Scoped tickets with source references and dependencies.
What you need: Source-named agent: Devin. Suggested inputs: Planning packet. Work in a read-only snapshot and write draft records to a local file. Create no live issues during the first check. Provide an owner-defined definition of ready and a stable requirement identifier scheme; reserve unresolved scope decisions for the owner. Workflow costs and current compatibility remain unverified.
Proposed: Owner approves access, disclosures and consequential external actions; the offline first check authorizes none.
Official recipe. BotCurrent has not independently tested this workflow.
Copy a prompt for this task
Suggested prompt · untested
Replace the placeholders with your details. This suggested prompt does not run anything or grant access.
Select and copy the text manually if automatic copying is unavailable.
Inputs, access and approval
Inputs:
Planning packet: Requirements and code snapshot
Approval: Live issue creation, assignment, notifications, repository writes and starting implementation need separately approved scope. Keep the result private and draft-only. Before any external send, upload, live change, spend or commitment, show the exact action, target, content or data and consequences, then wait for separate approval. This prompt does not authorize those actions.
Use uploaded inputs first. Confirm scoped authorization before using a read-only connection. Missing inputs or access require an upload or clarification.
Original BotCurrent suggested prompt based on the linked example. Original source · Cognition. Editorial review does not establish execution success or current compatibility.
Setup and access
Proposed inputs
Name
Planning packet
Owner
Engineering
Minimum scope
Requirements and code snapshot
Quality check
Use a toy repository, stable revision and owner-approved scope; exclude secrets and unrelated customer records.
Access and setup — proposed or unknown
Proposed minimum
Work in a read-only snapshot and write draft records to a local file. Create no live issues during the first check.
Provide an owner-defined definition of ready and a stable requirement identifier scheme; reserve unresolved scope decisions for the owner.
Compatibility unknowns
Unknown: present connector permissions, repository search coverage and current ticket-schema behavior.
External actions requiring approval
Live issue creation, assignment, notifications, repository writes and starting implementation need separately approved scope.
Detailed steps and output format
At a glance
Suggested result
Scoped tickets with source references and dependencies.Suggested; untested.
Tool
DevinSource-named; check current access.
Suggested inputs
Planning packetProposed; access notes below.
Human review
Proposed: Owner approves access, disclosures and consequential external actions; the offline first check authorizes none.Suggested boundaries; source approvals below.
Setup notes
Work in a read-only snapshot and write draft records to a local file. Create no live issues during the first check. Provide an owner-defined definition of ready and a stable…Read full note
Work in a read-only snapshot and write draft records to a local file. Create no live issues during the first check. Provide an owner-defined definition of ready and a stable requirement identifier scheme; reserve unresolved scope decisions for the owner.
Guide notes; proposed setup untested.
Cost
Workflow cost not established. Check current tool pricing, setup and human review costs before trying it.No measured cost or time added.
Content depth
Source-linked example · suggestions untestedDepth does not establish successful execution.
Source-backed example. Practical decision guidance is proposed and untested; this is not a full implementation guide.
The problem
Large requirements need bounded implementation work.
Suggested task · untested
Translate requirements and code boundaries into tickets with dependencies.
What you could produce
Scoped tickets with source references and dependencies.
Where these suggestions come from
Core problem: Our suggestion; no result reported by the source
Agent job: Our suggestion; no result reported by the source
Expected output: Our suggestion; no result reported by the source
Relevant job roles: Our suggestion; no result reported by the source
Benefit type: Our suggestion; no result reported by the source
Suggestions and their limits
Describes the proposed purpose and review output; measured benefit and successful delivery are not established.
Editorial synthesis based on the linked source. This framing does not add evidence of successful delivery or results.
Before you try it · suggestions untested
The official recipe establishes the documented capability. The invented export-path, stale-file and ownership checks are independent proposals, not a claim about the vendor’s tests.
A tidy-looking backlog may hide shared dependencies or incompatible edits. Expose those collisions before implementation.
A traceable scope decision helps the owner distinguish a missing requirement from a deliberate exclusion and prevents a polished backlog from implying product approval.
Why an agent / simpler alternative
Useful judgment
Connect requirements with code boundaries.
Simpler alternative
Hold a planning session.
Unsuitable when
Repository evidence is unavailable.
Expected deliverable and review checks
Proposed artifact
Scoped tickets with source references and dependencies.
Critical checks
Trace each item to its requirement.
Check shared edit regions and dependency direction against the supplied snapshot.
Review excluded requirements and unsupported estimates before accepting the work breakdown; record the decision version.
Missing output evidence
Unknown: no generated issue set or execution trace was inspected.
First check — proposed, unexecuted
Status
proposed_unexecuted
Synthetic fixture
R1 shows nicknames; R2 hides private profiles. Web and export share a serializer. Draft ownership omits export and cites a deleted file. No remote tracker is connected.
Acceptance checks
Flag the deleted reference and uncovered export behavior rather than treating either as implemented.
Give the owner an explicit choice on the shared serializer boundary and explain which requirements each proposed item covers.
Reject cyclic ordering and record uncertainty in size; output local drafts without creating or assigning tickets.
Stop conditions
Live writes, a secret in the snapshot, unresolved requirement ownership or unsupported claims that code has been implemented.
Editorial relevance from the title and source-supported actions; not evidence of the operator’s occupation.
DevinIndependent testing: No
Failure handling, costs and limits
Failure signals and proposed responses
Signal
A task cites a path absent from the supplied revision
Why it matters
A plausible plan may target obsolete architecture.
Proposed response
Mark the reference unresolved and request matching evidence; never invent a replacement path.
Signal
A dependency graph contains a cycle or an unowned prerequisite
Why it matters
A parallel-looking plan can deadlock or leave necessary work invisible.
Proposed response
Show the cycle and affected requirements, then ask the owner to resolve scope or ordering.
Effort and cost — unknown
Setup work
Freeze the planning inputs and define minimum evidence required before a work item is ready.
Decide who approves decomposition and how later requirement changes invalidate earlier review.
Ongoing review
Check changed boundaries, unresolved references and owner assignments whenever the input revision changes.
Unknowns
Unknown: session cost, repository scale limits, review burden and implementation effort; estimates are not delivery commitments.
Limits
Ticket creation does not prove implementation.
Full source evidence
Official recipe · Research across apps
Original task title: Break requirements into code-aware tickets
Editorial candidate. This is source-backed reporting or a documented workflow. BotCurrent has not independently tested this task. A proposed Canadian adaptation is not evidence of a Canadian deployment or compliance certification.