Create Linear Bug Issues

Review Bugs

Review the codebase for functional bugs, then file each finding as a Linear issue.

Overview

This skill dispatches a deep codebase analysis focused exclusively on bugs — logic errors, race conditions, resource leaks, null safety issues, error handling gaps, and incorrect state management. Each finding is documented with code snippets and filed as a Linear issue.

Workflow

Phase 1: Gather Linear Context

Before reviewing code, collect the Linear team, project, and user information.

1. Fetch all data in parallel using mcp__claude_ai_Linear__list_teams, mcp__claude_ai_Linear__list_projects, mcp__claude_ai_Linear__list_users, and mcp__claude_ai_Linear__list_issue_labels.

2. Ask the user all three questions in a single AskUserQuestion call with these questions:

   • Team: Which team should the issues be created under? (list all teams from step 1). If only one team exists, auto-select it and skip this question.
   • Project: Which project should the issues be assigned to? (list all projects; if results can be filtered by team, do so after team is known).
   • Assignee: Who should the issues be assigned to? (list all users for the team, plus a "No assignee" option).

   Important: AskUserQuestion requires at least 2 options per question. If a question would have only 1 option, auto-select that option and omit it from the AskUserQuestion call. If all questions can be auto-selected, skip the AskUserQuestion call entirely and inform the user of the auto-selected values.

3. Check existing labels from the fetched label data for the chosen team. If a label named bug does not already exist, create it using mcp__claude_ai_Linear__create_issue_label:

   • bug (color: #e74c3c) — Functional bugs or logic errors

Phase 2: Codebase Bug Review

Dispatch a subagent to review the codebase. Use the feature-dev:code-explorer subagent type for deep analysis.

Bug Finder Agent: Review all source files for functional bugs, logic errors, race conditions, resource leaks, null safety issues, error handling gaps, and incorrect state management. For each finding, produce:

• Title (concise summary)
• Description (what the bug is and when it manifests)
• Impact (what goes wrong if unfixed)
• Importance (Critical / High / Medium / Low)
• Code snippet showing the problem (with file path and line numbers)
• Code snippet showing the suggested fix

Phase 3: Present Findings to User

After the agent completes:

1. Compile all findings into a summary table.
2. Present the summary to the user showing: title, importance, and file location for each finding.
3. Ask for confirmation before creating Linear issues: "I found N bugs. Create all as Linear issues?"
4. Allow the user to exclude specific findings before filing.

Phase 4: File Linear Issues

For each approved finding, create a Linear issue using mcp__claude_ai_Linear__save_issue with:

title: <concise finding title>
team: <user-selected team>
project: <user-selected project>
assignee: <user-selected assignee, or omit if "No assignee" was chosen>
labels: ["bug"]
priority: <mapped from importance: Critical=1, High=2, Medium=3, Low=4>
state: Todo
description: |
  ## Description
  <what the issue is and context>

  ## Impact
  <what goes wrong if left unfixed>

  ## Importance
  <Critical | High | Medium | Low> - <brief justification>

  ## Problem Code
  **File:** `<file_path>`

Suggested Fix

<code snippet showing the corrected code>

After all issues are created, present a final summary with the Linear issue identifiers and links.

## Finding Quality Standards

Each finding must meet these criteria before filing:

- **Specific**: Point to exact code, not vague observations.
- **Actionable**: Include a concrete fix, not just a complaint.
- **Impactful**: Explain real consequences, not theoretical purity concerns.
- **Non-trivial**: Skip style-only nits. Focus on findings that affect correctness or reliability.

## Priority Mapping

| Importance | Linear Priority | Criteria |
|------------|----------------|----------|
| Critical | 1 (Urgent) | Data loss, security flaw, crash in production path |
| High | 2 (High) | Incorrect behavior under common conditions, race condition |
| Medium | 3 (Normal) | Edge-case bugs, minor resource leaks |
| Low | 4 (Low) | Defensive coding gaps unlikely to trigger in practice |