Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to mrclrchtr/supi. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mrclrchtr/supi/main/.agents/skills/to-tickets/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mrclrchtr/supiWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/mrclrchtr/supi/to-tickets)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mrclrchtr/supi/to-tickets"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mrclrchtr/supi/to-tickets/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mrclrchtr/supi/to-tickets"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mrclrchtr/supi/to-tickets.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00054 | $0.01270 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00508 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00254 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00127 |
Grade A, and why
to-tickets scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 7d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
94% identical to to-tickets — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 106 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
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. If not, tell the user to run /setup-matt-pocock-skills.
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.
- 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
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.
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 7d ago Changed 56ec23c5b278
- 2mo ago First seen · 106 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A 5ecdf1d4df8a
to-tickets is a skill published in the GitHub repository mrclrchtr/supi (103 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 1,270 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to to-tickets, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
muse-delegate
Delegate a coding task to Muse Code (muse) as a background implementer, then review its diff and land it yourself. Use this whenever the user wants to hand implementation work to Muse — phrasings like "have Muse do X", "delegate this to Muse", "run it through Muse", or "use Muse to implement/fix/refactor" — or wants…
资料库
A workflow for managing WorkBuddy's shared content area, including online documents, structured tables, pages, links, and stored files. It supports content creation, organisation, sharing, collaboration, and light publishing.
work-report-expert
A writing guide for workplace summaries and presentations, including annual reviews, performance reports, project updates, job-promotion speeches, weekly reports, and monthly reports. It uses clear conclusions, evidence, and the STAR method, which explains a Situation, Task, Action, and Result.
linear
Manage issues, projects & team workflows in Linear. Use when the user wants to read, create or updates tickets in Linear.
pi-parity-review
Adversarially verify that a ported change is faithful to the original pi implementation (TS source + published npm build). Use after porting upstream pi changes, or standalone on any area of this repo ("is X faithful to pi?").
pi-go-review
Review ported Go code for idiomatic quality — that the port maximizes Go rather than transliterating TypeScript. Use after porting upstream pi changes, or standalone on any diff in this repo.