Jira Issue Triage and Routing
This skill should be used when the user asks to "triage issue", "classify ticket", "route jira", "analyze priority", "categorize issue", "determine complexity", "route to agents", or needs guidance on classifying, prioritizing, and routing Jira issues to appropriate agents and workflows.
What this skill does
# Jira Issue Triage and Routing Skill Intelligent classification, prioritization, and routing system for Jira issues. ## Triage Decision Tree ``` START: New Jira Issue ├─ Step 1: ISSUE TYPE CLASSIFICATION │ ├─ Bug? → Classify severity (Blocker/Critical/Major/Minor) → HIGH Priority if Critical │ ├─ Story/Feature? → Check requirements clarity, sprint scope, dependencies │ ├─ Epic? → Route to epic-decomposer (NEVER implement directly) │ ├─ Task? → Route by category (Tech Debt/Config/Docs/Infrastructure) │ └─ Spike? → Time-box (1-2 days max) → Document findings → Create stories │ ├─ Step 2: COMPLEXITY ASSESSMENT (0-100 scale) │ ├─ Code Impact: Single file (2) → Multiple services (10) │ ├─ Integration: None (0) → Multiple external APIs (10) │ ├─ Risk: None (0) → Critical/Data loss (10) │ ├─ Testing: No tests (0) → Complex E2E scenarios (10) │ ├─ Dependencies: None (0) → Multiple blocking (10) │ └─ Uncertainty: Known (0) → Complete unknown (10) │ │ Scoring: (Code×0.25 + Integration×0.20 + Risk×0.20 + Testing×0.15 + Dependencies×0.10 + Uncertainty×0.10) × 10 │ │ Categories: │ • 1-20: SIMPLE → Quick-Fix Path (2-3 agents, 2-4 hrs) │ • 21-40: MODERATE → Standard Workflow (3-5 agents, 2-5 days) │ • 41-70: COMPLEX → Extended Workflow (5-10 agents, 5-10 days) │ • 71+: VERY COMPLEX → Decomposition Path │ ├─ Step 3: PRIORITY & SEVERITY ASSESSMENT │ ├─ Business Impact: Blocks production (BLOCKER) → Nice-to-have (LOW) │ ├─ Urgency: Immediate (hours) → Backlog (months) │ └─ Bug Severity Matrix: │ • BLOCKER: Production down, data loss, security breach (1-4 hr SLA) │ • CRITICAL: Major functionality broken (4-8 hr SLA) │ • MAJOR: Important feature degraded (1-3 days) │ • MINOR: Cosmetic issues (next sprint) │ ├─ Step 4: WORKFLOW ROUTING │ ├─ QUICK-FIX: Simple (1-20), <50 LOC, low risk → EXPLORE→CODE→TEST→COMMIT │ ├─ STANDARD: Moderate (21-40) → EXPLORE→PLAN→CODE→TEST→FIX→COMMIT │ ├─ EXTENDED: Complex (41-70), high risk → All phases + extended thinking + checkpoints │ ├─ RESEARCH: Spike/POC → RESEARCH→DOCUMENT→CREATE STORIES (time-boxed) │ └─ DECOMPOSITION: Epic (71+) → ANALYZE→DECOMPOSE→CREATE STORIES→TRIAGE EACH │ ├─ Step 5: AGENT SELECTION │ ├─ By Type: Bug→triage-agent; Story→requirements-analyzer; Epic→epic-decomposer; Spike→requirements-analyzer │ ├─ By Tech: Frontend→react-specialist; Backend→nodejs/python/java-specialist; DevOps→k8s-specialist │ ├─ By Phase: EXPLORE→requirements-analyzer; PLAN→architect; CODE→tech-specific; TEST→test-strategist; COMMIT→commit-orchestrator │ └─ By Complexity: SIMPLE→2-3 junior agents; COMPLEX→5-10 seniors + extended thinking │ ├─ Step 6: RISK & ESCALATION │ ├─ Risk Factors: Security, breaking changes, data migrations, compliance issues │ ├─ Level 1 (IMMEDIATE STOP): Security vulnerability, data loss, compliance breach │ ├─ Level 2 (CHECKPOINT): Complexity +50%, blocker >4hrs, breaking changes │ └─ Level 3 (POST-COMPLETION): Standard bugs, docs, minor refactoring │ └─ Step 7: OUTPUT ROUTING PACKAGE ├─ Classification, complexity score, priority, workflow path ├─ Agent selection, risk assessment, escalation triggers └─ Update Jira labels, assign workflow, spawn agents ``` ## Issue Type Routing Matrix | Type | Detection | Routing | Agents | |------|-----------|---------|--------| | **Bug** | Title: "bug", "broken", "error"; Stack trace present | Route by severity + "Can reproduce?" check | triage-agent, hypothesis-debugger, root-cause-analyzer | | **Story** | "Add", "implement", "create"; User story format | Check requirements, sprint scope, decompose if >13 pts | requirements-analyzer, requirements-analyzer, task-enricher | | **Epic** | Type=Epic; Multi-sprint scope | DECOMPOSE into 3-8 stories (Foundation→Core→Enhancement→Polish phases) | epic-decomposer, strategic-planner | | **Task** | No user-facing change | Tech Debt→code-quality; Config→devops; Docs→doc-writer | domain-specialists | | **Spike** | "Investigate", "research", "POC"; Unknown outcome | Time-box 1-2 days, document findings, create stories | requirements-analyzer, requirements-analyzer | ## Complexity Scoring Example ``` Issue: Add CSV export functionality Code Impact: 5 (3-4 files, 200-300 LOC) × 0.25 = 1.25 Integration: 3 (internal APIs) × 0.20 = 0.60 Risk: 4 (file generation, perf) × 0.20 = 0.80 Testing: 6 (unit + integration) × 0.15 = 0.90 Dependencies: 2 (DB query opt) × 0.10 = 0.20 Uncertainty: 3 (format details) × 0.10 = 0.30 Score: 3.65 × 10 = 36.5 → MODERATE (5 story points) → Standard Workflow, 3-5 agents, 2-5 days ``` ## Epic Decomposition Example ``` Epic: User Management System Phase 1 (Sprint 1): PROJ-101 Profile CRUD (5pts), PROJ-102 RBAC (8pts), PROJ-103 Password Policy (3pts) Phase 2 (Sprint 2): PROJ-104 Audit Logging (5pts), PROJ-105 MFA (8pts) Phase 3 (Sprint 3): PROJ-106 Bulk Ops (5pts), PROJ-107 Import/Export (5pts) Phase 4 (Sprint 4): PROJ-108 Analytics (8pts) Dependencies: PROJ-102 blocks PROJ-106; PROJ-101 blocks PROJ-104 Total: 8 stories, 47 points, 4 sprints, 2-3 developers ``` ## Workflow Paths | Path | Criteria | Phases | Agents | Duration | |------|----------|--------|--------|----------| | **Quick-Fix** | Complexity 1-20, <50 LOC, low risk | EXPLORE→CODE→TEST→COMMIT | 2-3 | 2-4 hrs | | **Standard** | Complexity 21-40, moderate risk | EXPLORE→PLAN→CODE→TEST→FIX→COMMIT | 3-5 | 2-5 days | | **Extended** | Complexity 41-70, high risk | All phases + extended thinking + checkpoints | 5-13 | 5-10 days | | **Research** | Spike/POC, time-boxed | RESEARCH→DOCUMENT→CREATE STORIES | 1-3 | 1-5 days | | **Decomposition** | Epic, complexity 71+ | ANALYZE→DECOMPOSE→CREATE STORIES→TRIAGE | 2-4 | 1-2 days | ## Agent Selection by Phase | Phase | SIMPLE | MODERATE | COMPLEX | VERY COMPLEX | |-------|--------|----------|---------|--------------| | EXPLORE | requirements-analyzer (1) | requirements-analyzer, requirements-analyzer (2) | requirements-analyzer, dep-mapper, architect (3) | architect, senior-analyst (3) | | PLAN | — | requirements-analyzer (1) | requirements-analyzer, code-architect (2) | senior-architect (2) | | CODE | junior-dev (1-2) | task-enricher (2-4) | task-enricher (3-6) | senior-specialists (4-6) | | TEST | test-runner (1) | test-strategist (1-2) | test-strategist, qa-ticket-reviewer (2-3) | comprehensive-tester (2-4) | | FIX | — | hypothesis-debugger (1) | hypothesis-debugger, code-quality-enforcer (1-2) | senior-debugger (1-2) | | COMMIT | commit-orchestrator (1) | commit-orchestrator (1) | commit-orchestrator, documentation-hub (1-2) | commit-orchestrator, documentation-hub (1-2) | ## Escalation Matrix | Trigger | Level | Action | Timeline | Notify | |---------|-------|--------|----------|--------| | Security vulnerability | 1 IMMEDIATE | STOP work, create incident | Immediate | Security, management | | Data loss risk | 1 IMMEDIATE | STOP work, document | Immediate | Ops, management | | Complexity +50% | 2 CHECKPOINT | Pause, request decision | Same day | Tech lead, product owner | | Blocker >4 hrs | 2 CHECKPOINT | Escalate blocker | Within 4 hrs | Blocking team, manager | | Breaking change | 2 CHECKPOINT | Document impact, approve | 1-2 days | Affected teams | | Standard bug fix | 3 POST-COMPLETION | Complete, notify | After done | Reviewer | ## Bug Routing Decision ``` Bug Detected ├─ Can reproduce consistently? NO → Gather reproduction steps ├─ Security vulnerability? YES → IMMEDIATE ESCALATION ├─ Severity? │ ├─ BLOCKER/CRITICAL → Extended workflow, root-cause analysis, human checkpoints │ ├─ MAJOR → Standard workflow, add regression tests │ └─ MINOR → Quick-Fix path, batch with similar fixes └─ Root cause known? NO → Extend EXPLORE phase with hypothesis-debugger/profiler ``` ## Feature Routing Decision ``` Story/Feature Detected ├─ Requirements clear? NO → Route to requirements-analyzer first ├─ Single sprint scope? NO → Consider epic decomposition ├─ Tech complexity? │ ├─ Frontend → UI specialists │ ├─ Backend → API specialists │ ├─ Full-stack
Related in General
modeling-omnistudio-epc-catalog
IncludedSalesforce Industries CME EPC product-modeling skill for Product2-based catalog creation. Use when creating EPC products, configuring product attributes, building offer bundles with Product Child Items, or reviewing EPC DataPack JSON metadata for product catalog changes. TRIGGER when: user creates or updates Product2 EPC records, AttributeAssignment payloads, AttributeMetadata/AttributeDefaultValues, Offer bundles, or ProductChildItem relationships. DO NOT TRIGGER when: designing OmniScripts/FlexCards/Integration Procedures (use building-omnistudio-omniscript, building-omnistudio-flexcard, or building-omnistudio-integration-procedure), implementing Apex business logic (use generating-apex), or troubleshooting deployment pipelines (use deploying-metadata).
relationship-science-coach
IncludedUse this skill for direct, practical adult relationship coaching: couples conflict, repair, trust, marriage, dating, flirting, attachment patterns, emotional connection, sex, desire differences, eroticism, kink negotiation, affection, love languages, breakups, and long-term passion. Draw on Gottman, EFT and Hold Me Tight, attachment science, modern sex research, Perel, Nagoski, Kerner, Schnarch, Love and Stosny, and flexible love-language tools. Be concrete and low-hedge. Redirect only for imminent danger, abuse, coercive control, minors, non-consent, self-harm, stalking, or medical/legal/psychiatric decisions.
building-sf-integrations
IncludedSalesforce integration architecture and runtime plumbing with 120-point scoring. Use this skill to set up Named Credentials, External Credentials, External Services, REST/SOAP callout patterns, Platform Events, and Change Data Capture. TRIGGER when: user sets up Named Credentials, External Services, REST/SOAP callouts, Platform Events, CDC, or touches .namedCredential-meta.xml files. DO NOT TRIGGER when: Connected App/OAuth config (use configuring-connected-apps), Apex-only logic (use generating-apex), or data import/export (use handling-sf-data).
venue-templates
IncludedAccess comprehensive LaTeX templates, formatting requirements, and submission guidelines for major scientific publication venues (Nature, Science, PLOS, IEEE, ACM), academic conferences (NeurIPS, ICML, CVPR, CHI), research posters, and grant proposals (NSF, NIH, DOE, DARPA). This skill should be used when preparing manuscripts for journal submission, conference papers, research posters, or grant proposals and need venue-specific formatting requirements and templates.
let-fate-decide
IncludedDraws the 12 Houses of the Zodiac Tarot spread to inject entropy into planning when prompts are vague, ambiguous, or casually delegated. Interprets the spread to guide next steps. Use when the user says 'let fate decide', 'YOLO', 'whatever', 'idk', or other nonchalant phrases, makes Yu-Gi-Oh references, or when you are about to arbitrarily pick between multiple reasonable approaches. Prefer over ask-questions-if-underspecified when the user's tone is casual or playful rather than precision-seeking.
net-ops
IncludedCross-platform network troubleshooting (Windows, macOS, Linux) via local or remote shell. Use for: DNS broken, can't resolve hostnames, nslookup/dig works but apps fail, NRPT, WFP, scutil, /etc/resolver, systemd-resolved, /etc/resolv.conf, NetworkManager, VPN DNS leak residue (ProtonVPN/Mullvad/WireGuard/AnyConnect), AV/firewall blocking DNS or DoH, Tailscale DNS interaction, intermittent connectivity, remote diagnostics over SSH.