@codyswann/lisa 2.195.4 → 2.195.7

package/plugins/lisa/.codex-plugin/skills/lisa-notion-to-tracker/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,353 @@
+---
+name: lisa-notion-to-tracker
+description: "Break down a Notion PRD into…"
+---
+
+# Notion PRD to Tracker Breakdown
+
+Convert a Notion PRD 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.
+
+> **Notion access policy**: all Notion operations in this skill go through `lisa-notion-access`. Do not call Notion REST APIs (`api.notion.com/...`), Notion MCP tools (`mcp__*notion*`), or the `@notionhq/client` library directly. Invoke `lisa-notion-access` via the Skill tool with an operation name and arguments per its dispatch table.
+
+## 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-notion-prd-intake`) can decide whether to proceed.
+
+Dry-run output format:
+
+```text
+## notion-to-tracker dry-run: <PRD title>
+
+### Planned hierarchy
+- Epic: <summary>
+  prd_section: "<heading text from the PRD that produced this epic>"
+  prd_anchor: "<first ~10 chars>...<last ~10 chars>"   # for selection_with_ellipsis; null if no specific section
+  - Story 1.1: <summary>
+    prd_section: "<heading or user-story line>"
+    prd_anchor: "<start>...<end>"
+    - Sub-task [<repo>]: <summary>
+      prd_section: "<heading or AC bullet>"
+      prd_anchor: "<start>...<end>"
+    - ...
+  - Story 1.2: ...
+
+### Per-ticket validation
+- <ticket-id>: PASS | FAIL — <count> failures
+  prd_section: "<heading text>"
+  prd_anchor: "<start>...<end>"   # mirrored from Planned hierarchy for caller convenience
+  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>
+```
+
+`prd_anchor` and `prd_section` exist so downstream callers (notably `lisa-notion-prd-intake`) can post block-anchored Notion comments via `lisa-notion-access` operation `create-comment`. Build them as you parse the PRD: when you assign a planned ticket to a heading, user-story line, or AC bullet, capture the first ~10 and last ~10 characters of that section's text and emit them in the report. If a planned ticket genuinely doesn't trace to a specific section (cross-cutting infrastructure, derived sub-tasks), set both fields to `null` — the caller will fall back to a page-level comment.
+
+The `failures` array passes the validator's `Failure details` block through verbatim. Do not re-format `what` or `recommendation` here — those fields are already product-readable per the validator's contract, and re-summarizing risks losing concrete recommendations.
+
+The dry-run mode never writes to JIRA and never calls `mcp__atlassian__createJiraIssue`. It also never sets a Notion status — that is the orchestrating skill's responsibility.
+
+## 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 `mcp__atlassian__createJiraIssue`, `mcp__atlassian__editJiraIssue`, `mcp__atlassian__createIssueLink`, or any other Atlassian write tool 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. This is the most common failure mode this skill has had — calling `createJiraIssue` directly is a regression, not an optimization. The Atlassian read tools (`getJiraIssue`, `searchJiraIssuesUsingJql`, `getJiraIssueRemoteIssueLinks`, `getAccessibleAtlassianResources`, `getJiraProjectIssueTypesMetadata`, `getVisibleJiraProjects`) ARE allowed for context gathering and the Phase 5.5 preservation gate.
+
+## Input
+
+A Notion PRD URL. The PRD is expected to have:
+- A main page with context, problems, and links to Epic sub-pages
+- Epic sub-pages with User Stories and functional/non-functional requirements
+- Comments/discussions on each page with engineering notes and product decisions
+
+## 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** (Notion); 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:
+
+| Field | Purpose | Required when |
+|-------|---------|---------------|
+| `notion.prdDatabaseId` | Notion database hosting PRDs | invoked without an explicit Notion page URL (batch / arg-less mode) |
+
+### From environment variables (E2E test config — operational, not tracker)
+
+| Variable | Purpose | Example |
+|----------|---------|---------|
+| `E2E_TEST_PHONE` | Test user phone number 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. **Fetch the main PRD page** by invoking `lisa-notion-access` via the Skill tool with operation `read-page` and `id: <PRD-page-id>`. The returned payload includes the page's properties and content blocks.
+2. **Identify all Epic sub-pages** from the content (look for child page references in the returned block tree).
+3. **Fetch all Epic pages** in parallel — for each child page ID, invoke `lisa-notion-access` operation `read-page`.
+4. **Fetch full comments** from every page by invoking `lisa-notion-access` operation `list-comments` with `block_id: <page-id>` (page comments and block-anchored comments alike). If `list-comments` is not in the access skill's dispatch table yet, surface that to the caller — comments are required for engineering-decision synthesis below.
+5. **Synthesize decisions and blockers** from the PRD content + all comments:
+   - 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 features or shared infrastructure)
+
+### Phase 1.5: Extract Source Artifacts
+
+PRDs typically reference external design, UX, and data artifacts (Figma files, Lovable prototypes, Loom walkthroughs, screenshots, example payloads, 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 PRD main page, all Epic sub-pages, 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, Confluence, Notion peer pages)
+   - 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 on the page itself
+   - 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 ("Figma URL contains `/proto/` → ux-flow"). The `source_page` lets you trace each reference back to where it appeared in the PRD.
+
+4. **Surface coverage smells** as defined in `lisa-tracker-source-artifacts` §5 (zero artifacts, prototype-without-mock, mock-without-prototype, Lovable-without-business-rules). 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 (mocks define visual intent, not implementation shortcut) is defined in `lisa-tracker-source-artifacts` §7. Encode it on every UI-touching story.
+
+### Phase 2: Codebase + Live Product Research
+
+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. Skip repos already explored in the current session.
+
+Key things to look for:
+- Existing entities/modules that overlap with the PRD
+- Patterns to reuse (auth decorators, S3 services, existing UI components)
+- Data model gaps the PRD requires (new fields, new entities)
+- The tech stack per repo (framework, ORM, UI library, deployment)
+
+**2b. Live product walkthrough.** If the PRD touches existing user-facing surfaces (modifies a screen, adds something next to existing functionality, fixes current behavior, re-styles an existing flow), invoke the `lisa-product-walkthrough` skill against `E2E_BASE_URL` using the test user from config. This grounds the ticket plan in what's actually shipped — design-vs-current-product divergence, reuse candidates, and behavioral surprises that the PRD didn't anticipate become inputs to ticket creation rather than discoveries during implementation.
+
+Skip 2b only when the work is purely backend with no user-visible surface, or affects a screen that does not yet exist in dev/prod.
+
+Walkthrough findings are attached to the originating Notion PRD as a comment ("Current product walkthrough — `<route>`") and 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, 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 PRD epic, **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`
+- `summary`: epic title from the PRD
+- `description_body`: a draft of the 3-audience description containing:
+  - **Context / Business Value**: epic summary from the PRD, originating Notion 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, and anyone working on the epic or its descendants must be able to reach the full set from one place. No filtering at the epic level. `lisa-tracker-write` Phase 4c attaches them as remote links.
+- `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 `status:ready` for an Epic, and the Epic's lifecycle state rolls up from its children. The build-ready label 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 (new entities, migrations, new fields, infrastructure like S3 buckets or SQS queues)
+- **One story per user story** from the PRD (numbered to match the PRD)
+
+**Story naming convention**: Prefix the summary with a short code derived from the PRD title:
+- "Contract Upload" -> `[CU-1.1]`
+- "Squad Planning" -> `[SP-1.1]`
+- Use your judgment for other PRDs
+
+For each story, **invoke `lisa-tracker-write`** with:
+
+- `project_key`: resolved by `lisa-tracker-write` from `.lisa.config.json`
+- `issue_type`: `Story`
+- `epic_parent`: the Epic key captured in Phase 3 (mandatory — `lisa-tracker-write` rejects non-bug, non-epic tickets without an epic parent)
+- `summary`: prefixed per the naming convention above
+- `description_body`: a draft of the 3-audience description containing:
+  - **Context / Business Value**: the user story statement from the PRD
+  - **Technical Approach**: notes from engineering comments and Phase 2 codebase research
+  - **Acceptance Criteria** (Gherkin) derived from the functional requirements — `lisa-tracker-write` will reject prose-only acceptance criteria
+  - Blockers with recommendation + alternatives (if any), under `## Open Questions`
+  - A **Source Artifacts** section listing the artifacts inherited from the epic that match this story's scope (see propagation rules below)
+- `artifacts`: the Phase 1.5 artifacts filtered by domain per the inheritance table below — `lisa-tracker-write` Phase 4c attaches them as remote links
+- `priority`, `labels`, `components`, `fix_version`: as appropriate
+
+**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. The build-ready label is applied only in Phase 5.
+
+Capture each returned story key — Phase 5 needs it as the parent for sub-tasks.
+
+**Inherit domain-matching artifacts as story remote links**. For each story, the artifact set passed to `lisa-tracker-write` should be the Phase 1.5 artifacts whose domain matches the story's scope:
+
+| 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 |
+
+When classification is ambiguous, err on the side of inclusion — a developer can ignore a link, but they can't inherit one that wasn't attached. Classification mistakes are caught by the preservation gate in Phase 5.5 and by the human reviewing the final report.
+
+### 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.** This is non-negotiable; see the Agent Prompt Template at the bottom of this skill for the exact instructions to pass.
+
+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. `lisa-tracker-write` enforces single-repo scope on Sub-task; cross-repo or unscoped sub-tasks will be rejected and must be split/restamped before delegation.
+2. **Include an Empirical Verification Plan** — real user-like verification, NOT unit tests, linting, or typechecking
+
+**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-tracker-build-intake`) claims the leaves and never the Epic or Stories. Apply `status:ready` 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.
+
+**Verification plan examples by stack:**
+- **Backend APIs**: curl GraphQL/REST calls with auth token, database queries, checking audit entries
+- **Frontend web**: Playwright browser tests (login with test user, navigate, interact, screenshot)
+- **Infrastructure**: `cdk synth` / `terraform plan` verification, CLI checks after deploy
+
+Use the test user credentials from config for all verification plans. The credentials are passed to `lisa-tracker-write` as the sign-in account so it can record them in the description per its own rules.
+
+For each sub-task, the spawned agent invokes `lisa-tracker-write` with `issue_type: "Sub-task"` and `parent` set to the Story key. The Story key is the parent — the epic relationship is inherited transitively.
+
+Sub-tasks inherit their parent story's artifacts by reference (the parent link). Do not pass the same artifact list to every sub-task — that creates noise. The only exception is when a sub-task depends on an artifact that the parent story doesn't (e.g., a sub-task spec'd from a specific Figma frame that the broader story doesn't cite) — in that case, pass the specific artifact in the `artifacts` parameter to `lisa-tracker-write`.
+
+### 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` so any rule change propagates uniformly.
+
+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 (domain, title, source page, why it was dropped) and either re-attach via `lisa-tracker-write` (UPDATE mode) or stop and ask the human. Never silently proceed past a gate failure.
+4. If the gate passes: print the matrix compactly and proceed to Phase 6.
+
+This gate is not optional. Skipping it is the failure mode the architecture exists to prevent.
+
+### 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
+- Repo distribution (how many tasks per repo)
+- **Artifact Preservation Matrix** — one row per artifact showing which epic/stories reference it
+- 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 PRD. The section becomes the canonical anchor for the **Debrief** flow once the initiative ships, and gives any human reading the PRD months later a one-click path to every work item created from it.
+
+Invoke `lisa-prd-backlink` with:
+
+- `source_type: "notion"`
+- `source_ref`: the original PRD URL
+- `tickets`: the full list created in Phases 3–5, each entry as `{ key, title, type, url, parent_key }`
+
+If `lisa-prd-backlink` fails (PRD permission denied, Notion unreachable, source mutated mid-run), surface the error in the Phase 6 report rather than aborting — the tickets are already created and their value to the team is not blocked by the back-link write. Recommend the user re-run `lisa-prd-backlink` standalone once the source is reachable again.
+
+## 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 (what you'd pick and why)
+3. **List 2-3 alternatives** so the user/product can choose
+4. **State what's needed to unblock** (e.g., "Product decision on X", "Sync with Y on Z")
+
+Common blocker categories:
+- Missing data model decisions (field types, entity relationships)
+- Permission model unclear (who can view/edit)
+- UX decisions not finalized (display format, input mechanism)
+- Cross-team dependencies (shared infrastructure, coordinated rollouts)
+- Preset values not defined (enums, tags, labels)
+
+## 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.**
+
+```text
+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 `mcp__atlassian__createJiraIssue` 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"
+- 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
+- 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 (cross-repo scope, missing Gherkin, missing
+sign-in, etc.), 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.

package/plugins/lisa/.codex-plugin/skills/lisa-notion-to-tracker/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+display_name: "Notion To Tracker"
+short_description: "Break down a Notion PRD into…"
+default_prompt:
+  - "Use $lisa-notion-to-tracker: Break down a Notion PRD into…."

package/plugins/lisa/.codex-plugin/skills/lisa-notion-write-prd/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+---
+name: lisa-notion-write-prd
+description: "Creates or idempotently updates…"
+allowed-tools: ["Skill", "Bash"]
+---
+
+# Write Notion PRD: $ARGUMENTS
+
+Create (or update) a PRD page in the configured Notion PRD database. Invoked by
+`lisa-prd-source-write` when `source = notion`; do not call directly from a vendor-neutral caller.
+**All Notion operations go through `lisa-notion-access`** (the access chokepoint) — never curl the
+Notion API or call a `mcp__*notion*` tool yourself.
+
+`$ARGUMENTS` carries the `lisa-prd-source-write` spec: `title`, `body` (full PRD markdown),
+`initial_role` (`draft` | `ready`, default `draft`), `dedupe_key`, `marker`, optional `source_ref`.
+
+## Phase 1 — Resolve database + Status vocabulary
+
+```bash
+read_g() { local lv gv; lv=$(jq -r "$1 // empty" .lisa.config.local.json 2>/dev/null); gv=$(jq -r "$1 // empty" .lisa.config.json 2>/dev/null); echo "${lv:-${gv:-$2}}"; }
+PRD_DB=$(read_g '.notion.prdDatabaseId' '')
+[ -z "$PRD_DB" ] && { echo "Error: notion.prdDatabaseId not set in .lisa.config.json."; exit 1; }
+STATUS_PROP=$(read_g '.notion.statusProperty' 'Status')
+# Resolve the FULL PRD Status vocabulary from config (never hard-code) so the past-ready check is
+# correct even when a project renamed any Status value.
+DRAFT=$(read_g '.notion.values.draft' 'Draft')
+READY=$(read_g '.notion.values.ready' 'Ready')
+IN_REVIEW=$(read_g '.notion.values.in_review' 'In Review')
+BLOCKED=$(read_g '.notion.values.blocked' 'Blocked')
+TICKETED=$(read_g '.notion.values.ticketed' 'Ticketed')
+SHIPPED=$(read_g '.notion.values.shipped' 'Shipped')
+VERIFIED=$(read_g '.notion.values.verified' 'Verified')
+# "Progressed past ready" set (never down-rank): the resolved in_review/blocked/ticketed/shipped/verified.
+PROGRESSED=("$IN_REVIEW" "$BLOCKED" "$TICKETED" "$SHIPPED" "$VERIFIED")
+```
+
+Resolve the target Status value from `initial_role`: `ready` → `$READY`, otherwise `$DRAFT`.
+
+## Phase 2 — Dedupe by marker (search before create)
+
+The `marker` is embedded in the page (as the first body block). Find an existing PRD page in the DB
+carrying it — match the marker, **never** the title:
+
+1. `lisa-notion-access` `operation: search query: "<marker>"` (Notion indexes page content).
+2. Filter results to pages whose parent is `$PRD_DB`. If `source_ref` was passed, target that page
+   directly and skip the search.
+3. If a matching page is found, this is an **update** — reuse it. If none is found, **create**.
+   Note: Notion search is eventually consistent; if a just-created page isn't found yet, the marker
+   still lives in the page so a later run will dedupe — surface "dedupe degraded (search lag)" rather
+   than silently creating a duplicate when uncertain.
+
+## Phase 3 — Create or update
+
+**Markdown → Notion blocks (conversion boundary).** Convert the PRD markdown to Notion block objects:
+`#`/`##`/`###` → `heading_1/2/3`, paragraphs → `paragraph`, `-`/`*` → `bulleted_list_item`, `1.` →
+`numbered_list_item`, fenced code → `code`. The Notion API caps a single request at **100 blocks**
+and ~2000 characters of rich text per block: split long paragraphs across blocks, and if the PRD
+exceeds 100 blocks, create the page with the first ≤100 blocks then add the remainder with batched
+`operation: append-blocks` calls (≤100 each). When the MCP substrate is active, `create-page` may
+accept the markdown content directly (it performs this conversion) — prefer that; the explicit block
+conversion is the curl-substrate path.
+
+**Marker + usage-ledger preservation (both paths).** The page must always carry **exactly one**
+marker. On CREATE the marker is the first body block; on UPDATE never remove it. Never write a markerless body. Never write a markerless page. If the existing page content already contains the canonical managed `## Lisa Usage` section, preserve that section when regenerating the page body unless the caller intentionally supplied an updated canonical section; use the shared `lisa-usage-accounting` serializer/merge path rather than freehand block edits to ledger rows.
+
+**CREATE:**
+
+1. Build the page body as Notion blocks per the conversion above: the **first block is the marker**
+   (a paragraph/callout containing `<!-- $MARKER -->`), then the converted PRD blocks.
+2. Invoke `lisa-notion-access` `operation: create-page` with:
+   ```json
+   { "parent_database_id": "<PRD_DB>",
+     "properties": { "<title-prop>": { "title": [{ "text": { "content": "<TITLE>" } }] },
+                     "<STATUS_PROP>": { "status": { "name": "<ROLE_VALUE>" } } },
+     "children": [ <marker block>, <PRD body blocks> ] }
+   ```
+   Use the DB's actual title property name (read it via `operation: read-database id: <PRD_DB>` if
+   unknown) and the correct property type for `$STATUS_PROP` (`status` vs `select`).
+3. Capture the returned page id + URL.
+
+**UPDATE** (existing page or `source_ref`):
+
+1. Set the Status to the resolved role via `lisa-notion-access` `operation: write-page payload: { "id": "<page-id>", "properties": { "<STATUS_PROP>": { "status": { "name": "<ROLE_VALUE>" } } } }` — **unless** the page's current Status is in the resolved `${PROGRESSED[@]}` set (already past `ready`), in which case leave the Status and report `reused (already past ready)`.
+2. Refresh the canonical spec, not append-only notes: keep the existing marker block, then make the
+   managed PRD body current — archive the previously generated body blocks below the marker
+   (`operation: archive-page` is page-level, so for blocks delete via the blocks API through
+   `notion-access` or, where block deletion isn't available, replace their text in place) and
+   `operation: append-blocks` the regenerated blocks. Do not duplicate the whole spec as a dated
+   note, and never drop the marker or an existing managed `## Lisa Usage` section.
+
+## Phase 4 — Return
+
+```yaml
+ref: "<notion-page-id>"
+url: "<page url>"
+role: draft | ready          # (or the page's current Status role when reused past ready)
+marker: "<MARKER>"
+outcome: created | reused
+```
+
+## Rules
+
+- All access via `lisa-notion-access`; never touch the Notion API/MCP directly.
+- Match dedupe by marker, never by title.
+- Preserve an existing canonical `## Lisa Usage` section on update; never append a second usage
+  section or silently drop ledger rows.
+- Never down-rank a PRD whose Status is already past `ready`.
+- Resolve the Status vocabulary from config (`notion.statusProperty`, `notion.values.*`) — never
+  hardcode value names.

package/plugins/lisa/.codex-plugin/skills/lisa-notion-write-prd/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+display_name: "Notion Write PRD"
+short_description: "Creates or idempotently updates…"
+default_prompt:
+  - "Use $lisa-notion-write-prd: Creates or idempotently updates…."

package/plugins/lisa/.codex-plugin/skills/lisa-parity-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
+---
+name: lisa-parity-code-review
+description: "Lisa-native code review of the…"
+allowed-tools: ["Read", "Bash", "Grep", "Glob"]
+---
+
+# Parity Code Review
+
+Review the code that is *about to ship* — the current uncommitted/branch diff — for defects a reviewer would block on. This is a focused **defect hunt**: correctness, security, and obvious mistakes. It is not a style audit and not a refactor pass (use `parity-code-simplifier` for quality-only cleanup).
+
+> **Not drift-trackable.** This skill intentionally carries **no `synced-from` pin**. The upstream `code-review@claude-plugins-official` plugin publishes **no semver** (its cache version resolves to `unknown`), so a pin would be unparseable and meaningless to `scripts/plugin-parity-drift.mjs`. Drift is tracked **manually** — re-review the upstream command by hand when the curated plugin set is refreshed. This is a Lisa-native reimplementation, **not** a port of upstream code.
+
+## Step 1: Establish the diff
+
+Determine exactly what changed. Prefer the broadest accurate view of the work-in-progress:
+
+```bash
+# Branch changes vs the merge base (preferred for a PR-style review)
+git merge-base HEAD origin/main 2>/dev/null && \
+  git diff "$(git merge-base HEAD origin/main)"...HEAD
+
+# Plus anything still uncommitted in the working tree
+git diff HEAD
+git status --short
+```
+
+If there is no diff at all, say so plainly and stop — do not invent findings. If the diff is enormous, review in full but prioritize the files with the most logic changes; never silently skip files (note any you deprioritized).
+
+## Step 2: Read for real context
+
+Do **not** review hunks in isolation. For each changed file, open enough surrounding code to understand:
+
+- What the function/module is supposed to do and who calls it.
+- Invariants and preconditions the change might violate.
+- Error/edge paths touched by the change.
+
+Use `Read`, `Grep`, and `Glob` to follow call sites and trace data flow. A finding you can't ground in the actual code is a guess — drop it.
+
+## Step 3: Hunt for defects
+
+For every changed hunk, evaluate against these lenses:
+
+1. **Correctness** — Off-by-one errors, inverted conditions, wrong operator, missing `await`, unhandled `null`/`undefined`, incorrect default, broken control flow, type coercion bugs, mutation of shared state, race conditions.
+2. **Security** — Unsanitized input at trust boundaries; injection (SQL/shell/template); secrets, tokens, or keys committed or logged; missing authn/authz on new endpoints; unsafe deserialization; path traversal; overly broad permissions; SSRF.
+3. **Edge cases & failure modes** — Empty collections, zero, negative numbers, very large input, concurrent calls, partial failures, timeouts, retries that aren't idempotent.
+4. **Obvious defects** — Dead code paths, unreachable branches, swallowed errors, resource leaks (unclosed handles/connections), `TODO`/`FIXME` left in shipping code, debug logging left on, broken or missing tests for the new behavior.
+5. **Contract & API** — Breaking changes to public signatures, changed return shapes, altered error semantics callers depend on.
+
+## Step 4: Output — severity-ranked findings
+
+Group findings by severity. Within each group, list the most impactful first. Every finding **must** carry a `file:line` reference.
+
+### Critical (must fix before merge)
+Bugs that break correctness, leak/expose data, or introduce a security hole.
+
+### Warning (should fix)
+Likely to cause problems later, or a real defect with limited blast radius.
+
+### Suggestion (nice to have)
+Minor correctness nits or defensive improvements.
+
+### Finding format
+
+For each finding:
+
+- **What** — precise description of the defect.
+- **Where** — `path/to/file.ts:42` (and a span if it covers multiple lines).
+- **Why** — the concrete failure it causes, with an example input or sequence that triggers it.
+- **Fix** — a specific, actionable suggestion (or a short code sketch).
+
+Example:
+
+> **Critical — Unhandled null dereference**
+> **Where:** `src/auth/session.ts:88`
+> **Why:** `findUser()` returns `null` when the id is unknown, but line 88 reads `user.roles` directly. An unknown session id (expired token replay) throws and 500s instead of returning 401.
+> **Fix:** Guard `if (!user) return unauthorized()` before reading `user.roles`.
+
+## Rules
+
+- **Ground every finding in the diff.** No speculative findings, no generic best-practice lectures unrelated to the change.
+- **Be honest about coverage.** If you deprioritized files or couldn't fully trace a path, say so.
+- **If the diff is clean, say so clearly** — "No blocking issues found across N changed files" — do not manufacture problems.
+- This is review-only: report findings, do **not** edit files. Apply fixes via the normal implementation flow or `parity-code-simplifier` (quality) after triage.

package/plugins/lisa/.codex-plugin/skills/lisa-parity-code-review/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+display_name: "Parity Code Review"
+short_description: "Lisa-native code review of the…"
+default_prompt:
+  - "Use $lisa-parity-code-review: Lisa-native code review of the…."

package/plugins/lisa/.codex-plugin/skills/lisa-parity-code-simplifier/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+---
+name: lisa-parity-code-simplifier
+description: "Lisa-native, behavior-preserving…"
+allowed-tools: ["Read", "Bash", "Grep", "Glob", "Edit", "Write"]
+synced-from: code-simplifier@claude-plugins-official@1.0.0
+---
+
+# Parity Code Simplifier
+
+Make the **recently-changed** code simpler and easier to maintain **without changing what it does**. This is a quality pass: deduplication, reuse, readability, and dead-code removal. It is explicitly **not** a bug hunt — if you spot a likely defect, note it for a reviewer (or `parity-code-review`) and leave the behavior intact.
+
+> **Drift tracking.** Pinned to `code-simplifier@claude-plugins-official@1.0.0`. `scripts/plugin-parity-drift.mjs` compares this pin against the upstream version in the plugin cache and flags staleness. This is a Lisa-native reimplementation written from scratch — **do not port or copy upstream plugin code.**
+
+## Scope: recently-changed code only
+
+Default to the current diff, not the whole repository. Establish scope first:
+
+```bash
+git merge-base HEAD origin/main 2>/dev/null && \
+  git diff --stat "$(git merge-base HEAD origin/main)"...HEAD
+git diff HEAD --stat
+git status --short
+```
+
+Simplify the files that changed and the immediate code they touch. Do not embark on a repo-wide refactor unless explicitly asked.
+
+## The prime directive: preserve behavior
+
+Every edit must be behavior-preserving. Before changing anything, understand the current contract — inputs, outputs, side effects, error paths, public signatures. After changing it, the observable behavior must be identical. When in doubt, **don't** — leave a note instead of risking a semantic change.
+
+## What to simplify
+
+1. **Duplication (DRY)** — Collapse copy-pasted blocks into a single function or shared helper. Prefer delegating to an existing canonical implementation over re-deriving logic (see the repo's DRY rule: a function that reproduces a sequence should call the shared generator, not reimplement it).
+2. **Reuse over reinvention** — Search for existing utilities (`Grep`/`Glob`) before introducing new code. If the project already has a helper for what the change hand-rolls, use it.
+3. **Readability** — Clearer names; flatten needless nesting with early returns/guard clauses; replace clever one-liners with obvious code; split overly long functions along natural seams.
+4. **Dead code** — Remove unreachable branches, unused variables/imports/exports, and commented-out blocks introduced or exposed by the change.
+5. **Idiomatic constructs** — Prefer immutable transformations (`map`/`filter`/`reduce`) over mutable accumulation where it's clearer; remove redundant intermediate state.
+
+## Respect project conventions
+
+This repo enforces specific patterns — honor them so your simplification doesn't trip the linter or hooks:
+
+- **Immutability / functional style** — avoid `let` and in-place mutation; prefer `const` and pure transformations.
+- **Statement order** — do not place expression-statement helper calls before `const` definitions; inline validation as `if` guard clauses (exempt from `enforce-statement-order`).
+- **eslint-disable directives** must include a `-- description`.
+- **Barrel-export constraint** — if you delete a file referenced by an `index.ts`, update the barrel in the same change so lint/typecheck stays green.
+- **Never edit generated plugin artifacts** (`plugins/lisa`, `plugins/lisa-*`); the source of truth is `plugins/src/`.
+
+## Workflow
+
+1. Read each changed file and enough of its callers to know the contract.
+2. Identify simplification opportunities; rank by value-to-risk. Skip anything that risks behavior.
+3. Apply edits with `Edit`/`Write`, one coherent change at a time.
+4. **Verify behavior is unchanged** — run the project's checks:
+   ```bash
+   bun run test
+   bun run typecheck 2>/dev/null || true
+   bun run lint 2>/dev/null || true
+   ```
+   If any check fails, fix or revert the offending edit before continuing. Never leave the tree worse than you found it.
+
+## Output
+
+Summarize what you changed and why, grouped by file with `file:line` anchors:
+
+- **Simplified** — the edits applied (dedup / reuse / readability / dead-code), each with a one-line rationale.
+- **Left alone** — opportunities you deliberately skipped because they risked behavior, with the reason.
+- **Flagged for review** — any suspected bugs noticed in passing (not fixed here — quality pass only).
+- **Verification** — which checks you ran and that they pass.
+
+## Rules
+
+- **Behavior-preserving only.** No bug fixes, no feature changes, no API changes disguised as cleanup.
+- **Quality only** — if the only "simplification" would change behavior, don't make it.
+- **Tests must stay green.** A simplification that breaks a test is a behavior change — revert it.
+- If there is nothing worth simplifying, say so clearly rather than churning the code.