AutoGineer
Generated banner for Triage
Generated logo for Triage

Triage

Matt PocockCommunityCreated by Matt Pocock

  • Skill
  • Workflow
  • Software development
  • MIT
  • No issues found
Download ZIP

From the author

Move issues and external PRs through a state machine of triage roles, categorise, verify, grill if needed, and write agent-ready briefs.
— the description by Matt Pocock

AutoGineer summary

Written by AutoGineer from the skill’s own files, not by the author

The triage skill provides a structured state machine for processing issues and external pull requests within a project. It guides maintainers through categorizing items, verifying claims, and preparing them for either automated agent execution or human intervention. The process includes checking for redundancy against the existing codebase and ensuring requests align with project scope, ultimately resulting in actionable briefs for developers or agents.

What it does

  • Categorizes issues and pull requests into bug or enhancement roles.
  • Manages state transitions including needs-triage, needs-info, ready-for-agent, ready-for-human, and wontfix.
  • Verifies bug reports and pull request diffs against the codebase.
  • Conducts grilling sessions to refine requirements and update project documentation.
  • Generates structured agent-ready briefs for items designated for automation.
  • Handles rejections by documenting them in an out-of-scope knowledge base.

When to use it

  • When you need to organize a backlog of incoming issues and external pull requests.
  • When you want to prepare specific tasks for automated agent implementation.
  • When you need to verify if a requested feature or bug fix is already implemented.
  • When you need to request additional information from reporters in a structured, actionable way.

Advantages

  • Ensures consistent handling of project contributions through a defined state machine.
  • Reduces duplicate work by checking for existing implementations.
  • Maintains clear documentation of project scope and rejected requests.
  • Provides a standardized format for agent-ready task briefs.

Usage examples

“Show me anything that needs my attention”
The agent queries the issue tracker and presents a summary of unlabeled items, those in needs-triage, and items in needs-info that have received reporter activity.
“Let's look at #42”
The agent gathers context for issue or PR #42, including body, comments, labels, and diffs, and provides a recommendation on its category and state.
“Move #42 to ready-for-agent”
The agent confirms the requested state change and applies the role to the issue or PR, optionally prompting for an agent brief.
“What's ready for agents to pick up?”
The agent lists all items currently marked as ready-for-agent, providing a one-line summary for each.

Install

  1. Download the skill as a ZIP:

    https://mp-staging.autogineer.com/agent-skills/mattpocock/triage/download

  2. Unzip it into the cross-client skills folder of your project:

    mkdir -p .agents/skills && unzip triage.zip -d .agents/skills

Documentation by Matt Pocock

Triage

Move issues on the project issue tracker through a small state machine of triage roles.

If this repo treats external pull requests as a request surface (see the issue-tracker config), triage covers them too: a PR is an issue with attached code, using the same roles, same states, and same machine, with a few deltas marked "for a PR" below. Resolve a bare #42 to an issue or PR per the tracker config.

Every comment or issue posted to the issue tracker during triage must start with this disclaimer:

> *This was generated by AI during triage.*

Reference docs

Roles

Two category roles:

  • bug: something is broken

  • enhancement: new feature or improvement

Five state roles:

  • needs-triage: maintainer needs to evaluate

  • needs-info: waiting on reporter for more information

  • ready-for-agent: fully specified, ready for an AFK agent

  • ready-for-human: needs human implementation

  • wontfix: will not be actioned

For a PR, the same states read against the attached code: ready-for-agent means a brief is attached and an agent should take the next step on the diff; ready-for-human means it's ready for a human to merge.

Every triaged issue should carry exactly one category role and one state role. If state roles conflict, flag it and ask the maintainer before doing anything else.

These are canonical role names. The actual label strings used in the issue tracker may differ. The mapping should have been provided to you. If not, tell the user to run /setup-matt-pocock-skills.

State transitions: an unlabeled issue normally goes to needs-triage first; from there it moves to needs-info, ready-for-agent, ready-for-human, or wontfix. needs-info returns to needs-triage once the reporter replies. The maintainer can override at any time; flag transitions that look unusual and ask before proceeding.

Invocation

The maintainer invokes /triage and describes what they want in natural language. Interpret the request and act. Examples:

  • "Show me anything that needs my attention"

  • "Let's look at #42" (issue or PR)

  • "Move #42 to ready-for-agent"

  • "What's ready for agents to pick up?"

Show what needs attention

Query the issue tracker and present three buckets, oldest first:

  1. Unlabeled: never triaged.

  2. needs-triage: evaluation in progress.

  3. needs-info with reporter activity since the last triage notes: needs re-evaluation.

When PRs are in scope, include external PRs in these buckets and tag each line [PR] or [issue]. Discovery surfaces only external PRs (the tracker config defines who counts as external), so a collaborator's in-flight PR is not triage work. This filter is discovery-only; an explicitly named PR is always triaged regardless of author.

Show counts and a one-line summary per item. Let the maintainer pick.

Triage a specific issue or PR

  1. Gather context. Read the full issue or PR (body, comments, labels, author, dates; for a PR, the diff too). Parse any prior triage notes so you don't re-ask resolved questions. Explore the codebase using the project's domain glossary, respecting ADRs in the area. Run two checks against the codebase: (a) redundancy: search for an existing implementation of the requested behavior by domain concept (not just the request's wording), and report where you looked. If found, it's an already-implemented wontfix (step 5). (b) prior rejection: read .out-of-scope/*.md and surface any that resembles this request.

  2. Recommend. Tell the maintainer your category and state recommendation with reasoning, plus a brief codebase summary relevant to the request (including whether it's already implemented). Wait for direction.

  3. Verify the claim. Before any grilling, check that the claim holds up. For a bug, reproduce it from the reporter's steps. For a PR, confirm the diff does what it claims: check it out, run the relevant tests or commands. Report what happened: confirmed (with code path), failed, or insufficient detail (a strong needs-info signal). A confirmed verification makes a much stronger agent brief.

  4. Grill (if needed). If the request needs fleshing out, call the Skill tool twice, for "grilling" and "domain-modeling", and grill it into shape a round of questions at a time, sharpening domain terms and updating GLOSSARY.md/ADRs inline as decisions land.

  5. Apply the outcome:

    • ready-for-agent: post an agent brief comment (AGENT-BRIEF.md).

    • ready-for-human: same structure as an agent brief, but note why it can't be delegated (judgment calls, external access, design decisions, manual testing).

    • needs-info: post triage notes (template below).

    • For wontfix, close the issue, with the comment depending on why:

      • Already implemented: the change already exists in the codebase. Point to where it lives; do not write to .out-of-scope/ (that KB is for rejected requests, not built ones).

      • Rejected (bug): give a polite explanation, then close.

      • Rejected (enhancement): write to .out-of-scope/, link to it from a comment, then close (OUT-OF-SCOPE.md).

    • needs-triage: apply the role. Optional comment if there's partial progress.

Quick state override

If the maintainer says "move #42 to ready-for-agent", trust them and apply the role directly. Confirm what you're about to do (role changes, comment, close), then act. Skip grilling. If moving to ready-for-agent without a grilling session, ask whether they want to write an agent brief.

Needs-info template

## Triage Notes

**What we've established so far:**

- point 1
- point 2

**What we still need from you (@reporter):**

- question 1
- question 2

Capture everything resolved during grilling under "established so far" so the work isn't lost. Questions must be specific and actionable, not "please provide more info".

Resuming a previous session

If prior triage notes exist on the issue or PR, read them, check whether the reporter has answered any outstanding questions, and present an updated picture before continuing. Don't re-ask resolved questions.

Files

AGENT-BRIEF.md

Writing Agent Briefs

An agent brief is a structured comment posted on a GitHub issue or PR when it moves to ready-for-agent. It is the authoritative specification that an AFK agent will work from. The original body and discussion are context: the agent brief is the contract.

The brief states what the agent should do, which stretches to both surfaces: for an issue, that's building the change from nothing; for a PR, it's what's left to do to the existing diff: finish it, close gaps, address review points. Same principles either way; the PR example below shows the difference.

Principles

Durability over precision

The issue may sit in ready-for-agent for days or weeks. The codebase will change in the meantime. Write the brief so it stays useful even as files are renamed, moved, or refactored.

  • Do describe interfaces, types, and behavioral contracts

  • Do name specific types, function signatures, or config shapes that the agent should look for or modify

  • Don't reference file paths: they go stale

  • Don't reference line numbers

  • Don't assume the current implementation structure will remain the same

Behavioral, not procedural

Describe what the system should do, not how to implement it. The agent will explore the codebase fresh and make its own implementation decisions.

  • Good: "The SkillConfig type should accept an optional schedule field of type CronExpression"

  • Bad: "Open src/types/skill.ts and add a schedule field on line 42"

  • Good: "When a user runs /triage with no arguments, they should see a summary of issues needing attention"

  • Bad: "Add a switch statement in the main handler function"

Complete acceptance criteria

The agent needs to know when it's done. Every agent brief must have concrete, testable acceptance criteria. Each criterion should be independently verifiable.

  • Good: "Running gh issue list --label needs-triage returns issues that have been through initial classification"

  • Bad: "Triage should work correctly"

Explicit scope boundaries

State what is out of scope. This prevents the agent from gold-plating or making assumptions about adjacent features.

Template

## Agent Brief

**Category:** bug / enhancement
**Summary:** one-line description of what needs to happen

**Current behavior:**
Describe what happens now. For bugs, this is the broken behavior.
For enhancements, this is the status quo the feature builds on.

**Desired behavior:**
Describe what should happen after the agent's work is complete.
Be specific about edge cases and error conditions.

**Key interfaces:**
- `TypeName`: what needs to change and why
- `functionName()` return type: what it currently returns vs what it should return
- Config shape: any new configuration options needed

**Acceptance criteria:**
- [ ] Specific, testable criterion 1
- [ ] Specific, testable criterion 2
- [ ] Specific, testable criterion 3

**Out of scope:**
- Thing that should NOT be changed or addressed in this issue
- Adjacent feature that might seem related but is separate

Examples

Good agent brief (bug)
## Agent Brief

**Category:** bug
**Summary:** Skill description truncation drops mid-word, producing broken output

**Current behavior:**
When a skill description exceeds 1024 characters, it is truncated at exactly
1024 characters regardless of word boundaries. This produces descriptions
that end mid-word (e.g. "Use when the user wants to confi").

**Desired behavior:**
Truncation should break at the last word boundary before 1024 characters
and append "..." to indicate truncation.

**Key interfaces:**
- The `SkillMetadata` type's `description` field: no type change needed,
  but the validation/processing logic that populates it needs to respect
  word boundaries
- Any function that reads SKILL.md frontmatter and extracts the description

**Acceptance criteria:**
- [ ] Descriptions under 1024 chars are unchanged
- [ ] Descriptions over 1024 chars are truncated at the last word boundary
      before 1024 chars
- [ ] Truncated descriptions end with "..."
- [ ] The total length including "..." does not exceed 1024 chars

**Out of scope:**
- Changing the 1024 char limit itself
- Multi-line description support
Good agent brief (enhancement)
## Agent Brief

**Category:** enhancement
**Summary:** Add `.out-of-scope/` directory support for tracking rejected feature requests

**Current behavior:**
When a feature request is rejected, the issue is closed with a `wontfix` label
and a comment. There is no persistent record of the decision or reasoning.
Future similar requests require the maintainer to recall or search for the
prior discussion.

**Desired behavior:**
Rejected feature requests should be documented in `.out-of-scope/<concept>.md`
files that capture the decision, reasoning, and links to all issues that
requested the feature. When triaging new issues, these files should be
checked for matches.

**Key interfaces:**
- Markdown file format in `.out-of-scope/`: each file should have a
  `# Concept Name` heading, a `**Decision:**` line, a `**Reason:**` line,
  and a `**Prior requests:**` list with issue links
- The triage workflow should read all `.out-of-scope/*.md` files early
  and match incoming issues against them by concept similarity

**Acceptance criteria:**
- [ ] Closing a feature as wontfix creates/updates a file in `.out-of-scope/`
- [ ] The file includes the decision, reasoning, and link to the closed issue
- [ ] If a matching `.out-of-scope/` file already exists, the new issue is
      appended to its "Prior requests" list rather than creating a duplicate
- [ ] During triage, existing `.out-of-scope/` files are checked and surfaced
      when a new issue matches a prior rejection

**Out of scope:**
- Automated matching (human confirms the match)
- Reopening previously rejected features
- Bug reports (only enhancement rejections go to `.out-of-scope/`)
Good agent brief (PR)

For a PR, "Current behavior" describes the state of the diff, and the brief asks the agent to finish or fix it rather than build from scratch.

## Agent Brief

**Category:** enhancement
**Summary:** Finish the contributor's `--json` output flag for `triage list`

**Current behavior:**
The PR adds a `--json` flag that serializes the issue list to JSON. The happy
path works and the diff matches the project's command structure. Two gaps
remain: errors are still printed as human text (not JSON), and the new flag has
no test coverage.

**Desired behavior:**
With `--json`, all output (including errors) is well-formed JSON on stdout,
and the command's exit codes are unchanged. The existing human-readable output
is untouched when the flag is absent.

**Key interfaces:**
- The command's error path should emit `{ "error": string }` under `--json`
  instead of the plain-text error
- Reuse the existing serializer the PR already added; don't introduce a second

**Acceptance criteria:**
- [ ] `triage list --json` emits valid JSON for both success and error cases
- [ ] Exit codes match the non-JSON command
- [ ] A test covers the `--json` success output and one error case
- [ ] Default (non-JSON) output is byte-for-byte unchanged

**Out of scope:**
- Adding `--json` to any other command
- Changing the JSON shape of the success payload the PR already defined
Bad agent brief
## Agent Brief

**Summary:** Fix the triage bug

**What to do:**
The triage thing is broken. Look at the main file and fix it.
The function around line 150 has the issue.

**Files to change:**
- src/triage/handler.ts (line 150)
- src/types.ts (line 42)

This is bad because:

  • No category

  • Vague description ("the triage thing is broken")

  • References file paths and line numbers that will go stale

  • No acceptance criteria

  • No scope boundaries

  • No description of current vs desired behavior

Requirements and compatibility

Written for: Claude Code

Works with: Claude Code, Claude apps, OpenAI Codex, GitHub Copilot, Cursor, Gemini CLI, Kiro, OpenCode, Goose, Amp, Roo Code, JetBrains Junie, Factory Droid, Devin (ex-Windsurf), Mistral Vibe, OpenHands, Letta

“Works with” means the tool reads the open Agent Skills format; a skill written for one tool may use features others lack.

Needs: Claude Code frontmatter

Security

No issues found by our static scan· No issues found

A static scan is not a guarantee. Skills are third-party content: review a skill before you let an agent use it.

Attribution and licence

Created by
Matt Pocock
Publisher
Matt Pocock (Community)
Source
mattpocock/skills · skills/engineering/triage · commit 4ae2317
Licence
MIT License (redistribution allowed)
  • LICENSE (added by AutoGineer from LICENSE)
  • ATTRIBUTION.md (written by AutoGineer)
Synced

AutoGineer is not affiliated with or endorsed by Matt Pocock.

Download ZIP

The ZIP holds the skill’s files, its licence files and an ATTRIBUTION.md. Download triage.zip