# Lisa Linear Validate Issue > Validates a proposed Linear work item spec (Project, Issue, or sub-Issue) — or an existing Linear item — against the organizational quality gates without writing anything. Returns a structured PASS/FAIL report per gate with concrete remediation. Single source of truth for what makes a valid Linear item — both the write path (linear-write-issue runs it pre-write) and the dry-run path (linear-to-tracker runs it during PRD intake) call this skill so the bar can never drift. - Skill: `codyswanngt/lisa-linear-validate-issue-2` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add codyswanngt/lisa-linear-validate-issue-2` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/codyswanngt/lisa-linear-validate-issue-2/raw - Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS) - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Product & Planning - Author: codyswanngt (https://skillmd.com/u/codyswanngt) - Updated: 2026-09-21 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/codyswanngt/lisa-linear-validate-issue-2 --- # Validate Linear Work Item: $ARGUMENTS Run all organizational quality gates against a Linear work item spec OR an existing Linear item. **This skill is read-only — it never writes to Linear.** The output is a structured report consumed by callers (`lisa-linear-write-issue` for pre-write gating, `lisa-linear-to-tracker` for PRD dry-run, `lisa-linear-verify` for post-write checks). ## Configuration Reads `linear.workspace`, `linear.teamKey` from `.lisa.config.json` (with `.local` override) for any feasibility lookups. ## Input `$ARGUMENTS` is one of: 1. **An existing Linear identifier** (e.g. `ENG-123` for an Issue, or `/project/-` for a Project): fetch and validate the live state. 2. **A proposed item spec** (YAML block, see schema below): validate as-is without touching Linear. ### Spec schema ```yaml issue_type: Story # Epic | Story | Task | Bug | Spike | Sub-task | Improvement team_key: ENG summary: "[CU-1.2] Upload contract PDF from settings" priority: 3 # Linear native: 0=No priority, 1=Urgent, 2=High, 3=Medium, 4=Low parent_project_id: # Required for Story/Task/Improvement when in Epic context parent_issue_id: # Required for Sub-task (the Story Issue) description: | # Full description text — every required section ## Context / Business Value ... ## Technical Approach ... ## Acceptance Criteria 1. Given When Then ## Out of Scope ... ## Target Backend Environment dev ## Sign-in Required Account: ... ## Repository backend-api ## Validation Journey ... # Behavioral flags — caller asserts these so the validator picks the right gates runtime_behavior_change: true # → requires Target Backend Environment + Validation Journey authenticated_surface: true # → requires Sign-in Required artifacts_attached: true # → requires Source Precedence section relations: [{ id: "ENG-99", type: "blocked_by" }] # known issue relations (may be empty) remote_links: [{ url: "https://github.com/...", title: "PR #42" }] build_ready: true # caller asserts the build-ready role (status:ready) is/would be applied — see S15 child_refs: ["ENG-601", "ENG-602"] # known child work (sub-issues / project-member issues / blocked_by parentage) — see S15 ``` If the caller passes only an identifier, fetch the item via `lisa-linear-access operation: get-issue` (Issue) or `lisa-linear-access operation: get-project` (Project), derive the same fields from the fetched data — including `build_ready` (label set contains `status:ready`) and `child_refs` (sub-issues, project-member issues, plus `blocked_by` parentage, resolved as in `lisa-linear-read-issue`) so S15 can classify the item — then run gates. ## Gates Gates are grouped into **Specification** (spec-only checks, no Linear lookups) and **Feasibility** (requires Linear lookups). The dry-run path may opt to run Specification gates only; the write path runs both. Each gate is tagged with a fixed `category` and a `product_relevant` boolean. Categories drive how downstream callers (notably `lisa-linear-prd-intake`) translate failures into product-facing comments; `product_relevant=false` failures indicate internal data-quality problems the agent should fix itself rather than ask product to clarify. | Gate | Category | Product-relevant | |------|----------|------------------| | S1 Required core fields | `structural` | false | | S2 Summary format | `structural` | false | | S3 Description three audiences | `product-clarity` | true | | S4 Acceptance criteria in Gherkin | `acceptance-criteria` | true | | S5 Bug-specific content | `product-clarity` | true | | S6 Spike-specific content | `scope` | true | | S7 Project parent declared | `structural` | false | | S8 Target Backend Environment | `technical` | false | | S9 Sign-in Required | `technical` | false | | S10 Single-repo scope | `scope` | false | | S11 Validation Journey | `acceptance-criteria` | true | | S12 Source Precedence | `design-ux` | true | | S13 Relationship Search | `dependency` | true | | S14 Evidence manifest binding (leaf work units) | `acceptance-criteria` | true | | S15 Leaf-only build-ready | `structural` | false | | F1 Issue type valid in team | `structural` | false | | F2 Project parent exists and is in same team | `structural` | false | | F3 Linked items exist | `structural` | false | | F4 Required labels exist (or can be created) | `structural` | false | Category values are the same fixed set as `lisa-jira-validate-ticket`: - `product-clarity` — feature behavior or user intent unclear in the PRD - `acceptance-criteria` — pass/fail conditions missing or ambiguous - `design-ux` — visual or interaction spec missing - `scope` — boundary unclear, items overlap, split needed - `dependency` — blocked by another team / system / decision - `data` — data source / shape / volume unspecified - `technical` — engineering decision required - `structural` — internal data-quality problem the agent must fix itself, not surface to product ### Specification Gates #### S1 — Required core fields `team_key`, `issue_type`, `summary`, `priority`, `description` must all be present and non-empty. #### S2 — Summary format - Single line, ≤ 100 characters - Imperative voice ("Add X", "Fix Y", not "Adding X" or "X is broken") - Bug / Task / Sub-task summaries SHOULD start with a `[repo-name]` prefix when the project convention uses one #### S3 — Description has all three audiences Description text must include all of these sections (case-insensitive `##` markdown headings): - `Context / Business Value` — stakeholder-facing - `Technical Approach` — developer-facing - `Acceptance Criteria` — coding-assistant-facing - `Out of Scope` — explicit non-coverage list Missing any → FAIL with name of missing section. #### S4 — Acceptance criteria in Gherkin Applies when `issue_type ∈ {Story, Task, Bug, Sub-task, Improvement}`. The `Acceptance Criteria` section must contain at least one criterion in `Given / When / Then` form. Reject prose-only criteria, "should work" language, or numbered lists without Given/When/Then verbs. #### S5 — Bug-specific content When `issue_type = Bug`, description must additionally include: - Reproduction steps - Expected vs. actual behavior - Environment where reproduced #### S6 — Spike-specific content When `issue_type = Spike`, description must include: - The question being answered - Definition of done (decision doc / prototype / findings deliverable) #### S7 — Project parent declared When `issue_type ∈ {Story, Task, Improvement}` AND the item is part of an Epic context, `parent_project_id` must be set. When `issue_type = Sub-task`, `parent_issue_id` must be set. (Validity of the IDs is checked in feasibility gates.) For top-level Bug / Spike not under an Epic, this gate is N/A. A **build-ready leaf work unit** that is not part of an Epic context stands alone: a flat `Task` / `Improvement`, or a childless `Story` / `Spike` (no open child work) with `build_ready = true`, is an independently claimable leaf per `leaf-only-lifecycle` ("must not be stranded"), so a missing `parent_project_id` is `N/A`, not a FAIL. A `Sub-task` is exempt from this exception — it always requires `parent_issue_id`. This mirrors the leaf carve-out already in S10/S15. #### S8 — Target Backend Environment When `runtime_behavior_change = true`, description must contain `## Target Backend Environment` with one of `dev`, `staging`, `prod`. Skipped for doc-only / config-only / type-only / Epic. #### S9 — Sign-in Required When `authenticated_surface = true`, description must contain `## Sign-in Required` naming the account/role and credential source. If the spec doesn't set `authenticated_surface`, infer it: scan the description and AC for sign-in / login / "as a {role} user" / authenticated route signals. If signals present and no `Sign-in Required` section: FAIL. #### S10 — Repository section, single-repo scope When `issue_type ∈ {Bug, Task, Sub-task, Improvement}` — or a **build-ready childless Story/Spike** (a claimable leaf per `leaf-only-lifecycle`) — description must contain `## Repository` naming exactly one repo. Multiple repos OR cross-repo references in AC: FAIL with recommendation `"Split into per-repo work units under a shared parent Story (see lisa-task-decomposition step 1.5)"`. An **Epic** (a Linear Project), or a **Story/Spike that still holds child work** (or is not build-ready): skipped (may span repos — coordination containers, not claimable leaf work units). This gate is `product_relevant: false` because cross-repo work units are not a product question — they are a decomposition error. Callers (`lisa-linear-to-tracker`, `lisa-notion-to-tracker`, etc.) MUST pre-split cross-repo work into per-repo work units during the decomposition phase per `lisa-task-decomposition` step 1.5; an S10 failure here indicates the agent skipped that step and must auto-split + revalidate before writing, not surface a clarifying comment to product. #### S11 — Validation Journey present When `runtime_behavior_change = true`, description must contain `## Validation Journey`. Skipped for doc-only / config-only / type-only / Epic. The caller controls strictness via `journey_followup: "auto"` or `"none"`: - `auto` (default): missing section returns `FAIL` with remediation `"Invoke lisa-linear-add-journey to append the section after create"`. The write path auto-fixes; dry-run path leaves it as a FAIL the caller must address. - `none`: missing section is a `FAIL` the caller will not auto-fix. #### S12 — Source Precedence (when artifacts attached) When `artifacts_attached = true`, description must include source-precedence guidance covering: business rules → PRD body, visual treatment → mocks, flow → prototypes, API/data → data artifacts. Cross-axis conflicts surfaced under `## Open Questions`. Accept either placement: - A dedicated `## Source Precedence` subsection, OR - A "Source Precedence" / "authoritative source" paragraph under `Technical Approach` covering the four axes. Detect by scanning for the phrase `Source Precedence` (case-insensitive) anywhere in the description AND verifying the four axes are each named. Missing the phrase OR any axis: FAIL with remediation naming the missing axes. #### S13 — Relationship Search documented The item must EITHER have at least one entry in `relations`, OR the description / a comment must contain a `## Relationship Search` block listing the git history queries and Linear MCP queries that were run with their outcomes. An item with zero relations and no documented search: FAIL. #### S14 — Evidence manifest binding (leaf work units) When `issue_type ∈ {Bug, Task, Sub-task, Improvement}` AND `runtime_behavior_change = true`, the `## Validation Journey` must declare at least one `[EVIDENCE: name]` marker. Each marker name must be kebab-case and unique within the item. These markers are the work unit's **evidence manifest** — the exact, enumerated set of artifacts that must be captured and attached before the item may be closed (see the "Per-Work-Unit Evidence Contract" section of the `verification` rule, the Definition of Done in `verification-lifecycle`, and the evidence-manifest gate in `tracker-evidence`). FAIL when the Validation Journey is present but declares zero `[EVIDENCE: name]` markers, or when any marker name is empty, duplicated, or not kebab-case. A behavior-changing work unit SHOULD declare both a success marker and an error/edge marker; a journey with only one marker passes but the remediation should recommend adding the error/edge case. This gate depends on S11. It is `N/A` for containers — a **Project** (the Epic equivalent), or any item with open child work (coordination containers, not work units) — and for leaf units with `runtime_behavior_change = false` (doc-only / config-only / type-only). If S11 fails because the Validation Journey is absent, S14 also FAILs (there is no manifest to bind) with remediation pointing back to `lisa-linear-add-journey`. #### S15 — Leaf-only build-ready Enforces the build-side of the vendor-neutral `leaf-only-lifecycle` rule: **only a leaf work unit may carry the build-ready role.** This is the symmetric write-side guard for the Linear validator — a stale or hand-applied `status:ready` label on a container is a lifecycle error and must FAIL here, regardless of how the item was produced. (Mirrors the "Build-ready label is leaf-only" rule that `lisa-linear-write-issue` applies at write time.) **When the gate applies.** Run S15 whenever the item is build-ready — i.e. `build_ready = true`, or the spec/live labels include `status:ready`. If the item is not build-ready, S15 is `N/A` (nothing claims a non-ready item, so the invariant is vacuous). **Resolve container vs. leaf — structural first, then nominal.** Per `leaf-only-lifecycle` the classification is structural: an item is a **container** if it has child work, whatever its declared type; otherwise the **issue type** decides. Determine child work from (in order) `child_refs`, native sub-issues, project-member issues (an Epic is modeled as a Linear Project), and `blocked_by` / parent references — the same hierarchy resolution `lisa-linear-read-issue` uses. When validating a live identifier, query sub-issues / project members alongside the item fetch. Apply this decision and FAIL the two invariant-violating cases: 1. **Container with child work + build-ready** — child work is present (any type that has open children), AND build-ready. FAIL. A parent organizes work; it is never claimed and implemented directly. Its lifecycle state rolls up from its children. 2. **Childless Epic/Project + build-ready** — `issue_type = Epic` (a Linear Project) with **no** child work, AND build-ready. Still FAIL: an Epic/Project is a pure rollup container by design, and a childless one is an incomplete decomposition or a mis-applied role, not an implementable unit. (A childless Story or Spike is **not** failed here — the childless-parent exception in `leaf-only-lifecycle` promotes every childless non-Epic type to a build-ready leaf.) PASS (the childless-parent exception) when the item is build-ready and is a **leaf work unit**: it has **no** open child work and `issue_type ≠ Epic` (i.e. `Bug, Task, Sub-task, Improvement`, or a childless `Story` / `Spike`). A flat Task/Bug, or a childless Story/Spike with no sub-issues, is a valid build-ready leaf and must not be stranded. | issue_type | has child work | build-ready | S15 | |---|---|---|---| | Bug / Task / Sub-task / Improvement / Story / Spike | no | yes | **PASS** (leaf) | | any type | yes | yes | **FAIL** (structurally a container) | | Epic (Project) | no | yes | **FAIL** (childless Epic/Project — pure rollup container, exception does not apply) | | any | any | no | **N/A** (not build-ready) | Remediation: `"Build-ready (status:ready) is leaf-only per leaf-only-lifecycle. Move status:ready off this container onto its leaf children (or, for a childless Epic, decompose it into leaf children or reclassify it to a leaf type); a parent's lifecycle state rolls up from its children and is never set to ready directly."` `product_relevant: false` — a build-ready container is a lifecycle/decomposition error for the caller to repair, not a product question. ### Feasibility Gates (require Linear lookups; skip in dry-run if requested) #### F1 — Issue type valid in team For Issue types: confirm the team supports the issue type via `lisa-linear-access operation: get-team`. Linear issue types are typically per-team; check that the requested type exists. For Epic (Project): confirm the team allows projects. #### F2 — Project parent exists and is in same team When `parent_project_id` is set: fetch via `lisa-linear-access operation: get-project`, confirm it exists and belongs to the configured team. When `parent_issue_id` is set (Sub-task case): fetch via `lisa-linear-access operation: get-issue`, confirm the issue is non-Sub-task and in the same team / project. #### F3 — Linked items exist For each entry in `relations`, call `lisa-linear-access operation: get-issue` to confirm the identifier resolves. Flag broken identifiers. #### F4 — Required labels exist (or can be created) For each label referenced (`status:*`, `component:`, `prd-*`), confirm via `lisa-linear-access operation: list-issue-labels` (or `lisa-linear-access operation: list-project-labels` for Project labels) that it exists OR is creatable. Linear labels are team-scoped or workspace-scoped; flag if the requested scope is wrong. ## Execution 1. Parse `$ARGUMENTS`. If it's an identifier, fetch the item and derive the spec from the fetched fields — including `build_ready` (label set contains `status:ready`) and `child_refs` (sub-issues, project-member issues, plus `blocked_by` parentage, resolved as in `lisa-linear-read-issue`) so S15 can classify the item. Otherwise parse the YAML spec. 2. Resolve team ID via `lisa-linear-access operation: list-teams({query: })` if any feasibility gate will run. 3. Run every Specification gate in order. Collect PASS / FAIL / N/A with a one-line reason. 4. Unless the caller passed `--spec-only` (dry-run), run every Feasibility gate. Collect results. 5. Emit the report below. ## Output Output is a single fenced text block. Callers parse it; do not add free-form prose around it. ```text ## linear-validate-issue: ### Specification Gates - [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S1 Required core fields — - [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S2 Summary format — - [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S3 Description three audiences — - [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S4 Acceptance criteria in Gherkin — - [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S5 Bug-specific content — - [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S6 Spike-specific content — - [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S7 Project parent declared — - [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S8 Target Backend Environment — - [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S9 Sign-in Required — - [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S10 Single-repo scope — - [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S11 Validation Journey — - [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S12 Source Precedence — - [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S13 Relationship Search — - [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S14 Evidence manifest binding — - [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S15 Leaf-only build-ready — ### Feasibility Gates (omit when --spec-only) - [PASS|FAIL|N/A] F1 Issue type valid in team — - [PASS|FAIL|N/A] F2 Project parent exists and is in same team — - [PASS|FAIL|N/A] F3 Linked items exist — - [PASS|FAIL|N/A] F4 Required labels exist (or can be created) — ### Verdict: PASS | FAIL ### Failures: ### Failure details - gate: category: product_relevant: what: recommendation: <1–3 concrete options> - gate: ... ``` The verdict is `PASS` if and only if every applicable gate is `PASS`. Any `FAIL` makes the verdict `FAIL`. `N/A` does not affect the verdict. ## Rules - Never write to Linear. The `allowed-tools` list intentionally excludes any `save_*` tool. - Never auto-fix the spec. This skill reports gaps; callers decide what to do. - Never silently skip a gate. If a gate genuinely doesn't apply, return `N/A` with the reason. - The `what` and `recommendation` fields must be concrete and product-readable — the dry-run path turns each failure into a Linear comment. Vague guidance is useless; always give 1–3 candidate resolutions. - Never emit a category outside the fixed set. - `product_relevant` is determined by the gate, not by the failure context.