Skill for analyzing ticket complexity and determining required workflow phases. Uses scoring system to classify tickets as SIMPLE, MEDIUM, or COMPLEX, which determines exploration depth and planning approach.
Install
npx skillscat add nicolas-codemate/claudecodeconfig/analyze-ticket Install via the SkillsCat registry.
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 = MEDIUMStep 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 componentsIntegration 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.