nicolas-codemate/analyze-ticket

Analyze Ticket Skill

This skill analyzes a ticket's content to determine its complexity and decide which workflow phases are required.

Complexity Levels

| Level | Score | Exploration | Planning | AEP | Architect | |-------|-------|-------------|----------|-----|-----------| | SIMPLE | 0-2 | Skip | Basic | No | No | | MEDIUM | 3-5 | Light | Standard | Partial | Optional | | COMPLEX | 6+ | Full AEP | Detailed | Full | Yes |

Scoring Factors

Analyze the ticket content and assign points for each applicable factor:

Technical Complexity

| Factor | Points | Detection Signals | |--------|--------|-------------------| | Multi-component changes | +2 | Mentions multiple services, modules, or layers | | Database schema changes | +2 | Keywords: migration, schema, table, column, index | | API breaking changes | +3 | Keywords: breaking, deprecate, remove endpoint, change contract | | New external dependency | +2 | Keywords: integrate, new library, third-party, SDK | | Performance requirements | +2 | Keywords: optimize, performance, latency, throughput | | Security implications | +2 | Keywords: auth, permission, encryption, sensitive data |

Scope Indicators

| Factor | Points | Detection Signals | |--------|--------|-------------------| | Cross-team coordination | +2 | Mentions other teams, external dependencies | | Multiple file types | +1 | Backend + frontend, or multiple languages | | Test infrastructure changes | +1 | Keywords: test framework, CI/CD, pipeline | | Documentation required | +1 | Explicit doc requirements or public API changes |

Uncertainty Factors

| Factor | Points | Detection Signals | |--------|--------|-------------------| | Vague requirements | +2 | Ambiguous language, missing acceptance criteria | | Research needed | +2 | Keywords: investigate, explore, POC, spike | | Unknown impact | +2 | Cannot determine affected components | | No clear success criteria | +1 | Missing "done when" or validation steps |

Negative Factors (Reduce Complexity)

| Factor | Points | Detection Signals | |--------|--------|-------------------| | Well-defined scope | -1 | Clear, specific requirements | | Single file change | -1 | Obvious single-file fix | | Existing pattern | -1 | Similar to existing code/feature | | Has acceptance criteria | -1 | Clear validation steps provided |

Label-Based Override

Certain labels can force complexity level:

Simple Labels (force SIMPLE)

• quick-fix, typo, documentation, trivial, minor
• Config: complexity.simple_labels

Complex Labels (force COMPLEX)

• needs-analysis, architecture, breaking-change, migration, epic
• Config: complexity.complex_labels

Analysis Process

Step 1: Extract Keywords

Parse ticket content for complexity signals:

• Title
• Description
• Labels/Tags
• Comments (if available)

Step 2: Calculate Base Score

Sum points from all applicable factors.

Step 3: Apply Label Override

Check for forcing labels that override calculated score.

Step 4: Determine Level

if has_simple_label:
    level = SIMPLE
elif has_complex_label:
    level = COMPLEX
elif score <= simple_threshold (default: 2):
    level = SIMPLE
elif score >= complex_threshold (default: 6):
    level = COMPLEX
else:
    level = MEDIUM

Step 5: Recommend Actions

Based on complexity level, recommend workflow phases:

SIMPLE

• Skip exploration phase
• Create direct implementation plan
• No AEP methodology
• Basic validation only

MEDIUM

• Light exploration (1 agent, focused search)
• Standard implementation plan
• Partial AEP (Analyse + Plan, skip deep Explore)
• Standard validation

COMPLEX

• Full AEP workflow (3 parallel explore agents)
• Invoke Architect skill for planning
• Detailed implementation plan with phases
• Comprehensive validation strategy

Output Format

## Complexity Analysis

### Score Breakdown

| Factor | Points | Reason |
|--------|--------|--------|
| Multi-component changes | +2 | Affects API and frontend |
| Database changes | +2 | Requires migration |
| Well-defined scope | -1 | Clear acceptance criteria |
| **Total** | **3** | |

### Classification

**Complexity Level**: MEDIUM (score: 3)

### Label Analysis
- Labels found: `feature`, `backend`
- No complexity-forcing labels detected

### Recommended Workflow

1. **Exploration**: Light (1 focused agent)
2. **Planning**: Standard approach
3. **AEP**: Partial (Analyse + Plan)
4. **Architect Skill**: Optional

### Key Concerns

- Database migration requires careful ordering
- Consider rollback strategy for schema changes

### Suggested Focus Areas

1. Existing migration patterns in codebase
2. Related API endpoints
3. Test coverage for affected components

Integration with Workflow

This skill is invoked by:

1. /resolve command - after fetch, before workspace setup
2. Planning phase to determine approach

Configuration

Reads from .claude/ticket-config.json:

{
  "complexity": {
    "auto_detect": true,
    "simple_labels": ["quick-fix", "typo"],
    "complex_labels": ["architecture", "migration"],
    "simple_threshold": 2,
    "complex_threshold": 6
  }
}

Exploration Guidelines by Level

SIMPLE - No Exploration

Proceed directly to implementation planning.

MEDIUM - Light Exploration

Launch 1 explore agent to:

• Find similar existing code
• Identify files to modify
• Check test patterns

COMPLEX - Full AEP Exploration

Launch up to 3 parallel explore agents:

Agent 1: Implementation Patterns

• Search for similar features
• Find reusable code patterns
• Identify coding conventions

Agent 2: Impact Analysis

• Trace dependencies
• Find all affected components
• Check for breaking changes

Agent 3: Test Coverage

• Find related tests
• Check testing patterns
• Identify test utilities

Language

Analysis output in French for user communication. Technical terms and factor names in English.