Task Tickets as YAML in Git — Ask If It's Implemented

SaaS boards and the codebase drift apart. A task ticket stays open after the code shipped. Another is marked done and never landed. Managers follow the board; engineers follow the repo. Nobody has a cheap way to ask: is this actually in the code? The fix is not a better dashboard. It is task tickets as YAML on disk—plus wiki Markdown—so an AI IDE can read them like any other file. Gitoza is the local-first UI for that layout. Files live in Git so the team can sync: the product repo, or a dedicated Git repo for planning. What matters is local files, not a vendor database. When task tickets drift from the codebase Cloud trackers live in a different universe from the branch you just merged. That is ticket–code drift: the board and Git no longer describe the same work. Typical mess: Implementation is in main. The ticket is still open. The ticket is done. The function was never written—or it was reverted. Two people file the same bug two weeks apart. The board grows; the work doubles. You cannot ask Jira “does this match the repo?” without glue, exports, and hope. The agent in your IDE already sees the code. It cannot see a SaaS board unless you copy-paste. When YAML task tickets sit on disk, the agent can open them. Give it the ticket folder and the code folder—same clone or two checkouts—and the question becomes ordinary. YAML task tickets and a Git wiki on disk Gitoza stores Git-based task management as files: .gitoza/tasks/tickets/{project}/{ticket-id}.yaml .gitoza/wiki/ The ticket id is the filename. Frontmatter holds status, assignee, priority, type, tags. The Markdown body holds the description. Wiki pages (sidebar: Library) are nested Markdown under .gitoza/wiki/—docs, diagrams, the notes that used to live in a Confluence tab nobody opens. Those paths live in a Git repo you connect as a workspace. Many teams keep task tickets beside the product. Others use a dedicated planning repo so tickets are not mixed into application history. Either way the format is the same: plain-text YAML on disk. Browse and edit in the desktop app: tree + detail, same pattern as Tickets. Search hits the local index. No spinner waiting on a vendor API. That is why a local-first ticket tracker feels quicker than SaaS—the source of truth is disk, not a round-trip. Ask an AI IDE if a ticket is already implemented Point an AI IDE (Cursor, VS Code with an agent, or similar) at the YAML task tickets—and at the source tree, even if that is a second folder. Then ask what a Kanban column cannot answer: Is AUTH-102 implemented in this branch? This ticket is still open—did the code already land? This ticket is done—where is the change? Those three close the status ↔ code gap. You are not trusting the board. You are checking the files. Check if a bug ticket already exists The same files stop duplicate work: Is there already a bug ticket about lockout after failed logins? If the answer is yes, you do not file another ticket, and you do not implement the same fix twice. That is how YAML tickets in Git keep the backlog clean—search on disk, not another Jira query. You only attach the ticket files you care about. Retrieval is grep and the local index. Native files beat a Jira MCP bridge. The agent does not care whether those files came from the product remote or a dedicated tickets remote. How teams sync task tickets with Git Local-first does not mean solo-only. You edit on disk, then Sync on the gitoza branch when you want the team to see it. Git is the bus. That is the part that scares people: Git merge conflicts. The fear is larger than the rate. Why Git conflicts on YAML tickets are rarer than they feel Two people changing the same task ticket is not automatically a conflict. Git merges by line. You conflict when both sides rewrite the same field (or the same stretch of body)—not because you both touched the file. Gitoza is shaped so that happens less often: No competing timestamps in YAML. Last-updated metadata is not a hardcoded clock stamped into the file on every keystroke. Audit fields are owned by the local index; Git history already has commit time. Two people editing different fields do not fight over “who saved last.” Orthogonal edits merge. One person adds tags. Another changes status. A third updates the body. A fourth reassigns. Those are different lines. Git usually just takes both. Comments append. New comments go on the end. That is an add, not a rewrite of the same paragraph—so two people commenting do not collide the way two people rewriting a description do. When it does collide, there is a UI. Resolve Conflicts is keep mine, keep theirs, or mixed per file. You do not need the command line for the routine case. Conflicts still happen if two people rewrite the same sentence of the body at once. That is the honest case—and it is the same class of edit that would clobber a field in a SaaS form, except here you see both versions. The system is stable because the files are small, the schema is boring, and the merge rules match how people actually work: status here, tags there, comments at the bottom. Gitoza: local-first task tickets, wiki, and optional tests Gitoza is task and ticket management in Git: Tickets, Releases, Library (wiki), optional tests under .gitoza/test/. Connect the product repo or a dedicated planning repo. Confirm Changes before you push. Conflict panels when rebase needs a decision. Your AI IDE reads the same YAML and Markdown without MCP. Try it Connect a repo—product tree or a dedicated tickets repo. Create a few YAML task tickets; add a wiki page if the team needs a spec on disk. In the AI IDE, open the ticket folder (and the code folder if they are separate). Ask: is this open ticket already in the code? then do we already have a bug about …? Sync when the title bar shows Drafting. gitoza.com — desktop app, no account. Bottom line A board that is not on disk will always drift. Gitoza keeps task tickets as YAML—and wiki as Markdown—so the AI IDE has something it can actually read. Same repo as the code, or a dedicated Git repo. That is enough to ask whether work is implemented, whether a ticket already exists, and whether the backlog is lying—without waiting on SaaS. Git sync is how the team shares; field-level merges, appended comments, and a keep-mine / keep-theirs UI are why that sync is less intimidating than the word “conflict” suggests.