Lisa Linear To Tracker

Linear PRD to Tracker Breakdown

Convert a Linear PRD (a Linear Project) into a structured ticket hierarchy in the configured destination tracker (JIRA, GitHub Issues, or Linear per .lisa.config.json): Epics > Stories > Sub-tasks. Each sub-task is scoped to exactly one repo and includes an empirical verification plan.

This skill is the Linear counterpart of lisa-notion-to-tracker and lisa-confluence-to-tracker. The three 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 THREE skills together so the source vendors stay behaviorally identical.

What "PRD" means in Linear

Linear has no native "PRD" entity. This skill treats a Linear Project as the PRD container:

• Project description (markdown) is the PRD body — equivalent to a Notion page body or a Confluence page body.
• Project documents (Linear's long-form markdown docs attached to projects, fetched via list-documents({projectId}) / get-document) are treated as additional spec content and merged into the analysis. A multi-document Linear PRD is the analog of a multi-page Confluence PRD.
• Project sub-issues (list-issues({project})) act as the candidate set for epics and user stories — the same role child Epic pages play in a Notion/Confluence PRD.
• Linear comments live on Issues, not on Projects. This skill aggregates comments from every issue under the project to capture decisions and engineering notes. Project-level discussion that isn't reflected on an issue is invisible to this skill.

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-linear-prd-intake) can decide whether to proceed.

Dry-run output format is identical to lisa-notion-to-tracker's and lisa-confluence-to-tracker's. Reuse the same fields, including prd_anchor and prd_section, the ### Requirement register section, and the per-node requirements: lists. The only difference: Linear has no inline-comment selection-anchor primitive at the project level — prd_anchor is the anchor a downstream caller would use to post a comment on the related sub-issue (typically the issue identifier, e.g. LIN-123, scoped to a section heading). When the failure does not map to any single sub-issue, set prd_anchor: null and the caller posts it on the project itself.

## linear-to-tracker dry-run: <PRD title>

### Requirement register
- R1 §"<section heading>": "<verbatim requirement text>"
- R2 §"<section heading>": "<verbatim requirement text>"
- ...

### Planned hierarchy
- Epic: <summary>
  prd_section: "<heading text from the project description / document that produced this epic>"
  prd_anchor: "<linear issue identifier or null>"
  requirements: [R1, R2]   # register ids this ticket exists to satisfy; [] only for derived work
  - Story 1.1: <summary>
    prd_section: "<heading or user-story line>"
    prd_anchor: "<linear issue identifier or null>"
    requirements: [R1]
    - Sub-task [<repo>]: <summary>
      prd_section: "<heading or AC bullet>"
      prd_anchor: "<linear issue identifier or null>"
      requirements: [R1]
    - ...
  - Story 1.2: ...

### Per-ticket validation
- <ticket-id>: PASS | FAIL — <count> failures
  prd_section: "<heading text>"
  prd_anchor: "<linear issue identifier or null>"
  failures:
    - gate: <gate-id>
      category: <category from validator>
      product_relevant: <true|false>
      what: <plain-language description from validator>
      recommendation: <1–3 candidate resolutions from validator>

### Verdict: PASS | FAIL
### Total failures: <n>

The dry-run mode never writes to JIRA and never writes through any vendor tool directly. It also never modifies the source Linear project, never adds/removes labels, never edits sub-issues, and never posts comments — that is the orchestrating skill's responsibility (lisa-linear-prd-intake).

Hard Rule: All Writes Go Through lisa-tracker-write

Every JIRA ticket created by this skill — every epic, story, and sub-task — MUST be created by invoking the lisa-tracker-write skill. Never call a vendor MCP tool or REST endpoint directly from this skill or from any sub-agent it spawns.

lisa-tracker-write enforces gates this skill does not:

• 3-audience description (Context / Technical Approach / Acceptance Criteria)
• Gherkin acceptance criteria
• Epic parent validation
• Explicit issue-link discovery (blocks / is blocked by / relates to / duplicates / clones)
• Single-repo scope check on Bug / Task / Sub-task / Improvement
• Sign-in account and target environment recorded in description
• Post-create verification

Bypassing lisa-tracker-write produces thin tickets that the rest of the lifecycle (triage, ticket-verify, journey, evidence) treats as broken. Atlassian reads in this skill are limited to the tools listed in allowed-tools (currently getJiraIssueRemoteIssueLinks) for the Phase 5.5 preservation gate. The Linear read tools listed in allowed-tools above are PRD-side only and 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 description so anyone can answer "why was this done?" without leaving the ticket:

## Source Requirement

- **PRD**: [<PRD title>](<PRD URL>) §"<section heading>"
- **Requirement (R3)**: "<verbatim requirement text from the PRD>"

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 Linear project URL, slug, or ID. The PRD is expected to have:

• A project with a description containing context, problems, and (optionally) a list of user stories
• One or more sub-issues that act as candidate epics or user stories
• Optionally one or more Linear documents attached to the project, with deeper spec content
• Issue comments capturing engineering notes and product decisions

URL parsing — Linear project URLs come in this shape:

https://linear.app/<workspace>/project/<slug>-<short-id>
https://linear.app/<workspace>/project/<slug>-<short-id>/<view>

Extract the trailing <short-id> (the alphanumeric segment after the last - in the slug). If only a workspace or team URL is provided (no /project/<slug>-<id> segment), stop and report — single-PRD mode requires a specific project. The caller wanted lisa-linear-prd-intake (batch mode).

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 (Linear); destination tracker resolution is handled by lisa-tracker-write and lisa-tracker-validate internally — this skill does NOT read tracker directly. The relevant config for the source side:

From environment variables (E2E test config — operational, not tracker)

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. Resolve the project via lisa-linear-access operation: get-project with the slug or ID, including milestones and resources (includeMilestones: true, includeResources: true). Capture the project title, description, state, labels, lead, dates, attached documents, attached links.
2. Fetch attached Linear documents via lisa-linear-access operation: list-documents({projectId}) then lisa-linear-access operation: get-document per result. Treat each as additional PRD content. (A Linear PRD with a single rich project description and no attached documents is the common case; multi-document PRDs are valid too.)
3. Identify candidate epics and user stories from project sub-issues via lisa-linear-access operation: list-issues({project: <id>}). Capture identifier, title, description, labels, state, parent issue, and parentId chain so the issue hierarchy is reproducible.
4. Fetch full comments per sub-issue via lisa-linear-access operation: list-comments({issueId}) for every issue surfaced in step 3. Walk thread parents/children — comments are threaded via parentId references on the comment object.
5. Synthesize decisions and blockers from the project description + every document + every issue comment:
   • Decisions already confirmed by the team (look for agreement in comment threads)
   • Open questions that need product/engineering input
   • Engineering comments (prefixed with "Engineering:" or wrench emoji) that identify technical constraints
   • Cross-PRD dependencies (references to other Linear projects, documents, or 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 project description, every attached document, and every sub-issue description. 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 the sub-issue identifier) 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 Linear or Confluence 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 project description, every attached document body, every sub-issue description, and every fetched comment thread 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 project / documents
   • 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 (Figma /proto/ vs design, Lovable as ux-flow, Loom, screenshots), and coverage smells. Do not restate the rules here — invoke the skill so any drift in the rules propagates uniformly.

3. Build an artifacts map keyed by domain. Each entry: { url, title, domain, source_page, source_page_url, classification_reason }. The classification_reason makes disambiguation auditable. The source_page lets you trace each reference back to where it appeared (project description vs a specific document title vs a specific sub-issue comment).

4. Surface coverage smells as defined in lisa-tracker-source-artifacts §5. Record any detected smells 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 and lisa-confluence-to-tracker Phase 2. Two complementary inputs ground PRD analysis: the code (what's there to reuse / extend) and the live product (what users see today). Skipping either produces tickets that misjudge the change.

2a. Codebase research. If the session doesn't already have codebase context, explore the repos to understand what exists. Use Explore agents for repos not yet examined.

2b. Live product walkthrough. If the PRD touches existing user-facing surfaces, invoke the lisa-product-walkthrough skill 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-linear-prd-intake), which posts them on the project itself. This skill itself does NOT post to Linear — it only reads. The walkthrough section is also inherited onto the resulting epic / stories under a ## Current Product subsection in the JIRA description.

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, description_body, artifacts) and validate it with lisa-tracker-validate --spec-only. Record the drafted spec (including a placeholder epic key like DRY-RUN-EPIC-1) for Phase 4 to use as parent references. In dry_run: false mode (default), proceed as described below.

For each epic identified in Phase 1, invoke the lisa-tracker-write skill (do not call createJiraIssue directly). Pass it everything it needs to enforce its quality gates:

• project_key: resolved by lisa-tracker-write from .lisa.config.json
• 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
• description_body: a draft of the 3-audience description containing:
  • A Source Requirement section (see the shared format above) citing the Linear project 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 Linear project 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. No filtering at the epic level.
• priority, labels, components, fix_version: as appropriate

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 the build-ready role for an Epic, and the Epic's lifecycle state rolls up from its children. The build-ready role is applied only in Phase 5.

Capture the returned epic key — 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 in this phase. Instead, draft each story spec and validate it with lisa-tracker-validate --spec-only. Use placeholder keys (e.g. DRY-RUN-STORY-1.1) for any downstream references. In dry_run: false mode (default), proceed as described below.

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 Linear 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:

• project_key: resolved by lisa-tracker-write from .lisa.config.json
• issue_type: Story
• prd_source: the originating PRD URL — mandatory for every ticket this skill creates; it arms the validator's S16 traceability gate
• epic_parent: the Epic key captured in Phase 3 (mandatory)
• summary: prefixed per the naming convention above
• description_body: 3-audience 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 below

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 the build-ready role to lisa-tracker-write for a Story. Its lifecycle state rolls up from its Sub-tasks. The build-ready role is applied only in Phase 5.

Capture each returned story key — Phase 5 needs it as the parent for sub-tasks.

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. Work units that may span repos (Epic, Story, Spike) stay as planned; work units that must be single-repo (Bug, Task, Sub-task, Improvement) are split now. 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 createJiraIssue directly.

Each sub-task MUST:

1. Be scoped to exactly ONE repo — indicated in brackets in the summary: [repo-name] and in the 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 role. lisa-tracker-write applies the build-ready role here so downstream build intake (lisa-tracker-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 the build-ready role to each Sub-task; never to its parent Story or Epic (Phases 3–4). lisa-tracker-write 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 of every epic and story created in this run via lisa-tracker-read (vendor-neutral; dispatches to jira-read-ticket or github-read-issue).
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 keys 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 Linear project (or its description). The section becomes the canonical anchor for the Debrief flow once the initiative ships.

Invoke lisa-prd-backlink with:

• source_type: "linear"
• source_ref: the original Linear project URL
• 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, Linear unreachable), 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 jira-write-ticket" instruction is load-bearing — do not edit it out when adapting this template.

Create JIRA sub-tasks in the [PROJECT] project at [CLOUD_ID].

CRITICAL: For each sub-task, invoke the `lisa-tracker-write` skill via the Skill tool.
Do NOT call a vendor MCP tool directly. The `lisa-tracker-write` skill
enforces required quality gates (Gherkin acceptance criteria, 3-audience 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: the parent story key
- project_key: [PROJECT]
- summary: prefixed with the repo in brackets, e.g. "[backend-api] Add audit log table"
- description_body: a 3-section draft (Context / Technical Approach / Acceptance Criteria) plus `h2. Repository` naming exactly one repo, plus `h2. 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 — name + role + how to obtain]
- 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, linting, or typechecking.

Each sub-task must:
1. Be scoped to ONE repo only — repo named in brackets in the summary and in `h2. Repository`
2. Include the Empirical Verification Plan in the description
3. Be created via `lisa-tracker-write`, not via direct MCP calls

If `lisa-tracker-write` rejects a sub-task, fix the input and re-invoke. Do NOT fall back
to a direct `createJiraIssue` 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. Search JIRA for existing tickets in the project before creating new ones for shared infrastructure.

Linear-specific notes

• Project description format: Linear project descriptions are markdown. Treat headings (#, ##, ###) as section markers for prd_section.
• Document parents: Linear documents are attached to either a Project or an Issue (exactly one). For PRD intake, only documents attached to the project being processed are in scope. Documents attached to a child Issue are picked up via that issue's content surface.
• Comment threading: Linear comments are threaded via a parentId field on each comment. When fetching comments via list_comments, capture the full reply tree — replies often hold the actual decision while the root comment was the question.
• No inline selection anchors on a project: Linear has no equivalent of a Notion selection snippet or a Confluence inline comment, so an unanchored failure has no in-text location to attach to. It still lands on the project — lisa-linear-access operation: save-comment project_id:<ID> posts a project-level comment — just as a whole-page comment rather than an inline one. This skill does not write to Linear at all; it only reads.
• Issue identifiers (LIN-123, ENG-456, etc.) are the closest analog to a Confluence inline-comment anchor. When dry-run output sets prd_anchor to an issue identifier, the caller knows it can post a clarifying-question comment on that specific issue if it wants block-level anchoring.