本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

report-comment

Turn the git commits for a Jira ticket into a short, business-friendly implementation report and save it as local markdown. Use when the user wants to report finished work on a Jira ticket: a Jira report, update, or comment, a summary of their commits or changes for the ticket, or a note telling PM/QA what shipped.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(2)

  • SKILL.md6.3 KB
  • references/output-format.md1.7 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Jira Report Comment

Generate a short Jira comment describing what shipped on a ticket, and save it as a local markdown file.

The reader — a PM, QA engineer, or architect — already has the ticket open. Every sentence that paraphrases the ticket back at them is a sentence they skip, and after two of those they stop reading the whole comment. So the comment carries only what the ticket cannot: what actually shipped, and what someone downstream now has to do differently.

By default that is one summary paragraph. Bug fixes add a Root Cause. Verify and Deploy sections appear only when the diff gives a concrete reason.

Step 1 — Resolve the issue key

In order: the key the user gave you; otherwise the first [A-Z]+-[0-9]+ match in git branch --show-current; otherwise ask.

Confirm before continuing: "I detected CX-4328 from your branch. Use this issue key?"

Then reserve the output file, and write to this same path for the rest of the session — re-running the skill for the same issue updates the file rather than adding another:

mkdir -p docs/jira-reports
touch "docs/jira-reports/$(date +%Y-%m-%d-%H%M%S)-<ISSUE_KEY>.md"

Step 2 — Fetch the ticket

Try the Atlassian MCP server's getJiraIssue tool with the key. If it is unavailable, ask the user to paste the title, description, and acceptance criteria.

Read the title, description, type, and status. This is the material to leave out, not material to write from. Use it as the exclusion list.

Step 3 — Gather the diff

git log --grep="<ISSUE_KEY>" --format="%H %s" --reverse

If that finds nothing, retry with --all. If still nothing, diff the branch against its base — try main, then master, then develop:

git diff $(git merge-base HEAD main)..HEAD --stat
git diff $(git merge-base HEAD main)..HEAD

With commits found, diff across the whole range for the net result rather than the incremental steps:

git diff <FIRST_COMMIT>^..<LAST_COMMIT> --stat
git diff <FIRST_COMMIT>^..<LAST_COMMIT>

If the first commit is the repository's initial commit, use git diff $(git hash-object -t tree /dev/null)..<LAST_COMMIT>. If no meaningful diff turns up, say so and stop.

Over ~50 files, work from the stat summary and read selectively — config, migrations, and tests usually reveal intent faster than the implementation does.

Step 4 — Decide which sections exist

Read references/output-format.md for the skeleton, limits, and style.

Root Cause — when the ticket fixes an existing problem: the description mentions broken behaviour, a wrong result, a defect, or a regression. Issue type Bug is a strong signal but not required; some Stories and Tasks fix problems too. Derive the cause and the fix approach from the diff and commit messages — the ticket describes the symptom, and repeating it defeats the section.

Verify — when at least one is true:

  • The diff adds a feature flag and the test path depends on its state
  • The diff fires a side effect the ticket doesn't mention (email, webhook, log, metric)
  • The diff adds a code path triggered by an input value the ticket doesn't name
  • The diff changes behaviour for a role or permission level the ticket doesn't call out

Deploy — when at least one is true:

  • The diff adds or renames an environment variable
  • The diff adds a feature flag (name it, and state its default)
  • The diff adds a migration needing manual coordination — backfill, lock-heavy schema change
  • The diff adds a queue, scheduled job, or cron entry
  • The diff needs a config change in another system (CDN, IAM, DNS)

No trigger fires — the comment is the summary and nothing else. That is the expected outcome for most feature work, not a sign you missed something.

Step 5 — Draft, audit, save

Write the summary first, then add only the sections whose triggers fired. Then audit:

  • Delete any bullet describing routine work — pushing code, restarting services, clearing caches, running a standard migration. The reader assumes these happened.
  • Strip ticket paraphrases. Re-read against the ticket text from Step 2 and cut every phrase that echoes it.
  • Never describe a change the diff does not show.

Write to the path reserved in Step 1 and confirm: "Report saved to <path>." Leave the file untracked — never stage or commit it. If the humanize-text skill is available, run the report through it before presenting.

Example — bug fix

BUG-789 "Cancellation email sent twice when a user cancels their subscription". Diff removes the legacy onCancellation handler registration, leaving onSubscriptionCancelled to send alone; adds a single-send test.

BUG-789

Cancellation now sends a single confirmation email.

Root Cause

  • Two handlers were subscribed to the cancellation event after a partial refactor, and both were firing.
  • Removed the legacy registration so the newer handler is the single source of truth.

No Verify (the test path is what the ticket already implies) and no Deploy (routine code change).

Example — with Deploy

XYZ-456 "Send weekly digest email to active members". Diff adds a cron job, a weekly_digest_enabled flag defaulting off, and a DIGEST_SENDER_EMAIL env var.

XYZ-456

Weekly digest emails now ship every Monday at 9am to active members, skipping accounts with no activity in the last 7 days.

Deploy

  • Set DIGEST_SENDER_EMAIL in production before enabling the feature
  • Toggle weekly_digest_enabled on after a smoke test
  • First scheduled run lands the Monday after deploy

Deploy fires on three counts: the env var, the flag, and the cron entry. Verify does not — the test path matches what the ticket describes.

When things fail

  • Issue not found — tell the user the key looks invalid and ask them to check it.
  • No commits — report it plainly; suggest the branch or a different key format in commit messages.
  • MCP unavailable — ask for the ticket context manually.
  • Write fails — show the error and check directory permissions.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Write a short, fact-checked reply that answers a colleague's question in one meaning only, ready to copy and paste. The input is their pasted message. Check the claims against the code first, use the project glossary terms, and print only the reply in chat. Read-only — no writes to code, the issue tracker, GitHub, chat or any MCP. Use on "/cortex-communication:answer-buzzkill", "help me answer", "reply to this question", or when the user pastes a colleague's question and asks for an answer in the same manner.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alexander-danilenko/cortex-claude-code-plugins162026年10月13日 更新

Apply these opinionated .NET 8 architecture conventions whenever structuring or reviewing a backend service: clean architecture layering and which direction dependencies point, when CQRS with MediatR is worth it, cross-cutting concerns as pipeline behaviours, minimal APIs grouped by feature, keeping DbContext in Infrastructure, health checks and structured logging, WebApplicationFactory integration tests, and when AOT pays off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alexander-danilenko/cortex-claude-code-plugins162026年10月13日 更新

Apply these opinionated Python 3.11+ conventions when writing Python in this codebase: type hints with mypy, async/await, pytest fixtures, dataclasses, Poetry packaging, production patterns.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alexander-danilenko/cortex-claude-code-plugins162026年10月13日 更新

Apply these opinionated testing conventions whenever writing, reviewing, or planning tests: what earns a test and what is coverage theatre, asserting outputs rather than mock calls, the three modes (functional, performance, security), naming and isolation rules, where to mock, and reporting findings for coverage rather than self-filtering. Includes house Jest standards for NestJS unit and contract tests, TDD discipline, and test-report structure.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alexander-danilenko/cortex-claude-code-plugins162026年10月13日 更新

csharp

無料

Apply these opinionated C# conventions whenever writing or reviewing C# 12 / .NET 8+ code: nullable enabled with warnings as errors, records and primary constructors, pattern matching over cast chains, the Result pattern for expected failures, async all the way with CancellationToken, IOptions config, IHttpClientFactory, and never returning EF entities from an API.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alexander-danilenko/cortex-claude-code-plugins162026年10月13日 更新

ALWAYS invoke for any task involving docstrings, JSDoc/TSDoc, or REST API documentation — even when the request seems handleable without it. Enforces Microsoft contract-first conventions and a bare-minimum rule that Claude won't apply by default: never restate the signature, drop @param/@returns that only echo names and types, always document @throws, and document data shapes as WHAT not WHY. Covers Python docstring styles (Google/NumPy/Sphinx), TSDoc tags and @inheritDoc, and API doc patterns for NestJS/Express/FastAPI/Django. Trigger on: adding or auditing docstrings, redundant or missing tags, deleting comment rot, or producing a documentation-health report. Do not skip for documentation tasks — consistent conventions are the whole point.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alexander-danilenko/cortex-claude-code-plugins162026年10月13日 更新

alexander-danilenko のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する