从流程驱动到 Agent 协作：Multica 与 Matt Pocock Skills 的实践

---
name: grill-with-docs
description: A relentless interview to sharpen a plan or design, which also creates docs (ADR's and glossary) as we go.
disable-model-invocation: true
---

Run a `/grilling` session, using the `/domain-modeling` skill.

---
name: to-spec
description: Turn the current conversation into a spec and publish it to the project issue tracker — no interview, just synthesis of what you've already discussed.
disable-model-invocation: true
---

This skill takes the current conversation context and codebase understanding and produces a spec (you may know this document as a PRD). Do NOT interview the user — just synthesize what you already know.

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

## Process

1. Explore the repo to understand the current state of the codebase, if you haven't already. Use the project's domain glossary vocabulary throughout the spec, and respect any ADRs in the area you're touching.

2. Sketch out the seams at which you're going to test the feature. Existing seams should be preferred to new ones. Use the highest seam possible. If new seams are needed, propose them at the highest point you can. The fewer seams across the codebase, the better - the ideal number is one.

Check with the user that these seams match their expectations.

3. Write the spec using the template below, then publish it to the project issue tracker. Apply the `ready-for-agent` triage label - no need for additional triage.

<spec-template>

## Problem Statement

The problem that the user is facing, from the user's perspective.

## Solution

The solution to the problem, from the user's perspective.

## User Stories

A LONG, numbered list of user stories. Each user story should be in the format of:

1. As an <actor>, I want a <feature>, so that <benefit>

<user-story-example>
1. As a mobile bank customer, I want to see balance on my accounts, so that I can make better informed decisions about my spending
</user-story-example>

This list of user stories should be extremely extensive and cover all aspects of the feature.

## Implementation Decisions

A list of implementation decisions that were made. This can include:

- The modules that will be built/modified
- The interfaces of those modules that will be modified
- Technical clarifications from the developer
- Architectural decisions
- Schema changes
- API contracts
- Specific interactions

Do NOT include specific file paths or code snippets. They may end up being outdated very quickly.

Exception: if a prototype produced a snippet that encodes a decision more precisely than prose can (state machine, reducer, schema, type shape), inline it within the relevant decision and note briefly that it came from a prototype. Trim to the decision-rich parts — not a working demo, just the important bits.

## Testing Decisions

A list of testing decisions that were made. Include:

- A description of what makes a good test (only test external behavior, not implementation details)
- Which modules will be tested
- Prior art for the tests (i.e. similar types of tests in the codebase)

## Out of Scope

A description of the things that are out of scope for this spec.

## Further Notes

Any further notes about the feature.

</spec-template>

---
name: to-tickets
description: Break a plan, spec, or the current conversation into a set of tracer-bullet tickets, each declaring its blocking edges, published to the configured tracker — edges as text in one file per ticket locally, or native blocking links on a real tracker.
disable-model-invocation: true
---

# To Tickets

Break a plan, spec, or conversation into a set of **tickets** — tracer-bullet vertical slices, each declaring the tickets that **block** it.

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 a reference (a spec path, an issue number or URL) as an argument, fetch it 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. Ticket titles and descriptions should use the project's domain glossary vocabulary, and respect ADRs in the area you're touching.

Look for opportunities to prefactor the code to make the implementation easier. "Make the change easy, then make the easy change."

### 3. Draft vertical slices

Break the work into **tracer bullet** tickets.

<vertical-slice-rules>

- Each slice cuts a narrow but COMPLETE path through every layer (schema, API, UI, tests) — vertical, NOT a horizontal slice of one layer
- A completed slice is demoable or verifiable on its own
- Each slice is sized to fit in a single fresh context window
- Any prefactoring should be done first

</vertical-slice-rules>

Give each ticket its **blocking edges** — the other tickets that must complete before it can start. A ticket with no blockers can start immediately.

**Wide refactors are the exception to vertical slicing.** A **wide refactor** is one mechanical change — rename a column, retype a shared symbol — whose **blast radius** fans across the whole codebase, so a single edit breaks thousands of call sites at once and no vertical slice can land green. Don't force it into a tracer bullet; sequence it as **expand–contract**. First expand: add the new form beside the old so nothing breaks. Then migrate the call sites over in batches sized by blast radius (per package, per directory), each batch its own ticket blocked by the expand, keeping CI green batch to batch because the old form still exists. Finally contract: delete the old form once no caller remains, in a ticket blocked by every migrate batch. When even the batches can't stay green alone, keep the sequence but let them share an integration branch that all block a final integrate-and-verify ticket — green is promised only there.

### 4. Quiz the user

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

- **Title**: short descriptive name
- **Blocked by**: which other tickets (if any) must complete first
- **What it delivers**: the end-to-end behaviour this ticket makes work

Ask the user:

- Does the granularity feel right? (too coarse / too fine)
- Are the blocking edges correct — does each ticket only depend on tickets that genuinely gate it?
- Should any tickets be merged or split further?

Iterate until the user approves the breakdown.

### 5. Publish the tickets to the configured tracker

Publish the approved tickets. **How** depends on the tracker `/setup-matt-pocock-skills` configured — the tickets are the same either way, only the shape of the blocking edges changes:

- **Local files** → write one file per ticket under `.scratch/<feature-slug>/issues/<NN>-<slug>.md`, numbered from `01` in dependency order (blockers first). Each file's "Blocked by" lists the numbers/titles it depends on. Use the per-ticket file template below — one ticket per file, never a single combined file.
- **A real issue tracker (GitHub, Linear, …)** → publish one issue per ticket in dependency order (blockers first) so each ticket's blocking edges can reference real identifiers. Use the platform's native blocking / sub-issue relationship where it has one; otherwise set each ticket's "Blocked by" to the blocking issues. Apply the `ready-for-agent` triage label unless instructed otherwise — the tickets are agent-grabbable by construction.

Work the **frontier**: any ticket whose blockers are all done. For a purely linear chain that means top to bottom.

Do NOT close or modify any parent issue.

<local-ticket-template>

# <NN> — <Ticket title>

**What to build:** the end-to-end behaviour this ticket makes work, from the user's perspective — not a layer-by-layer implementation list.

**Blocked by:** the numbers/titles of the tickets that gate this one, or "None — can start immediately".

**Status:** ready-for-agent

- [ ] Acceptance criterion 1
- [ ] Acceptance criterion 2

</local-ticket-template>

<issue-template>

## Parent

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

## What to build

The end-to-end behaviour this ticket makes work, from the user's perspective — not layer-by-layer implementation.

## Acceptance criteria

- [ ] Criterion 1
- [ ] Criterion 2

## Blocked by

- A reference to each blocking ticket, or "None — can start immediately".

</issue-template>

In either form, avoid specific file paths or code snippets — they go stale fast. Exception: if a prototype produced a snippet that encodes a decision more precisely than prose can (state machine, reducer, schema, type shape), inline it and note briefly that it came from a prototype. Trim to the decision-rich parts — not a working demo, just the important bits.

Work the frontier one ticket at a time with `/implement`, clearing context between tickets.