Opiniones de Shortcut

Se configura rápido y es una alternativa a Jira

Como se gestionan los ticket con puntuaciones

Once you understand the structure of the application, like the epics, stories, and iterations, it becomes very easy to navigate. The collaboration with team members and tracking of features or bugs makes it very valuable for our dev and product teams!

You do get a lot of email notifications when you are mentioned or anything related to you is updated, it would be nice to combine these notifications into one email every couple of hours or so.

This software is a curated experience that intentionally limits setup and flows compared with other products like JIRA which are less "bounded." I think this is better for most teams which do not care to install extra plugins and fight with non-intuitive workflow items.

There are some quirks in group selection and application, filtering, and sorting that do not always let me cross-cut the data the ways I want.

The software is intuitive and easy to use if you've used other product management software. Has lots of additional features.

The reason we stopped using it was we didn't actually need all the features that it had. In the end we felt like we had too many tools and downsized into Notion.

Whether you’re part of a small software team or you’re integrated into a collection of agile teams at an enterprise software shop - Shortcut makes it easy and intuitive to manage the many integrated software projects of todays micro services oriented development style. We’ve found that Shortcut grew with us from 2 devs to 10 and we expect it to grow with us as we grow to 50.

Story management sometimes feels like a full time job, but at least Shortcut makes it a joy. For our open source projects we have a hard time integrating with issues on GitHub where public issues are generated, but for our private projects, the GitHub integration is lightweight and effective.

Seems silly, but for me, it's the ability to create tasks under a ticket, and be able to convert those into tickets on their own. Jira did not have this, and still doesn't as far as I know, but wouldn't matter - Shortcut is simple to use, and ready to go out of the box.

Doesn't have the brand recognition, so hard to convince others that its the correct solution to use.

Shortcut is amazing for non-profits who need a flexible and no- to low-cost task/project management platform.

Unless you work in Agile methodology day in and day out, it can be difficult to understand how to effectively organize tasks/stories into epics and projects.

The ability to plan and curate our product backlog and create customized filtered views of our stories.

The product does not have a great way to document individual requirements or acceptance cases.

I feel like the software is very easy to use, and has a sleek design, which is a huge plus

I personally didn't get much use out of the epics, but I can definitely see the appeal

Very easy to use and integrate across the whole organization. Create cross functional teams working on various projects across the organization.

No Integrated calendar view. No method to migrate stories from one workspace to a new workspace when dividing teams or organizations.

- Able to assign projects per sprint
- Able to forecast
- Milestones and epics are helpful

- Priorities are not obvious
- Hard to view the order of stories
- Not clean or easy to navigate

Shortcut is "just right" for our needs, and thinking back about previous companies, would have been perfect in their needs, too. It is much more than a to-do tracker but doesn't overwhelm you with flexibility. My favorite part of this software is that it's story-centric. Epics are available, but they can play a supporting role if needed. Tasks are left to the developer to fill out themselves end up being merely a checklist. This paradigm shifts the focus to deliverables and prevents gamification by closing out menial tasks just to pump up ticket closures.

As a bonus, this standardizes the language of Epics/Stories/Tasks. There is no more endless debate on what should be what. The one thing I've always seen with Jira, especially in young teams, is that the flexibility of the product creates unproductive debate and confusion about terminology.

This product focuses on product delivery. For more general applications, like issue tracking or process management, it may not be the best for that.

I like the ease of use, from day one of setting up Clubhouse it just made sense and was easy to configure for our purposes. It was easy to jump in and start using without much learning curve for all of the team members as well. We love how much work we can have in a single work space and with powerful filtering, searching, everyone gets their perfect view for their purpose!

I wish there were more canned reporting features for Kanban workflows, but honestly it's not the end of the world since we have access to the REST API for building our own custom reports!

Right now our private Gitlab integration isn't working but what is amazing is that Clubhouse support and engineering is working through it with us. I love that about Clubhouse.

(Can you tell it's hard for me to find something negative about the software???)

1) Easy to learn - Even our junior members got on-boarded quickly despite their absolute lack of familiarity to such tools.
2) Tons of tagging options - Tickets can get multiple labels and the long list of standard metadata for cross-posting and maximum searchability.
3) Powerful search box - We get lots of tickets using the same set of keywords yet the search function seems to algorithmically know exactly which one we are looking for!

1) Comment formatting is not WYSIWYG
2) A bit pricey for smaller teams
3) Continuous development is great, but there's always a new key feature deployed quickly that will make you rethink your currently-established conventions. We found ourselves testing these, and even migrating to fully commit to using the new feature instead (e.g. milestone-centric vs iteration-centric). There's this unshakeable worry that there's a new feature yet again right around the corner and we may have to switch once more.

- I have like many in product at one point or another used Jira
- It's way smoother and way less. clunky then jira. Pages are more responsive and load quicker with less jumping
- Creating tickets is easy
- The UI is visually appealing

- Lacking integration compared to Jira
- Sometimes the auto-save fails and you lose work
- sometimes tickets you create are lost in a void if not triaged correctly

I like the visuals, the ease-of-use, everything is pretty intuitive even the first time you're using it. It's been a couple of years since my team started using it, and it works very well for us.

The name change recently forced us to adapt a lot of our automation regarding the app, but the reason for it was understandable.

I love the interface. It's fast. It's simple. It's as feature rich as we need it to be for the most part. Most integrations necessary for our business are there (GitHub, Slack, Teams). Working with stories and tickets is far simpler than it ever was with JIRA.

Building custom reports and doing custom searches for old stories for reporting purposes isn't great. It's fast, but I'm not sure what options I have available to search on.

The ability to create epics and cards at a basic level is good enough for most use cases. However, Shortcut also offers many more features such as teams, projects, iterations, and many more making this tool useful for so many people.

The first thing I do when opening my work laptop is go to my Shortcut dashboard. I look over all of myself and my teams different tasks and track their progress. As well as give myself action items by assigning myself a card. This in result boots my productivity tremendously.

Has a little bit of a learning curve due to the amount of features and customization it offers. Don’t feel guilty by not using it to its full potential because there is a lot to unpack.

I’ve used more complex software for ticket management and simpler tools, and Shortcut is the right balance of features, cost and ease of use.

Shortcut recently added Teams to their system which doesn’t work well with our workflow.

Flexible design allows for different teams to work in different flows.
Labels are extremely unstructured and therefore flexible to be used in different ways as needed.

Write feature (documentation) is very important to us both for general documentation and for documents pertaining to specific projects / epics, but it's very buggy / not being developed anymore.

No more mobile app.

We use Clubhouse to manage priorities in our design team and it is really easy to use in this respect. It's easy to create stories, boards and tasks and to steer our team to be more productive.

I'd love to be able to format text without the need for markdown. That would be great!

The features are great and help me organize my work. I like the Github feature that allows linking PRs to tickets and move them along the workflow at different states.

The organization of concepts is a little confusing. Like when things should be an Epic vs a Milestone etc.

Compared to other similar systems, I've found Shortcut's UI to be welcoming and intuitive. Their feature releases are innovative, and their product team has built something that makes work feel more fun. I especially love the Git widget that makes it easy to copy suggested branch names.

The GitHub integration seems to still be linking to CH- prefix tickets. But that is very minor.

Joy of use, low barrier to add/modify things

Priorization of tasks and epics could be easier

- Superb UI
- Customisable without clutter
- Performant
- Incredibly easy to use

- Reporting and metrics could be better surfaced