To Issues

---
description: Break a plan/PRD into independently-grabbable issues using tracer-bullet vertical slices.
argument-hint: "[issue ref or path, optional]"
---

# To Issues

Break a plan into independently-grabbable issues using vertical slices (tracer bullets).

The issue tracker and triage label vocabulary should have been provided to you — run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills` if not.

## Process

### 1. Gather context

Work from whatever is already in the conversation context. If the user passes an issue reference (issue number, URL, or path) as an argument, fetch it from the issue tracker and read its full body and comments.

### 2. Explore the codebase (optional)

If you have not already explored the codebase, do so to understand the current state of the code. Issue titles and descriptions should use the project's domain glossary vocabulary, and respect ADRs in the area you're touching.

### 3. Draft vertical slices

Break the plan into **tracer bullet** issues. Each issue is a thin vertical slice that cuts through ALL integration layers end-to-end, NOT a horizontal slice of one layer.

Slices may be 'HITL' or 'AFK'. HITL slices require human interaction, such as an architectural decision or a design review. AFK slices can be implemented and merged without human interaction. Prefer AFK over HITL where possible.

<vertical-slice-rules>
- Each slice delivers a narrow but COMPLETE path through every layer (schema, API, UI, tests)
- A completed slice is demoable or verifiable on its own
- Prefer many thin slices over few thick ones
</vertical-slice-rules>

### 4. Quiz the user

Present the proposed breakdown as a numbered list. For each slice, show:

- **Title**: short descriptive name
- **Type**: HITL / AFK
- **Blocked by**: which other slices (if any) must complete first
- **User stories covered**: which user stories this addresses (if the source material has them)

Ask the user:

- Does the granularity feel right? (too coarse / too fine)
- Are the dependency relationships correct?
- Should any slices be merged or split further?
- Are the correct slices marked as HITL and AFK?

Iterate until the user approves the breakdown.

### 5. Publish the issues to the issue tracker

For each approved slice, publish a new issue to the issue tracker. Use the issue body template below. Apply the `needs-triage` triage label so each issue enters the normal triage flow.

Publish issues in dependency order (blockers first) so you can reference real issue identifiers in the "Blocked by" field.

### 6. Tell the user how to consume them

Each slice is meant to be picked up in **its own context**. Do not implement multiple slices in a single Claude session — context bloat undermines reviewability, blurs the per-slice commit discipline, and means a single mistake mid-stream contaminates everything that follows.

After publishing, tell the user explicitly:

> Each slice should be implemented in its own context. Either:
>
> - Run `/clear` between slices and pick them up one at a time in fresh sessions, OR
> - Spawn one subagent per non-blocked slice and let them work in parallel (each subagent gets its own context).
>
> Don't pick up the next slice in the same session you finished the last one in.

If the agent that ran `/to-issues` is the same agent that would naturally pick up slice #1: stop after publishing. Hand back to the user. Let them start a fresh session.

<issue-template>
## Parent

A reference to the parent issue on the issue tracker (if the source was an existing issue, otherwise omit this section).

## What to build

A concise description of this vertical slice. Describe the end-to-end behavior, not layer-by-layer implementation.

## Acceptance criteria

- [ ] Criterion 1
- [ ] Criterion 2
- [ ] Criterion 3

## Blocked by

- A reference to the blocking ticket (if any)

Or "None - can start immediately" if no blockers.

</issue-template>

Do NOT close or modify any parent issue.