Build a create-read-update-delete surface that copies an existing one
Another entity given the same management surface as its siblings, copied rather than reinvented.
The ticket
Build a management surface for one entity, following an existing surface as the pattern.
Acceptance criteria
- All four operations work and are covered by tests
- Permissions match the pattern of the surface it copies
- Validation and error handling match the existing conventions
- The test shape mirrors the reference surface
What lands as proof
A test suite shaped like the reference surface's, which is what proves it was copied rather than improvised.
Why teams defer it
- It is genuinely repetitive, which makes it dull rather than difficult, and dull work slides.
- Copying carefully takes longer than copying quickly, and the difference only shows up in review.
Questions
- What does the agent actually change?
- The ticket is scoped to one outcome: build a management surface for one entity, following an existing surface as the pattern. Work that serves that outcome is in scope, and anything outside it is left for a separate ticket, so the pull request stays reviewable.
- How do I know the work is done?
- The pull request carries the evidence, not only the diff. Here that means the same test shape as the surface it copies, so a reviewer can confirm the result without reproducing the work locally.
- How much oversight does this need?
- The run stops once the plan is written. Somebody reads the approach and approves it before any code exists, which is the cheapest moment to redirect the work.