---

name: ticket-review description: | Reviews existing tickets for gaps, inconsistencies, and issues with severity classification. This skill should be used when reviewing a ticket document for quality, completeness, and implementer readiness. Provides a structured review workflow with findings categorized by severity (Critical, High, Medium, Low) and specific before/after proposals for fixes.

Ticket Review

Overview

This skill provides a structured workflow for reviewing ticket documents. Unlike Caster's standard creation workflow, this is an analysis and critique workflow focused on finding issues and proposing fixes.

When to Use

• User wants to review an existing ticket
• User says "review this ticket", "check this spec", "find issues in..."
• The /ticket-review command is invoked
• User has been discussing a ticket and wants it reviewed

Workflow

Review follows a different workflow than document creation:

Phase 1: Document Loading

1. Identify the ticket to review:

   • If path is provided, read that file
   • If no path, infer from conversation context (look for recently discussed ticket)
   • If ambiguous, ask the user to specify

2. Read the full document without limit/offset parameters

   • Parse frontmatter for metadata
   • Understand the document structure
   • Note the ticket's purpose and scope

Phase 2: Analysis [ULTRATHINK]

Analyze the document for four types of issues:

Issue Type	Description	Questions to Ask
Gaps	Missing information	What would an implementer need to know that isn't here?
Inconsistencies	Conflicting information	Do different sections contradict each other?
Ambiguity	Unclear or vague statements	Could this be interpreted multiple ways?
Completeness	Missing coverage	Are acceptance criteria complete? Are all cases covered?

Phase 3: Severity Classification

Classify each finding using this framework:

Severity	Definition	Example
Critical	Conflicting information that would break implementation	Two sections specify different behavior for the same feature
High	High ambiguity causing significant implementer confusion	Behavior described but critical edge cases undefined
Medium	Missing info that could cause unexpected behavior	Default value unspecified, implementer must guess
Low	Nice-to-have clarifications, cosmetic issues	Output format example missing but inferable

Phase 4: Present Findings

Present findings organized by severity, with specific location and proposed fix:

## Review Findings

### Critical (0 issues)

None found.

### High (1 issue)

#### H1: [Brief title]

**Location**: Part X, lines Y-Z

**Issue**: [Clear description of what's wrong]

**Impact**: [Why this matters for implementation]

**Proposed fix**:

Before:

[exact current text]

After:

[exact proposed text]

### Medium (2 issues)

#### M1: [Brief title]
...

### Low (1 issue)

#### L1: [Brief title]
...

---

## Summary

| Severity | Count |
|----------|-------|
| Critical | 0 |
| High | 1 |
| Medium | 2 |
| Low | 1 |

**Recommendation**: [Fix the N critical/high issues before implementation]

Phase 5: Apply Fixes

Wait for user approval before applying any changes.

When approved:

1. Apply fixes in order of severity (Critical first)
2. Update last_updated and last_updated_by in frontmatter
3. Add last_updated_note summarizing changes
4. Confirm each change was applied

Finding Format

Each finding must include:

1. Unique ID: Severity prefix + number (C1, H1, M1, L1)
2. Title: Brief description (5-10 words)
3. Location: Part/section and line numbers if possible
4. Issue: Clear description of the problem
5. Impact: Why this matters (for Medium+ severity)
6. Proposed fix: Exact before/after text

Review Principles

• Be specific: Vague feedback is not actionable
• Show don't tell: Always include before/after text
• Prioritize: Critical and High issues first
• Stay scoped: Review for implementer readiness, not feature design
• Preserve intent: Fixes should clarify, not change meaning

What NOT to Review

• Feature decisions (that's the author's domain)
• Writing style (unless it causes ambiguity)
• Structure choices (unless they cause confusion)
• Scope (unless explicitly asked)

Focus on: Would an implementer be able to build this correctly?

Quality Checklist

Before presenting findings:

• Read the entire document (no skimming)
• Each finding has specific location
• Each finding has exact before/after text
• Severity classification is justified
• Findings are actionable (not vague critiques)
• Summary includes counts and recommendation

Remember

A good review catches issues before they reach implementation. Be thorough but constructive - the goal is to improve the document, not criticize the author.