Agile tools like Jira and its cousins are designed around a hierarchy: Epics contain Stories, which contain Subtasks, which might be linked to other Epics or Initiatives. On paper, it looks tidy. In practice, it often turns every developer and product owner into a miner with a headlamp, descending into ticket caves in search of the one card that actually matters.
This post explores why hierarchical UIs waste so much time, what kinds of confusion teams typically face, how enforced integrations make the problem worse, and what a prompt-first, opinionated assistant does differently.
The Thirty-Minute Treasure Hunt
A typical situation: a developer is told to “finish the payment error story.” They open the tool and search payments error. Up come dozens of results:
An epic called “Improve Checkout Reliability.”
A story called “Handle decline codes from providers.”
A subtask named “Update error mapping table.”
A linked bug “iOS app shows generic error.”
Another story “Retry transient errors.”
Which one is the right one? The only way forward is to click through them all, read the comments, and try to piece together the intent. What should be a two-minute lookup becomes a 30-minute focus-breaking hunt.
Why Hierarchies Turn Into Mazes
Naming Drift
Epics and stories often share similar titles—“Payments Error,” “Handle Payment Errors,” “Error Handling Improvements”—that overlap without clarifying.
Depth for Depth’s Sake
Some teams use epics as themes, others as oversized stories. Subtasks may be detailed technical work or placeholders. There is no consistency.
Too Many Links
“Blocked by,” “Relates to,” “Clones,” “Duplicates”… after a few months, the web of links looks official but doesn’t guide action.
Search That Doesn’t Help
Search matches text literally. If you don’t guess the right wording or ID, you’re spelunking.
Typical Planning Session Confusion
During planning, a product owner pulls up an initiative: “Mobile App Performance.” Inside sit 12 epics. One epic, “Improve Load Times,” has 18 stories, each with subtasks.
Leadership asks, “Which of these have actually shipped?”
The PO clicks through epic after epic, but there’s no clear signal. Everyone is left with lots of data but no answers.
This isn’t an outlier—it’s a common planning pain.
The Developer’s Daily Grind
Context-switching penalty: Multiple tabs open, each for a different branch of the hierarchy.
Guesswork navigation: Without story IDs, devs send Slack messages like “Is it S-142 or S-187?”
Incomplete parent items: Subtasks show as “Done,” but the user-visible story is still waiting.
The result: developers rely on colleagues for navigation instead of trusting the board.
The Product Owner’s Parallel Pain
Endless grooming: Sorting, renaming, merging duplicates.
Shadow systems: Because grooming feels hopeless, many POs keep the “real” priorities in Notion or Excel.
Update stress: When asked, “What shipped?” they know it will take several clicks and hedging, not a confident answer.
Executives rarely dive into the tool. When they do, they face a tangle. Their questions are straightforward:
“What’s blocking the iOS checkout release?”
“Which parts of the security epic are still open?”
“What shipped last week?”
The hierarchy can’t answer those questions clearly. It was designed for structure, not for outcomes.
When Git Hooks Make It Even Worse
Many organizations try to enforce discipline by wiring their version control system to their agile tool. A common pattern: every commit message must reference a valid ticket ID, and the ticket must be in the correct state. If it isn’t, the push is rejected.
On the surface, this seems sensible: traceability between code and work items. In practice, it multiplies the pain of hierarchies.
Imagine finishing a feature branch with six commits:
fix error message fallback
add test coverage for provider X
retry transient errors on timeout
When you push, the hook blocks:
“Commit must reference a valid ticket ID in an In Progress or In Review state.”
Now the developer must:
Identify which ticket each commit belongs to.
Navigate the hierarchy to find the correct ticket IDs.
Check if the ticket is in the correct state; if not, move it.
Rewrite six commit messages to append IDs.
Push again.
A task that should take seconds becomes 20 minutes of clerical work. Worse, if the wrong ticket was chosen, the traceability is meaningless anyway.
Instead of creating alignment, enforced hooks amplify the cost of poor hierarchies. They punish developers for the tool’s complexity.
Why Teams Tolerate It
It’s the norm. Everyone has grown used to the idea that hierarchies are “just how agile tools work.”
Inertia. Years of epics, subtasks, and custom workflows make teams hesitant to simplify.
Fear of losing detail. Leaders think fewer levels means losing oversight, even though the detail is already buried.
Compliance theater. Hooks and integrations create an illusion of control, even when the quality of the data is questionable.
The Prompt-First Alternative
Instead of spelunking through boards—or fighting hooks—you ask the system directly:
“Show the story blocking checkout for iOS, owned by Payments, estimated under 2 days.”
“What shipped in the last 7 days that touched authentication?”
“List all open high-priority mobile bugs.”
The assistant surfaces results ranked by:
Code ownership (which service or repo was touched).
Recency (recent commits and activity).
Release linkage (what is tied to an actual shipment).
And for git integration:
Commits auto-link to the right work item, inferred from branch name, PR context, and test coverage.
If the match isn’t obvious, the assistant prompts: “These commits look related to Story S-142 (Checkout Errors). Link them?”
Instead of push-blocks, developers get lightweight suggestions.
Opinionated Guardrails That Prevent the Maze
Limit nesting. Epics and stories are enough. Subtasks appear automatically when code is linked.
Detect duplicates. New stories flagged as similar to existing ones trigger a merge suggestion.
Force clarity. Duplicate titles aren’t allowed; stories require outcomes.
Archive stale work. Items untouched in 90 days snooze unless re-affirmed.
Smarter git hooks. Enforce links without punishing developers—auto-suggest IDs, move tickets based on repo events.
A More Typical Workflow With Prompts
A developer asks: “What’s the next bug in Payments under 4 hours of work?” → The assistant proposes two ranked options.
A PO asks: “Show me everything at risk of missing the sprint goal.” → The assistant surfaces stories with PRs stuck in review.
A sponsor asks: “What shipped to customers this week?” → The assistant lists three stories tied to releases, with user-visible outcomes.
No tree-digging. No guessing. No rewriting commit messages after failed pushes.
The Ripple Effects
Developers: Hours saved per week, flow protected, less tool resentment.
Product Owners: Less grooming, more prioritization.
Sponsors: Clearer answers tied to outcomes, not IDs.
Leads: Traceability achieved automatically, without punishing hoops.
Takeaways
Ticket hunting is not productive—it’s bureaucracy disguised as organization. Hierarchies encourage wandering, and enforced git hooks amplify the waste by turning commits into paperwork.
A prompt-first, opinionated assistant cuts through the maze. Ask what you need, and get context-ranked answers. Link code to work automatically, not by forcing humans to append IDs.
Agile promised speed and focus. To get there, we need tools that answer questions and automate traceability, not ones that bury both in structure.
