workflow: add ticket intake
This commit is contained in:
parent
78120f5360
commit
12338332d6
272
.yoi/workflow/ticket-intake-workflow.md
Normal file
272
.yoi/workflow/ticket-intake-workflow.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -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。
|
||||
|
|
@ -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.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -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.
|
||||
|
|
@ -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.
|
||||
|
|
@ -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
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -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.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user