Pre-grooming analysis of a Jira ticket — produce a readiness + spec brief so the ticket can be groomed/estimated. Read-only; writes ONE artifact (tasks/<TICKET>-grooming.md), touches no code and no Jira. Runs BEFORE a ticket is approved to work — answers "is this ready to estimate, and what will it touch", not "how do I build it" (that's /build). Never plans an implementation, never sets a story-point number, never edits Jira. Use on "/groom <TICKET>", "groom this ticket", "is this ready to e...
Scanned 9/28/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add shashankreddy509/claude-tdd-kit --skill groom --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Groom?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/shashankreddy509-groom)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: groom
description: Pre-grooming analysis of a Jira ticket — produce a readiness + spec brief so the ticket can be groomed/estimated. Read-only; writes ONE artifact (tasks/<TICKET>-grooming.md), touches no code and no Jira. Runs BEFORE a ticket is approved to work — answers "is this ready to estimate, and what will it touch", not "how do I build it" (that's /build). Never plans an implementation, never sets a story-point number, never edits Jira. Use on "/groom <TICKET>", "groom this ticket", "is this ready to estimate", "pre-grooming brief".
allowed-tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Bash, Task, ToolSearch, Skill, Write
arguments:
- name: ticket
description: Jira ticket key (e.g. PROJ-42)
required: true
---
# Groom — pre-grooming readiness brief
The user invoked `/groom` with: **`{{args}}`**
Pre-grooming analysis of a Jira ticket: a readiness + spec brief so the ticket can be
groomed/estimated. Read-only — writes ONE artifact, touches no code and no Jira. If no argument, ask
which ticket.
This runs BEFORE a ticket is approved to work. It answers "is this ready to estimate, and what will
it touch" — not "how do I fix/build it" (that's `/build`, after grooming). It never plans an
implementation, never assigns a story-point number, never edits Jira.
**Discover the project's Jira config (cloudId + key) from the project `CLAUDE.md`** — scan it for a
line of the form `Jira: cloudId=<uuid> key=<PROJECTKEY>` and use those values;
never hardcode a cloudId. If not found, ask for the cloudId + key.
**Then resolve the Jira MCP dialect.** Atlassian MCP servers differ per machine: one exposes
camelCase names (`mcp__atlassian__getJiraIssue`) with `cloudId` REQUIRED; another exposes snake_case
under a `jira` prefix and resolves the site internally, with no `cloudId` at all. If the
`tdd-pipeline` plugin is installed, follow its `references/jira-mcp.md`. Otherwise probe inline: try
the camelCase name via `ToolSearch`; if nothing resolves, search by keyword (`ToolSearch "+jira
issue"`) and use what comes back. Pass `cloudId` ONLY when the resolved schema has it — otherwise
omit it and ignore the `cloudId=` half of the line. Never hardcode a tool name.
## Steps
1. **Fetch the ticket.** Using the get-issue verb resolved above:
`<get-issue tool>(issueIdOrKey=<TICKET>)`, adding `cloudId=<discovered>` only if its schema
requires it. Also pull linked/sibling issues and
attachments if referenced. Capture summary, description, issuetype, acceptance criteria, parent
epic, comments.
2. **Restate the ask.** One paragraph: what is actually being requested, in your own words, so a
wrong reading surfaces at grooming — not mid-sprint. State assumptions explicitly.
3. **Acceptance-criteria audit.** List the ACs verbatim. For each, judge: present? testable
(observable pass/fail)? Flag missing, vague, or contradictory ACs as blockers to estimate — a
ticket without testable ACs is not groom-ready.
4. **Business spec.** What user-facing behavior changes, for whom, under what conditions (auth state,
user role, environment, flow). Note edge cases the ticket implies but doesn't state.
5. **Technical spec — codebase reality.** Anchor the ticket in the real code — where the feature
lives today, what gates it, which modules a change would touch, the contracts involved:
- **Backend / web:** identify the route handler(s), the data stores/collections touched, and any
feature-flag or config gate the behavior sits behind. If the repo has a knowledge graph
(`graphify-out/GRAPH_REPORT.md`), read it and prefer `graphify query "<subject>"` /
`graphify explain "<concept>"` over grep — it traverses cross-module edges grep can't see.
- **Mobile / client:** map the screen → ViewModel/presenter → repository chain, plus any
feature-flag gate. Use an `Explore` agent (Task tool) for the cross-file map.
- If the ticket is net-new with no existing code hook, say so plainly ("net-new; no existing code
to anchor to") — do NOT fabricate a codebase reality that doesn't exist yet.
- Enumerate likely **API contracts** (new/changed endpoints, request/response shapes) from the
description, marked as inferred vs confirmed.
- Sketch the **test matrix**: what unit coverage (using the project's own test runner) and any
manual/on-device coverage this needs — so test effort is visible at estimate time.
6. **Dependency / twin check.** Does real behavior depend on something not yet shipped — a server
change, a schema/data migration, a contract between two clients or services, another ticket?
Check links/labels/parent and flag "blocked on <dependency>" if so.
7. **Open questions / gaps to resolve before estimating.** The decisions that must be made first:
missing ACs, undecided business rules, unconfirmed contracts, analytics/observability not
specified.
8. **Complexity signal (NOT a point value).** Small / Medium / Large + the 1–2 reasons, grounded in
step 5's codebase reality (modules touched, contract changes, test surface, dependency). This
informs the estimate; it does not replace it.
9. **Write the brief to `tasks/<TICKET>-grooming.md`** in the open project, alongside the other
per-ticket artifacts, using `assets/grooming-template.md` as the structure — fill every section
(restate / AC-audit / business spec / technical spec / dependency / open-questions / complexity /
inferred-vs-confirmed / self-check) from steps 1–8; do not restate the section list here. Tell the
user it's written. Stop — do not plan or build.
## Self-check (report PASS/FAIL; don't block)
- Every cited `file:line` from step 5 resolves (re-Grep the snippet).
- ACs are reproduced verbatim, not paraphrased.
- Anything inferred (contracts, edge cases) is labeled inferred, not stated as fact.
Report `GROOM SELF-CHECK: PASS` or `FAIL — <misses>`.
## Guardrails
- Read-only on Jira and code. No edits, no transitions, no comments.
- No implementation plan and no story-point number — those are `/build` and the team, respectively.
- If the Jira call fails, say so in one line; never fabricate ticket content or ACs.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!