# Lisa Github To Tracker > Break down a GitHub Issue PRD into Epics, Stories, and Sub-tasks in the configured destination tracker (JIRA via lisa-tracker-write → lisa-jira-write-ticket, or GitHub Issues itself via lisa-tracker-write → lisa-github-write-issue). Use this skill whenever the user shares a GitHub issue URL and wants it converted into tickets, or asks to "break down this GitHub PRD", "create tickets from a GitHub issue", or similar. This skill mirrors lisa-notion-to-tracker / lisa-confluence-to-tracker / lisa-linear-to-tracker for projects whose PRDs live in GitHub Issues — the workflow, gates, dry-run mode, and validation rules are identical; only the source-of-truth tool surface differs (the `gh` CLI instead of Notion / Confluence / Linear MCP). - Skill: `codyswanngt/lisa-github-to-tracker` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add codyswanngt/lisa-github-to-tracker` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/codyswanngt/lisa-github-to-tracker/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Product & Planning - Author: codyswanngt (https://skillmd.com/u/codyswanngt) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/codyswanngt/lisa-github-to-tracker --- # GitHub PRD to Tracker Breakdown Convert a GitHub Issue PRD into a structured ticket hierarchy in the configured destination tracker: Epics > Stories > Sub-tasks. Each Sub-task is scoped to exactly one repo and includes an empirical verification plan. This skill is the GitHub counterpart of `lisa-notion-to-tracker` / `lisa-confluence-to-tracker` / `lisa-linear-to-tracker`. The four skills share the same phases, gates, dry-run contract, and per-ticket validation logic. Only the PRD-side fetch tools differ. When changing workflow logic, change ALL FOUR skills together so the PRD vendors stay behaviorally identical. ## What "PRD" means in GitHub Issues GitHub Issues has no native "PRD" entity. This skill treats a single GitHub Issue (carrying the configured `ready` PRD label — `github.labels.prd.ready`, default `prd-ready`) as the PRD container: - **Issue body** (markdown) is the PRD body — equivalent to a Notion page body, a Confluence page body, or a Linear project description. - **Sub-issues** (native GitHub sub-issues, traversable via `gh api graphql`) act as the candidate set for Epics or User Stories — the same role child Epic pages play in a Notion/Confluence PRD. - **Issue comments** capture decisions, engineering notes, product clarifications. - **Linked PRs** (parsed from `Resolves #` lines and from native cross-references) provide implementation context. A multi-Epic PRD is encoded as a parent Issue with several child sub-issues. A simple PRD is a single Issue with body content only. ## Modes This skill supports two modes, controlled by a `dry_run` flag in `$ARGUMENTS`: - **`dry_run: false`** (default — full mode): run all phases, write tickets via `lisa-tracker-write`, run the preservation gate, report. - **`dry_run: true`** (planning + validation only — no writes): run Phases 1, 1.5, 1.6, 2, 3, 4 to plan the hierarchy and draft each ticket spec, then call `lisa-tracker-validate` (with `--spec-only`) on every drafted ticket. Aggregate the per-ticket validator reports into a single dry-run report. **Skip Phase 5 (sub-task creation), Phase 5.5 (preservation gate), and Phase 6 (results report)** — none of those make sense without writes. Return the dry-run report so the caller (e.g. `lisa-github-prd-intake`) can decide whether to proceed. Dry-run output format is identical to `lisa-notion-to-tracker` / `lisa-confluence-to-tracker` / `lisa-linear-to-tracker`. Reuse the same fields, including `prd_anchor` and `prd_section`, the `### Requirement register` section, and the per-node `requirements:` lists. For GitHub, `prd_anchor` is a section heading from the PRD body when the failure traces to a specific section; otherwise `null` (the caller posts unanchored failures as a rollup comment on the PRD issue). ```text ## github-to-tracker dry-run: ### Requirement register - R1 §"
": "" - R2 §"
": "" - ... ### Planned hierarchy - Epic: prd_section: "" prd_anchor: "" requirements: [R1, R2] # register ids this ticket exists to satisfy; [] only for derived work - Story 1.1: prd_section: "" prd_anchor: "" requirements: [R1] - Sub-task []: prd_section: "" prd_anchor: "" requirements: [R1] - ... - Story 1.2: ... ### Per-ticket validation - : PASS | FAIL — failures prd_section: "" prd_anchor: "" failures: - gate: category: product_relevant: what: recommendation: <1–3 candidate resolutions from validator> ### Verdict: PASS | FAIL ### Total failures: ``` The dry-run mode never writes to the destination tracker. It also never modifies the source PRD issue, never adds/removes labels, never edits sub-issues, and never posts comments — that is the orchestrating skill's responsibility (`lisa-github-prd-intake`). ## Hard Rule: All Writes Go Through `lisa-tracker-write` **Every ticket created by this skill — every Epic, Story, and Sub-task — MUST be created by invoking the `lisa-tracker-write` shim. Never call `lisa-jira-write-ticket`, `lisa-github-write-issue`, any vendor MCP tool, or `gh issue create` directly from this skill or from any sub-agent it spawns.** `lisa-tracker-write` enforces: - Vendor-agnostic dispatch (so a project's destination is one config edit away). - The vendor writer's pre-write gate (`lisa-tracker-validate` Phase 5.5). - Post-write verify (`lisa-tracker-verify`). - 3-audience description, Gherkin acceptance criteria, parent / Epic validation, link discovery, single-repo scope, sign-in / target environment fields, source-artifact preservation. Bypassing the shim layer produces tickets that the rest of the lifecycle (triage, verify, journey, evidence) treats as broken. The `gh` reads in this skill are limited to reading the source PRD issue, its sub-issues, and its comments. They never write. ## Source Requirement Section (shared format) Every ticket created by this skill — Epic, Story, and Sub-task alike — carries a `## Source Requirement` section in its body so anyone can answer "why was this done?" without leaving the ticket: ```markdown ## Source Requirement - **PRD**: []() §"
" - **Requirement (R3)**: "" This ticket exists to satisfy the quoted requirement. If implementation scope drifts from the quoted text, the PRD is the authority — raise the conflict rather than silently reinterpreting it. ``` Rules: - **Verbatim quotes, never paraphrases.** The quote is what survives later PRD edits, and it must be readable by a non-technical operator. - **Multiple requirements** → one `**Requirement (Rn)**` line each. - **Derived / cross-cutting work** (no single requirement) uses the supporting form instead: `- **Requirement**: Derived work supporting R3, R7 — no single PRD section.` - **All the way down**: sub-tasks carry full quotes, not just a pointer at the parent Story, so a leaf claimed by build-intake in isolation is self-explanatory. - JIRA descriptions render the section as `h2. Source Requirement`; GitHub/Linear use the markdown heading. `lisa-tracker-write` and the validators treat the section as mandatory for PRD-sourced tickets. ## Input A GitHub issue ref. The PRD is expected to have: - An issue body containing context, problems, and (optionally) a list of user stories. - One or more sub-issues that act as candidate Epics or user stories (optional — single-issue PRDs are valid). - Issue comments capturing engineering notes and product decisions. - The configured `ready` PRD label (`github.labels.prd.ready`, default `prd-ready` — if invoked from `lisa-github-prd-intake`; for ad-hoc / direct invocation the label is informational, not gating). URL parsing — accept either: - `org/repo#` - `https://github.com///issues/` Resolve `/` from `.lisa.config.json` if `$ARGUMENTS` is just `#` or a bare number. ## Configuration This skill reads project configuration from `.lisa.config.json` (with `.lisa.config.local.json` overriding per key) and operational E2E test config from environment variables. See the `config-resolution` rule for the full schema. ### From `.lisa.config.json` This skill is a **PRD source** (GitHub Issues). Destination tracker resolution is handled by `lisa-tracker-write` / `lisa-tracker-validate` internally; this skill reads only the source-side config. | Field | Purpose | Required when | |-------|---------|---------------| | `github.org` | GitHub org hosting the PRD repo | always (source repo); also when `tracker = "github"` (destination repo, can be the same in self-host case) | | `github.repo` | GitHub repo hosting the PRD | same | ### From environment variables (E2E test config — operational, not tracker) | Variable | Purpose | Example | |----------|---------|---------| | `E2E_TEST_PHONE` | Test user phone for verification plans | `0000000099` | | `E2E_TEST_OTP` | Test user OTP code | `555555` | | `E2E_TEST_ORG` | Test organization name | `Arsenal` | | `E2E_BASE_URL` | Frontend base URL for Playwright tests | `https://dev.example.io/` | | `E2E_GRAPHQL_URL` | GraphQL API URL for curl verification | `https://gql.dev.example.io/graphql` | If env vars are not available, ask the user to provide them explicitly before proceeding. Do not retrieve credentials from repository files or local agent settings. ## Workflow ### Phase 1: Fetch & Analyze the PRD 1. **Confirm `gh auth status` succeeds.** 2. **Fetch the PRD issue** via `gh issue view --repo / --json number,title,body,labels,milestone,assignees,author,createdAt,comments,url`. Capture title, body, labels, author, assignees, dates, comments. 3. **Fetch native sub-issues** via the GraphQL `subIssues` traversal (see `lisa-github-read-issue` Phase 3). Each sub-issue's `{number, title, body, labels, state, url}` becomes a candidate epic / story node. 4. **Recursively fetch grandchild sub-issues** (one more level — typical PRD depth is 2: PRD → Epic candidate → maybe a Story candidate). Stop after depth 3 unless the user explicitly requested deeper. 5. **Fetch full comments per sub-issue** via `gh issue view --repo / --json comments` for every sub-issue surfaced in step 3. Capture body, author, timestamp. 6. **Synthesize decisions and blockers** from the PRD body + every sub-issue body + every comment thread: - Decisions already confirmed by the team (look for agreement in comments). - Open questions that need product/engineering input. - Engineering comments (prefixed with "Engineering:" or 🔧) that identify technical constraints. - Cross-PRD dependencies (references to other GitHub issues, Notion / Confluence / Linear PRDs, shared infrastructure). ### Phase 1.4: Requirement Register (traceability) Every ticket this skill creates must be able to answer "why was this done?" by pointing at the PRD requirement it satisfies. Build that mapping now, while parsing the PRD — it cannot be reliably reconstructed afterwards. 1. **Atomize the PRD into requirements** in document order: goals, user stories, functional and non-functional requirements, acceptance-criteria bullets, and important notes — across the PRD issue body AND every sub-issue body. Use the same atomization `lisa-prd-ticket-coverage` uses so the two views line up. 2. **Assign sequential register ids** (`R1`, `R2`, …). Ids are per-generation, not durable — the **verbatim quote is the durable anchor**; if the PRD is edited and re-planned, ids may shift but quotes still identify the requirement. 3. **Record each entry** as `{ id, verbatim_text, section_heading }`, where `section_heading` is the markdown heading (or sub-issue ref) the requirement lives under — the same value used for `prd_anchor`. 4. **Tag every planned ticket** — Epic, Story, AND Sub-task — with the register ids it exists to satisfy. All the way down: sub-tasks carry their own requirement quotes so a leaf dispatched in isolation is self-explanatory. A ticket that genuinely traces to no single requirement (cross-cutting infrastructure, derived enablement work) gets `requirements: []` and must say which requirements it *supports* in its Source Requirement section instead. The register feeds three consumers: the `## Source Requirement` section on every created ticket (Phases 3–5), the dry-run report (above), and the requirement tokens in the PRD back-link (Phase 7). ### Phase 1.45: Requirement Quality Gates (prd-definition-of-ready) Validate every Phase 1.4 register entry against the `prd-definition-of-ready` rule before planning proceeds. Per atom: - **Singular** — one behavior per entry. An entry welding multiple shall/when clauses together is split in the register (R4 → R4a/R4b) when the split is mechanical and meaning-preserving; when the split would change meaning, it is a product question, not a repair. - **Unambiguous** — FAIL on the vagueness lexicon ("as appropriate", "user-friendly", "fast", "handle gracefully", "etc.", "and/or", unbounded "optimize"/"support"): phrasing no test can check. The full lexicon lives in the rule's reference body. - **Verifiable** — a fit criterion (the measurable test of satisfaction) is present or mechanically derivable from the text; a requirement no test could check is not admitted as a requirement. - **Pattern shape (SHOULD)** — an EARS pattern (ubiquitous / When / While / If-then / Where) or an equivalent single-behavior sentence; conforming shapes decompose into Gherkin mechanically. Failures here are **requirement-level product clarifications**, not internal errors: report each in the dry-run report as a `product-clarity` item quoting the atom verbatim, naming the defect, and offering 1–3 candidate rewrites (an EARS-shaped rewrite is the default recommendation). In intake flows these route to the PRD's `blocked` role with comments, exactly like ticket-validator failures. Mechanical splits and derived fit criteria are repaired in-register and recorded in the report — never silently. ### Phase 1.5: Extract Source Artifacts PRDs typically reference external design, UX, and data artifacts (Figma files, Lovable prototypes, Loom walkthroughs, screenshots, example payloads, peer Notion / Confluence / Linear pages). These MUST be preserved onto the resulting tickets — otherwise developers picking up a ticket lose the source of truth. This is the failure mode this step exists to prevent. 1. **Scan the PRD body, every sub-issue body, and every comment** for: - URLs to design/prototype tools (Figma, FigJam, Figma Make, Lovable, Framer, Penpot) - URLs to recording/walkthrough tools (Loom, YouTube, Vimeo, Descript) - URLs to collaborative docs (Google Docs/Slides/Sheets, peer Confluence pages, Notion peer pages, peer Linear documents) - URLs to code sandboxes (CodeSandbox, StackBlitz, Replit, GitHub permalinks/gists) - URLs to diagramming tools (Miro, Mural, Excalidraw, Mermaid Live, draw.io, Lucid) - URLs to data/observability tools (Grafana, Datadog, Sentry, Metabase, Looker) - Embedded images and file attachments referenced in the body - Fenced code blocks with example data (JSON, SQL, GraphQL, cURL request/response) 2. **Classify each artifact and apply taxonomy rules** by invoking the `lisa-tracker-source-artifacts` skill. That skill is the single source of truth for: domains (`ui-design` / `ux-flow` / `data` / `ops` / `reference`), per-tool classification rules, and coverage smells. 3. **Build an `artifacts` map** keyed by domain. Each entry: `{ url, title, domain, source_page, source_page_url, classification_reason }`. `source_page` lets you trace each reference back to where it appeared (PRD body vs a specific sub-issue vs a specific comment). 4. **Surface coverage smells** as defined in `lisa-tracker-source-artifacts` §5. Record on the Epic. ### Phase 1.6: Source Precedence & Conflict Resolution Source precedence rules and cross-axis conflict handling are defined in `lisa-tracker-source-artifacts` §3 and §4. Apply them during ticket synthesis: every conflict between artifacts must be recorded under `## Open Questions` on the affected ticket, never silently reconciled. The existing-component reuse expectation is defined in `lisa-tracker-source-artifacts` §7. Encode it on every UI-touching story. ### Phase 2: Codebase + Live Product Research Identical to `lisa-notion-to-tracker` Phase 2 / `lisa-confluence-to-tracker` / `lisa-linear-to-tracker`. Two complementary inputs ground PRD analysis: the **code** and the **live product**. **2a. Codebase research.** If the session doesn't already have codebase context, explore the repos. Use Explore agents for repos not yet examined. **2b. Live product walkthrough.** If the PRD touches existing user-facing surfaces, invoke `lisa-product-walkthrough` against `E2E_BASE_URL` using the test user from config. Skip the *walkthrough* only when the work has no user-visible surface, or affects a screen that does not yet exist in dev/prod — and when you skip it, run 2c instead. Skipping 2b never means authoring the ticket with no live-state grounding. **2c. Deployed-state readback — required whenever 2b does not apply.** Per the `blocker-containment`-style shared-slug precedent, cite the `deployed-state-readback` rule for the full contract; do not restate its routing table here. 2b is waived for work with no user-visible surface. That waiver is about the **observation method**, not about whether to observe: backend, infrastructure, CI-config and dependency work all have live state, it is simply not visible through a browser. So the skip selects a **different probe**, never no probe — describe the deployed resource, call the deployed endpoint, read the configuration the last pipeline run used, read the *installed* artifact. For each thing the candidate tickets would create or change, confirm it is genuinely **absent from the deployed environment** before authoring a ticket for it, and record what was probed and what came back. **Git ancestry, a merge check and `cdk synth` are never deployment evidence** — a discarded pipeline execution leaves a commit merged and unshipped, and all three still report "present". **An unanswerable probe is not a "no"**: when the state cannot be read back, record that the check could not be performed rather than defaulting to absent. Walkthrough findings are surfaced back to product via the orchestrating intake skill (`lisa-github-prd-intake`), which posts them as a comment on the PRD issue. This skill itself does NOT post to GitHub — it only reads. The walkthrough section is also inherited onto the resulting Epic / Stories under a `## Current Product` subsection. ### Phase 3: Create Epics > **Mode guard**: In `dry_run: true` mode, do not invoke `lisa-tracker-write` in this phase. Instead, draft the epic spec (summary, body, artifacts) and validate it with `lisa-tracker-validate --spec-only`. Record the drafted spec (with a placeholder ref like `DRY-RUN-EPIC-1`) for Phase 4 to use as parent references. In `dry_run: false` mode, proceed as described below. For each epic identified in Phase 1, **invoke the `lisa-tracker-write` shim** (do not call `lisa-jira-write-ticket` or `lisa-github-write-issue` directly). Pass it everything it needs to enforce its quality gates: - `issue_type`: `Epic` - `prd_source`: the originating PRD URL — mandatory for every ticket this skill creates; it arms the validator's S16 traceability gate - `summary`: epic title from the PRD - `body`: a draft of the multi-section description containing: - A **Source Requirement** section (see the shared format above) citing the GitHub Issue PRD URL, section heading, and the verbatim text of every register requirement (`R-id`) this epic exists to satisfy - **Context / Business Value**: epic summary from the PRD, originating GitHub PRD URL, business outcome - **Technical Approach**: cross-cutting integration points and constraints surfaced in Phase 2 codebase research - List of user stories the epic contains - Key decisions from comments (with attribution) - Blockers and open questions - Dependencies on other epics or PRDs - A **Source Artifacts** section listing every artifact extracted in Phase 1.5 (grouped by domain) - `artifacts`: the full Phase 1.5 artifact list — every artifact, regardless of domain. The Epic is the canonical hub. - `priority`, `labels`, `components`, `fix_version`: as appropriate The source GitHub PRD may span multiple repositories, and the Epics created from it may stay cross-repo when they are coordination containers rather than buildable leaf work. **Leaf-only build-ready (`leaf-only-lifecycle`)**: an Epic is a container, not a leaf work unit. Do NOT mark it build-ready — `lisa-tracker-write` must not be passed `status:ready` for an Epic, and the Epic's lifecycle state rolls up from its children. Epics may span repositories; only the leaf work created later must collapse to one repo each. The build-ready label is applied only in Phase 5. Capture the returned epic ref — Phase 4 needs it as the parent for Stories. ### Phase 4: Create Stories > **Mode guard**: In `dry_run: true` mode, do not invoke `lisa-tracker-write`. Draft each story spec and validate it with `lisa-tracker-validate --spec-only`. Use placeholder refs (e.g. `DRY-RUN-STORY-1.1`). For each Epic, plan two kinds of Stories: - **One "X.0 Setup" story** for data model and infrastructure prerequisites - **One story per user story** from the PRD (numbered to match the PRD's structure or the source sub-issues) **Story naming convention**: Prefix the summary with a short code derived from the PRD title (e.g., `[CU-1.1]` for "Contract Upload"). For each Story, **invoke `lisa-tracker-write`** with: - `issue_type`: `Story` - `prd_source`: the originating PRD URL — mandatory for every ticket this skill creates; it arms the validator's S16 traceability gate - `parent_ref` / `epic_parent`: the Epic ref captured in Phase 3 (mandatory) - `summary`: prefixed per the naming convention above - `body`: multi-section description as in `lisa-notion-to-tracker` Phase 4, including as its first element a **Source Requirement** section (shared format above) quoting the register requirement(s) this story satisfies - `artifacts`: the Phase 1.5 artifacts filtered by domain per the inheritance table: | Story type | Inherits domains | |------------|------------------| | Frontend / UI | `ui-design`, `ux-flow`, `reference` | | Backend / API / data model | `data`, `reference` | | Infrastructure | `ops`, `reference` | | Mixed / setup ("X.0") | All domains | **Leaf-only build-ready (`leaf-only-lifecycle`)**: a Story is a container (it has child Sub-tasks), not a leaf work unit. Do NOT mark it build-ready — never pass `status:ready` to `lisa-tracker-write` for a Story. Its lifecycle state rolls up from its Sub-tasks. Stories may span repositories when they coordinate work across repos; the build-ready label is applied only in Phase 5 to the per-repo leaves. Capture each returned story ref — Phase 5 needs it. ### Phase 5: Create Sub-tasks **Auto-split cross-repo work before delegation.** For each candidate sub-task, apply `lisa-task-decomposition` step 1.5: if the work touches more than one repo, split it into one sub-task per repo under the same parent Story (e.g., `[backend-api] Add field` + `[mobile-app] Display field`), and encode the producer-before-consumer ordering via dependencies. The source GitHub PRD and its coordination containers (Epic, Story, Spike) may remain cross-repo. Build-ready work units may not: every Bug, Task, Sub-task, or Improvement written from this phase must resolve to exactly one repository. Splitting is this skill's responsibility — the validator's S10 gate is `product_relevant: false` because cross-repo failures are decomposition errors caught here, not product questions sent back to the PRD. **S10 hard gate repair loop.** Dry-run validation is not advisory. Before any Phase 5 write, every planned leaf spec MUST pass `lisa-tracker-validate --spec-only` for S10 Single-repo scope. If any Bug / Task / Sub-task / Improvement fails S10 (missing `Repository`, more than one repo, or cross-repo AC), stop the write path, auto-split or restamp the spec using `lisa-task-decomposition` step 1.5, add the repo bracket and `## Repository` / `h2. Repository` section, then re-run `lisa-tracker-validate --spec-only`. If S10 still fails after repair, abort the ticket write and record an internal Error in the dry-run report; do not create the ticket, do not bypass with direct vendor writes, and do not surface the `product_relevant: false` failure as a product clarification. Delegate sub-task creation to **parallel agents** (one per epic or batch of stories) for efficiency. **Every spawned agent must invoke `lisa-tracker-write` for each sub-task — no agent may call `lisa-jira-write-ticket` / `lisa-github-write-issue` / `gh issue create` directly.** Each sub-task MUST: 1. **Be scoped to exactly ONE repo** — indicated in brackets in the summary: `[repo-name]` and in the body/description's `## Repository` / `h2. Repository` section. 2. **Include an Empirical Verification Plan** — real user-like verification, NOT unit tests, linting, or typechecking. 3. **Carry its own `## Source Requirement` section** (shared format above) with the full verbatim quote(s) from the Phase 1.4 register — a leaf claimed by build-intake in isolation must be self-explanatory. When a sub-task is split per-repo, every split child inherits the same requirement quote(s). **Leaf-only build-ready (`leaf-only-lifecycle`)**: Sub-tasks are the **leaf work units** of the decomposition — they are the ONLY items in the hierarchy that receive the build-ready label. `lisa-tracker-write` applies `status:ready` here so downstream build intake (`lisa-github-build-intake`) claims the leaves and never the Epic or Stories. **Pass `build_ready: true` explicitly on every Sub-task create** — per the `ready-role-filing` rule an omitted `build_ready` is NOT build-ready on any tracker, so a decomposition that relies on a vendor default silently produces a queue nothing ever claims. Apply `status:ready` to each Sub-task; never to its parent Story or Epic (Phases 3–4). `lisa-github-write-issue` enforces the same invariant on the write side, so a Sub-task split into per-repo children (the cross-repo case above) carries build-ready on the children, not on any intermediate parent that gains child work. Sub-tasks inherit their parent Story's artifacts by reference (the parent link). Do not pass the same artifact list to every sub-task. ### Phase 5.5: Artifact Preservation Gate (mandatory) Run the preservation gate defined in `lisa-tracker-source-artifacts` §8 against the artifacts extracted in Phase 1.5 and the tickets just created. Do NOT restate or modify the gate logic here — invoke the rules from `lisa-tracker-source-artifacts`. To run the gate, this skill must: 1. Pull the remote links / `## Source Artifacts` section / `## Links` section of every Epic and Story created in this run via `lisa-tracker-read`. 2. Apply the §8 preservation matrix and verdict rules. 3. If the gate fails: list each dropped/misrouted artifact and either re-attach via `lisa-tracker-write` (UPDATE mode) or stop and ask the human. 4. If the gate passes: print the matrix compactly and proceed to Phase 6. This gate is not optional. ### Phase 6: Report Results After all tickets are created, present a summary table to the user: - All Epics with refs and URLs - All Stories grouped by Epic - All Sub-tasks grouped by Story with repo tags - **Requirement coverage** — one row per Phase 1.4 register entry (`R-id`, quote excerpt, tickets that declare it); requirements with zero tickets are a gap to resolve before reporting success - Repo distribution - **Artifact Preservation Matrix** - Blockers list with recommendations and alternatives - Cross-PRD dependencies ### Phase 7: PRD Back-link > **Mode guard**: In `dry_run: true` mode, skip this phase entirely — no tickets exist to link. After Phase 6, invoke the `lisa-prd-backlink` skill to write a `## Tickets` section back into the source GitHub Issue PRD body. The section becomes the canonical anchor for the **Debrief** flow once the initiative ships. Invoke `lisa-prd-backlink` with: - `source_type: "github"` - `source_ref`: the original GitHub Issue URL or `/#` token - `tickets`: the full list created in Phases 3–5, each entry as `{ key, title, type, url, parent_key, requirements }` — `requirements` is the list of Phase 1.4 register ids the ticket satisfies (empty for derived work) - `requirement_register`: the Phase 1.4 register (`{ id, verbatim_text, section_heading }` entries), so the back-link section can render the requirement → tickets view If `lisa-prd-backlink` fails (permission denied, GitHub unreachable, issue locked), surface the error in the Phase 6 report rather than aborting — the tickets are already created. Recommend the user re-run `lisa-prd-backlink` standalone once the source is reachable. ## Handling Ambiguities and Blockers When you encounter something the PRD + comments + codebase can't resolve: 1. **Don't guess** — mark the ticket with a BLOCKER section. 2. **Include your recommendation** with rationale. 3. **List 2-3 alternatives** so the user/product can choose. 4. **State what's needed to unblock.** ## Agent Prompt Template for Sub-task Creation When delegating to agents, provide this context. **The "MUST invoke tracker-write" instruction is load-bearing — do not edit it out when adapting this template.** ```text Create Sub-tasks via the configured destination tracker. CRITICAL: For each sub-task, invoke the `lisa-tracker-write` skill via the Skill tool. Do NOT call `lisa-jira-write-ticket`, `lisa-github-write-issue`, or `gh issue create` directly. The `lisa-tracker-write` shim dispatches to the configured destination AND enforces required quality gates (Gherkin acceptance criteria, multi-section description, single-repo scope, sign-in/environment fields, post-create verification). Bypassing it produces broken tickets that downstream skills (triage, journey, evidence) cannot use. For each sub-task, invoke `lisa-tracker-write` with: - issue_type: "Sub-task" - build_ready: true # explicit per `ready-role-filing`; omitted is NOT build-ready on any tracker - prd_source: [the originating PRD URL — mandatory; arms the S16 traceability gate] - parent_ref: the parent story ref - summary: prefixed with the repo in brackets, e.g. "[backend-api] Add audit log table" - body: a multi-section draft (Context / Technical Approach / Acceptance Criteria / etc.) plus `## Repository` / `h2. Repository` naming exactly one repo, plus `## Source Requirement` quoting the PRD requirement(s) this sub-task satisfies VERBATIM with the PRD link and register id(s) — [paste the exact requirement text and R-ids for each sub-task from the requirement register; do not let the agent paraphrase] - gherkin_acceptance_criteria: derived from the story's functional requirements - sign_in_account: [test user credentials from config] - target_environment: "dev" - empirical_verification_plan: real user-like verification (curl + auth token, Playwright browser flow, CLI check after deploy) using the test credentials. NOT unit tests. Each sub-task must: 1. Be scoped to ONE repo only — repo named in brackets in the summary and in `## Repository` / `h2. Repository`. 2. Include the Empirical Verification Plan in the body. 3. Be created via `lisa-tracker-write`, not via direct calls. If `lisa-tracker-write` rejects a sub-task, fix the input and re-invoke. Do NOT fall back to a direct vendor-write call to bypass the gate. Test user info: [credentials from config] [Then list all sub-tasks grouped by parent story with details] ``` ## Cross-PRD Shared Infrastructure Track tickets that are shared across PRDs to avoid duplication. When a sub-task overlaps with an existing ticket, reference it instead of creating a duplicate. Use `lisa-tracker-read` to search the destination for existing tickets in the same area before creating new ones for shared infrastructure. ## GitHub-specific notes - **Body format**: GitHub Issues bodies are markdown. Treat headings (`#`, `##`, `###`) as section markers for `prd_section`. - **Native sub-issues**: GitHub native sub-issues (the `addSubIssue` GraphQL mutation) are how Epic→Story→Sub-task is encoded when the destination is also GitHub Issues. The PRD-side reads them via the `subIssues` GraphQL field. - **Comment threading**: GitHub Issues comments are flat — there's no `parentId` (unlike Linear). Decision context is captured by chronological position; quote the comment author + timestamp when surfacing it. - **Anchoring on PRD comments**: GitHub Issues do not have a Confluence-style selection-anchored inline-comment primitive. The orchestrating skill (`lisa-github-prd-intake`) approximates by quoting the relevant body excerpt at the top of each comment. The dry-run report's `prd_anchor` is the section heading the failure traces to (or `null` for body-wide failures). - **Self-host edge case**: when `tracker = "github"` AND the source PRD repo is the same as the destination repo, both reads and writes hit one place. The PRD carries `prd-*` labels; built tickets carry `type:*` + `status:*` labels. The two namespaces never overlap. `lisa-prd-ticket-coverage` filters out the source PRD itself when listing destination tickets.