@codyswann/lisa 2.119.1 → 2.121.1

package/plugins/lisa-agy/skills/linear-validate-issue/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,313 @@
+---
+name: linear-validate-issue
+description: "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."
+allowed-tools: ["Bash", "mcp__linear-server__list_teams", "mcp__linear-server__get_team", "mcp__linear-server__list_projects", "mcp__linear-server__get_project", "mcp__linear-server__list_issues", "mcp__linear-server__get_issue", "mcp__linear-server__list_issue_labels", "mcp__linear-server__list_project_labels"]
+---
+
+# 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 `<workspace>/project/<slug>-<id>` 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: <uuid>  # Required for Story/Task/Improvement when in Epic context
+parent_issue_id: <uuid>    # Required for Sub-task (the Story Issue)
+description: |             # Full description text — every required section
+  ## Context / Business Value
+  ...
+
+  ## Technical Approach
+  ...
+
+  ## Acceptance Criteria
+  1. Given <precondition>
+     When <action>
+     Then <observable outcome>
+
+  ## 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 `mcp__linear-server__get_issue` (Issue) or `mcp__linear-server__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.
+
+#### 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}`, 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)"`.
+
+Story / Epic / Spike: skipped (may span repos — these are coordination containers, not 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 Project / Story / Spike (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** — `issue_type ∈ {Epic, Story, Spike}` OR child work is present (any type that has 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 container-type + build-ready** — `issue_type ∈ {Epic, Story, Spike}` with **no** child work, AND build-ready. Still FAIL: these types are coordination containers by design, and an empty one is an incomplete decomposition, not an implementable unit (the childless-parent exception in `leaf-only-lifecycle` does **not** promote an Epic/Story/Spike to build-ready).
+
+PASS (the childless-parent exception) when the item is build-ready and is a **leaf work unit**: `issue_type ∈ {Bug, Task, Sub-task, Improvement}` AND has **no** child work. A flat Task or Bug 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 | no | yes | **PASS** (leaf) |
+| Bug / Task / Sub-task / Improvement | yes | yes | **FAIL** (structurally a container) |
+| Epic / Story / Spike | yes | yes | **FAIL** (container with children) |
+| Epic / Story / Spike | no | yes | **FAIL** (childless container-type, 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/Story/Spike, 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 `mcp__linear-server__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 `mcp__linear-server__get_project`, confirm it exists and belongs to the configured team.
+
+When `parent_issue_id` is set (Sub-task case): fetch via `mcp__linear-server__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 `mcp__linear-server__get_issue` to confirm the identifier resolves. Flag broken identifiers.
+
+#### F4 — Required labels exist (or can be created)
+
+For each label referenced (`status:*`, `component:<name>`, `prd-*`), confirm via `mcp__linear-server__list_issue_labels` (or `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 `mcp__linear-server__list_teams({query: <teamKey>})` 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: <IDENTIFIER-or-SUMMARY>
+
+### Specification Gates
+- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S1 Required core fields — <one-line reason>
+- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S2 Summary format — <one-line reason>
+- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S3 Description three audiences — <one-line reason>
+- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S4 Acceptance criteria in Gherkin — <one-line reason>
+- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S5 Bug-specific content — <one-line reason>
+- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S6 Spike-specific content — <one-line reason>
+- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S7 Project parent declared — <one-line reason>
+- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S8 Target Backend Environment — <one-line reason>
+- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S9 Sign-in Required — <one-line reason>
+- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S10 Single-repo scope — <one-line reason>
+- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S11 Validation Journey — <one-line reason>
+- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S12 Source Precedence — <one-line reason>
+- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S13 Relationship Search — <one-line reason>
+- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S14 Evidence manifest binding — <one-line reason>
+- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S15 Leaf-only build-ready — <one-line reason>
+
+### Feasibility Gates  (omit when --spec-only)
+- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] F1 Issue type valid in team — <one-line reason>
+- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] F2 Project parent exists and is in same team — <one-line reason>
+- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] F3 Linked items exist — <one-line reason>
+- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] F4 Required labels exist (or can be created) — <one-line reason>
+
+### Verdict: PASS | FAIL
+### Failures: <count>
+### Failure details
+- gate: <gate-id>
+  category: <category>
+  product_relevant: <true|false>
+  what: <plain-language description, no gate-IDs, no Linear jargon>
+  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.

package/plugins/lisa-agy/skills/linear-verify/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+---
+name: linear-verify
+description: "Verifies a Linear work item meets organizational standards by fetching the live item and running it through lisa:linear-validate-issue. Catches anything dropped or reformatted on write — same gates as the pre-write check, but applied to what Linear actually stored. Read-only."
+allowed-tools: ["Bash", "Skill", "mcp__linear-server__list_teams", "mcp__linear-server__get_issue", "mcp__linear-server__get_project", "mcp__linear-server__list_issue_labels", "mcp__linear-server__list_project_labels"]
+---
+
+# Verify Linear Work Item: $ARGUMENTS
+
+Fetch the live Linear work item and run it through `lisa:linear-validate-issue`. This catches any field that was dropped or reformatted between the pre-write spec and what Linear stored.
+
+This skill is the destination of the `lisa:tracker-verify` shim when `tracker = "linear"`. Read-only — never writes.
+
+## Configuration
+
+Reads `linear.workspace`, `linear.teamKey` from `.lisa.config.json` (with `.local` override).
+
+## Input
+
+`$ARGUMENTS` is a Linear identifier:
+- An Issue identifier (e.g. `ENG-123`)
+- A Project URL or slug (e.g. `https://linear.app/<workspace>/project/<slug>-<id>`)
+
+If `$ARGUMENTS` is not parseable, stop and report.
+
+## Phase 1 — Resolve Context
+
+1. Read `linear.workspace`, `linear.teamKey` from `.lisa.config.json` (with `.local` override).
+2. Resolve team ID via `mcp__linear-server__list_teams({query: <teamKey>})`.
+3. Determine entity type from the identifier shape:
+   - `<TEAM>-<n>` → Issue
+   - URL containing `/project/<slug>-<id>` → Project
+
+## Phase 2 — Fetch Live State
+
+Call `mcp__linear-server__get_issue` (for Issues) or `mcp__linear-server__get_project` (for Projects). Capture every field, label, relation, comment, milestone, and project membership.
+
+## Phase 3 — Delegate to Validator
+
+Pass the fetched item to `lisa:linear-validate-issue` (in identifier mode — let it derive the spec from the live state). The validator runs both Specification AND Feasibility gates against what Linear actually stored.
+
+## Phase 4 — Report
+
+Return the validator's report verbatim — same structured format as `lisa:linear-validate-issue`. Callers (especially `lisa:linear-write-issue` Phase 7) parse the verdict to decide whether to declare success.
+
+If the verdict is `FAIL`, the caller should fix the item and re-run verify. Never declare success on a `FAIL` verdict.
+
+## Rules
+
+- Never write to Linear. Read-only.
+- Never short-circuit the validator. Always run the full gate set.
+- If `get_issue` / `get_project` returns an access error, surface it and exit — don't pretend the item is fine.