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:
- •
/resolvecommand - after fetch, before workspace setup - •
/analyze-ticketstandalone command - •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.