow is acceptable because it avoids arbitrary file writes and records refinements through typed Ticket comments.
+
+## 6. Validation assessed
+
+Reviewed:
+
+- `work-items/open/20260605-040104-ticket-intake-workflow/item.md`
+- `.yoi/workflow/ticket-intake-workflow.md`
+- `docs/development/workflows.md`
+- `.yoi/workflow/ticket-preflight-workflow.md`
+- `.yoi/workflow/multi-agent-workflow.md`
+
+Checks run:
+
+- `git diff -- .yoi/workflow/ticket-intake-workflow.md docs/development/workflows.md work-items/open/20260605-040104-ticket-intake-workflow/item.md`
+- `git diff --check -- .yoi/workflow/ticket-intake-workflow.md docs/development/workflows.md work-items/open/20260605-040104-ticket-intake-workflow/item.md` — passed
+- `./tickets.sh doctor` — passed
+- Targeted terminology grep for `WorkItem`, `insomnia`, `work item`, `work-items`, and `Ticket`
+
+I did not run `cargo check`, `cargo fmt`, or `nix build` because this review found only workflow/docs changes and no code/package changes to validate.
+
+## 7. Residual risk
+
+The main residual risk is dependency timing: the workflow assumes typed Ticket tools are available, while the ticket states those tools/backend are dependencies. The workflow handles unavailable tools by failing closed and returning to a human/parent workflow, so this is an integration dependency rather than a blocker in the workflow text.
diff --git a/work-items/open/20260605-040104-ticket-intake-workflow/item.md b/work-items/open/20260605-040104-ticket-intake-workflow/item.md
index 5558f598..a7b1d868 100644
--- a/work-items/open/20260605-040104-ticket-intake-workflow/item.md
+++ b/work-items/open/20260605-040104-ticket-intake-workflow/item.md
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ kind: task
 priority: P1
 labels: [ticket, intake, workflow, orchestration]
 created_at: 2026-06-05T04:01:04Z
-updated_at: 2026-06-05T04:01:25Z
+updated_at: 2026-06-05T06:10:32Z
 assignee: null
 legacy_ticket: null
 ---
diff --git a/work-items/open/20260605-040104-ticket-intake-workflow/thread.md b/work-items/open/20260605-040104-ticket-intake-workflow/thread.md
index 96d51d9b..5dac4562 100644
--- a/work-items/open/20260605-040104-ticket-intake-workflow/thread.md
+++ b/work-items/open/20260605-040104-ticket-intake-workflow/thread.md
@@ -4,4 +4,140 @@
 
 Created by tickets.sh create.
 
+---
+
+<!-- event: review author: hare at: 2026-06-05T06:10:31Z status: approve -->
+
+## Review: approve
+
+# Review: ticket-intake-workflow
+
+## 1. Result: approve
+
+Approve. I found no blockers for commit/close.
+
+## 2. Summary
+
+The new `ticket-intake-workflow` satisfies the ticket requirements and fits the current multi-agent direction. It defines Intake as a clarification/materialization boundary before Orchestrator routing, keeps implementation scheduling out of scope, requires user agreement before official Ticket creation, and uses typed Ticket tools instead of arbitrary `work-items/` file writes.
+
+The `docs/development/workflows.md` update is small and accurate for the new workflow theme and child-Pod review responsibilities.
+
+## 3. Requirement assessment
+
+- Ticket terminology: pass. The new workflow consistently uses `Ticket` terminology and does not introduce WorkItem or insomnia wording. The only `work-items/` mention is the explicit prohibition against arbitrary filesystem edits, which matches the ticket authority-boundary requirement.
+- Intake responsibilities: pass. The workflow covers intent clarification, duplicate/related Ticket checks, relevant repository reading when needed and permitted, clarifying questions, draft title/kind/priority/labels, and Ticket creation/update reporting.
+- Intake non-goals: pass. The workflow explicitly forbids coder/reviewer/investigator Pod spawning, worktree creation, merge/close/branch cleanup, unattended scheduling, and implementation routing from Intake.
+- User agreement: pass. It requires a pre-creation draft and official Ticket creation only after explicit approval or an explicit create/record request.
+- Typed Ticket tools: pass. It directs agents to use `TicketList`, `TicketShow`, `TicketCreate`, `TicketComment`, and `TicketDoctor`, and says not to fall back to filesystem writes when tools are unavailable.
+- Routing fields: pass. Readiness classification, `needs_preflight`, risk flags, acceptance criteria, escalation conditions, validation, and related work are represented in both the draft and recommended Ticket body.
+- Secret/private handling: pass. It explicitly forbids persisting API keys, tokens, credentials, secret file contents, private prompts/responses, unnecessary private context, and raw secret-bearing logs.
+- Workflow connections: pass. It connects to `ticket-preflight-workflow` for risk/uncertainty, `multi-agent-workflow` after implementation readiness, `auto-maintain` as an intake source, and future `ticket-orchestrator-routing` as the next routing layer.
+- Docs update: pass. The docs change adds Intake to current workflow themes and updates child-Pod verification language from old ticket/work-item wording to Ticket requirements and acceptance criteria.
+
+## 4. Blockers
+
+None.
+
+## 5. Non-blockers / follow-ups
+
+- Note: `docs/development/workflows.md` still contains the pre-existing phrase "replacement for work items" in the general workflow-role paragraph. The implementation diff did not introduce it and the changed lines use Ticket terminology, so I do not consider it a blocker. If the documentation pass is intended to eliminate all old wording globally, that line can be normalized in a follow-up.
+- Future follow-up: if a first-class `TicketUpdate` tool becomes part of the typed Ticket surface, the existing-Ticket refinement path should decide when to use it versus `TicketComment`. The current workflow is acceptable because it avoids arbitrary file writes and records refinements through typed Ticket comments.
+
+## 6. Validation assessed
+
+Reviewed:
+
+- `work-items/open/20260605-040104-ticket-intake-workflow/item.md`
+- `.yoi/workflow/ticket-intake-workflow.md`
+- `docs/development/workflows.md`
+- `.yoi/workflow/ticket-preflight-workflow.md`
+- `.yoi/workflow/multi-agent-workflow.md`
+
+Checks run:
+
+- `git diff -- .yoi/workflow/ticket-intake-workflow.md docs/development/workflows.md work-items/open/20260605-040104-ticket-intake-workflow/item.md`
+- `git diff --check -- .yoi/workflow/ticket-intake-workflow.md docs/development/workflows.md work-items/open/20260605-040104-ticket-intake-workflow/item.md` — passed
+- `./tickets.sh doctor` — passed
+- Targeted terminology grep for `WorkItem`, `insomnia`, `work item`, `work-items`, and `Ticket`
+
+I did not run `cargo check`, `cargo fmt`, or `nix build` because this review found only workflow/docs changes and no code/package changes to validate.
+
+## 7. Residual risk
+
+The main residual risk is dependency timing: the workflow assumes typed Ticket tools are available, while the ticket states those tools/backend are dependencies. The workflow handles unavailable tools by failing closed and returning to a human/parent workflow, so this is an integration dependency rather than a blocker in the workflow text.
+
+
+---
+
+<!-- event: implementation_report author: hare at: 2026-06-05T06:10:32Z -->
+
+## Implementation report
+
+# Implementation report: ticket-intake-workflow
+
+## Summary
+
+Added the user-invocable Ticket Intake workflow and lightly updated workflow development documentation.
+
+The workflow defines Intake as the clarification/materialization boundary between a user's request and Orchestrator routing. Intake clarifies the request, checks duplicate/related Tickets, prepares a draft, obtains user agreement, and creates/updates Tickets through typed Ticket tools.
+
+## Changed files
+
+- `.yoi/workflow/ticket-intake-workflow.md`
+- `docs/development/workflows.md`
+
+## Workflow behavior
+
+The new workflow covers:
+
+- user intent clarification;
+- duplicate/related Ticket checks with `TicketList` / `TicketShow`;
+- requirements, acceptance criteria, non-goals, escalation conditions, validation, and related-work capture;
+- explicit readiness classification:
+  - `implementation_ready`;
+  - `requirements_sync_needed`;
+  - `spike_needed`;
+  - `blocked`;
+  - `unspecified` only with reason;
+- `needs_preflight` and risk flag handling;
+- user agreement before official Ticket creation;
+- `TicketCreate` for new Tickets;
+- `TicketComment` for existing Ticket refinement;
+- fail-closed behavior when typed Ticket tools are unavailable;
+- secret/private-context non-persistence rules;
+- handoff to `ticket-preflight-workflow`, `multi-agent-workflow`, `auto-maintain`, and future `ticket-orchestrator-routing`.
+
+## Non-goals preserved
+
+The workflow explicitly avoids:
+
+- scheduling implementation;
+- spawning coder/reviewer/investigator Pods;
+- creating worktrees;
+- merge/close/branch cleanup;
+- unattended automation;
+- user-agreement-free Ticket creation;
+- arbitrary filesystem writes to `work-items/`.
+
+## Review status
+
+External sibling reviewer approved with no blockers.
+
+Reviewer non-blocker about an old `work items` phrase in `docs/development/workflows.md` was fixed before commit.
+
+Remaining follow-up:
+
+- If a future first-class `TicketUpdate` tool is added, the existing-Ticket refinement path should decide when to use it versus `TicketComment`.
+
+## Validation
+
+Validation passed:
+
+- `git diff --check`
+- `./tickets.sh doctor`
+- targeted grep found no `WorkItem` / old system-name wording in the new workflow.
+
+No code/package changes were made, so `cargo check`, `cargo fmt`, and `nix build` were not necessary for this workflow/docs-only change.
+
+
 ---