@codyswann/lisa 4.74.8 → 4.75.0

package/plugins/lisa-devin/skills/lisa-github-validate-issue/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,598 @@
+---
+name: lisa-github-validate-issue
+description: "Validates a proposed GitHub Issue spec (or an existing issue) against the organizational quality gates without writing anything. Returns a structured PASS/FAIL report per gate with concrete remediation. The GitHub counterpart of lisa-jira-validate-ticket — same gate definitions, translated to the GitHub Issues data model. Single source of truth for what makes a valid GitHub Issue. Both the write path (github-write-issue runs it pre-write) and the dry-run path (github-to-tracker runs it during PRD intake) call this skill."
+allowed-tools: ["Bash", "Read"]
+---
+
+# Validate GitHub Issue: $ARGUMENTS
+
+Run all organizational quality gates against an issue spec OR an existing issue. **This skill is read-only — it never writes to GitHub.** The output is a structured report consumed by callers (`lisa-github-write-issue` for pre-write gating, `lisa-github-to-tracker` for PRD dry-run, `lisa-github-verify` for post-write checks).
+
+## Input
+
+`$ARGUMENTS` is one of:
+
+1. **An existing issue ref** (`org/repo#<number>` or `https://github.com/<org>/<repo>/issues/<number>`): fetch it and validate the live state. Use this for post-write checks.
+2. **A proposed issue spec** (YAML block, see schema below): validate as-is without touching GitHub. Use this for pre-write and dry-run checks.
+
+### Standalone entry point — validating an item written by another path
+
+Input form 1 is a **supported entry point in its own right**, not only an internal step of a
+caller flow. Point this skill at any existing item — however it was written, including by a
+bespoke script, a direct API or GraphQL call, or the vendor's own web UI — and it fetches the
+live state and runs the full gate set against it.
+
+Copy-pasteable, via the Skill tool:
+
+```text
+Skill(skill: "lisa-github-validate-issue", args: "CodySwannGT/lisa#3663")
+```
+
+where the argument is an issue ref such as `CodySwannGT/lisa#3663`, or the full issue URL. The report it returns is the same structured PASS/FAIL
+report the write path consumes, so a bespoke write path can discharge both the pre-write
+validate and the post-write verify obligation with it (see the bespoke-path section of
+`lisa-github-write-issue`).
+
+This skill is plugin-resident. It is invoked through the Skill tool and is **not** expected to
+appear in any repository's `scripts/` directory; not finding a shell script by this name is
+not evidence that the capability is absent.
+
+### Spec schema
+
+Specs are passed as a fenced YAML block. Required keys depend on `issue_type`.
+
+```yaml
+issue_type: Story          # Story | Task | Bug | Epic | Spike | Sub-task | Improvement
+org: my-org
+repo: my-repo
+summary: "[CU-1.2] Upload contract PDF from settings"
+priority: medium
+parent_ref: "my-org/my-repo#1234"   # Parent Epic for ordinary children; PRD for an Epic only in the same-repo GitHub self-host shape; Story/etc. for Sub-task
+body: |
+  ## Context / Business Value
+  ...
+
+  ## Technical Approach
+  ...
+
+  ## Acceptance Criteria
+  ```gherkin
+  Scenario: <name>
+    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 can pick the right gates
+# (on a LIVE item `runtime_behavior_change` is DERIVED from the stored declaration, not taken on assertion — S8)
+runtime_behavior_change: true     # → requires Target Backend Environment + Validation Journey; LIVE items derive it from the stored declaration instead (S8)
+authenticated_surface: true       # → requires Sign-in Required
+artifacts_attached: true          # → requires Source Precedence section
+links: [{ ref: "my-org/my-repo#99", type: "is blocked by" }]   # known issue links (may be empty)
+remote_links: [{ url: "https://github.com/.../pull/42", title: "PR #42" }]
+journey_followup: auto            # auto | none — see S11
+build_ready: true                 # caller asserts the configured build-ready role (github.labels.build.ready, default status:ready) is/would be applied — see S15
+child_refs: ["my-org/my-repo#601", "my-org/my-repo#602"]   # known child work (sub-issues / task-list / "Blocked by" parentage) — see S15
+prd_source: "https://notion.so/..."    # set when the issue was generated from a PRD — requires the Source Requirement section, see S16
+```
+
+If the caller passes only an issue ref, fetch via `gh issue view <number> --repo <org>/<repo> --json number,title,body,labels,state,milestone,assignees`, parse the body sections, derive the spec fields — including `runtime_behavior_change`, derived from the `## Target Backend Environment` declaration per `derived-branch-plan` and authoritative over any caller assertion — then run gates. The parser lives in `lisa-github-read-issue` (composition).
+
+## Standalone use, against an item that already exists
+
+This is a supported entry point, not only an internal step of a caller flow.
+Point it at a live issue and it fetches and validates the stored state:
+
+```text
+Skill(lisa-github-validate-issue) with owner/repo#1234
+```
+
+Use it whenever the issue reached the tracker by some path other than
+`lisa-github-write-issue` — a team's own script, a workflow step, a cron, anything holding the
+credentials but no skill runtime. Those paths get neither the pre-write nor the
+post-write gate, and their own read-back substitutes for neither: a read-back
+proves the tracker stored what was sent, never that what was sent was any good.
+
+The gate definitions live here on purpose, so every caller picks up a change
+automatically. Running this skill by hand is the same gate the write path runs,
+not an approximation of it.
+
+## Gates
+
+Gates are grouped into **Specification** (spec-only checks, no GitHub lookups) and **Feasibility** (requires GitHub lookups). The dry-run path may opt to run Specification gates only via `--spec-only`; the write path runs both.
+
+Each gate is tagged with a fixed `category` and a `product_relevant` boolean. Categories are the same fixed set used by `lisa-jira-validate-ticket` so downstream PRD-intake comment-formatting policy is shared across vendors.
+
+Per-type content requirements are defined once in the vendor-neutral `work-item-definition-of-ready` rule (eager + reference); gates S4–S6 and S17 enforce them, and S18 enforces the stateless-pickup property directly.
+
+| 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 Parent sub-issue 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 |
+| S16 Source Requirement traceability | `product-clarity` | true |
+| S17 Improvement measurability | `acceptance-criteria` | true |
+| S18 Stateless-pickup dry-run | `product-clarity` | true |
+| S19 Branch Plan derivation | `technical` | false |
+| S20 Named-control reachability | `acceptance-criteria` | true |
+| F1 Issue type label exists in repo | `structural` | false |
+| F2 Parent sub-issue exists and is the right type | `structural` | false |
+| F3 Linked issues exist | `structural` | false |
+| F4 Required labels populated | `structural` | false |
+| F5 Required external access provable | `technical` | true |
+
+Category values are the same fixed set as `lisa-jira-validate-ticket`:
+
+- `product-clarity`, `acceptance-criteria`, `design-ux`, `scope`, `dependency`, `data`, `technical`, `structural`.
+
+### Specification Gates
+
+#### S1 — Required core fields
+
+`org`, `repo`, `issue_type`, `summary`, `priority`, `body` 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
+
+Body must include all of these sections (case-insensitive `## ` 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 `Scenario:` block with `Given / When / Then` form, ideally inside a ` ```gherkin ` code fence. Reject prose-only criteria, "should work" language, or numbered lists without Given/When/Then verbs.
+
+#### S5 — Bug-specific content
+
+When `issue_type = Bug`, body must additionally include the full bug anatomy from the `work-item-definition-of-ready` rule:
+
+- **Agent-executable reproduction** — numbered steps a stateless agent can run mechanically: exact entry point, named account/role (consistent with Sign-in Required when authenticated), concrete data state, exact actions. Human-followable-only prose ("click around until it breaks") FAILs. A linked failing test satisfies this outright and is the preferred form.
+- **Expected vs. actual behavior**, naming or linking the *source* of "expected" (spec, PRD requirement, prior release behavior) — a fix target is a fact, not an opinion.
+- **Environment + version** — where reproduced and the build/commit observed; last-known-good when known (`unknown` must be stated, not omitted).
+- **Reproducibility rate** — always, or intermittent with observed frequency; intermittent invalidates run-once verification.
+- **Occurrence evidence** — at least one link/attachment: error-tracker issue, log excerpt, stack trace, screenshot/recording.
+
+A Bug's terminal state is its reproduction: the same steps (or test) fail before the fix and pass after — capture both as evidence: under the S14 manifest when `runtime_behavior_change = true`, or attached directly to the item for non-runtime Bugs (doc/config fixes), where S14 is N/A.
+
+#### S6 — Spike-specific content
+
+When `issue_type = Spike`, body must include:
+
+- The **question** being answered
+- The **decision** the answer enables, and the options being weighed
+- A **timebox**
+- **Deliverable format and location** — decision doc / prototype / findings page, and where it will live, so the terminal state — a deliverable at that location that actually answers the question, with findings, decision and options — is checkable
+
+Gherkin AC is intentionally N/A for Spikes (S4).
+
+#### S7 — Parent sub-issue declared
+
+When `issue_type ∉ {Bug, Epic}`, `parent_ref` must be set — **except for a build-ready leaf work unit**, which may stand 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`, which states such leaves "must not be stranded"; for these a missing parent is `N/A`, not a FAIL. This mirrors the leaf carve-out already in S10/S15. A `Sub-task` is exempt from this exception — it always requires a parent. When a parent IS declared, the native sub-issue link is set by `lisa-github-write-issue` Phase 6 step 3. (Validity of a declared parent is checked in feasibility gate F2.)
+
+#### S8 — Target Backend Environment
+
+Every leaf work unit carries `## Target Backend Environment` in the body. The section is where `runtime_behavior_change` is persisted, so it is rendered for exempt work too — see the declaration grammar at the end of this gate. Read accepted environments from the exact configured keys of `.lisa.config.json` `deploy.branches`, never from a hardcoded list. Accept a human-confirmed bare exact configured key or `Confirmed: <env>`, automated `Inferred: <env> — evidence: <title|body|reproduction|hostname>`, automated `Assumption: <env> — remote default branch <branch>` for a unique reverse-map, or `Assumption: remote default branch <branch>` when no unique reverse-map exists. Human confirmation replaces an automated annotation with the bare key or `Confirmed: <env>`. For legacy bare values, use managed draft markers and current ticket content only; provider edit history is not required. A marker proves automation and requires re-annotation; otherwise unknown provenance plus conflicting evidence fails for confirmation. Validate the annotation shape/source and remote-default branch; validate `<env>` as an exact configured key whenever present. A valid branch-only assumption must not fail solely because its reverse-map is absent or ambiguous. Normalize built-in `prod` ↔ `production` only when exactly one of those keys is configured. No other aliases are valid.
+
+**The section persists `runtime_behavior_change`, so it is never simply skipped.** Work that changes no runtime behavior declares the exemption in place of an environment: `None — no runtime behavior change: doc-only` (or `config-only` / `type-only`). A container (an Epic, or any issue holding child work) declares `None — container: state rolls up from children`. The `None —` prefix is the machine discriminator; the words after it are for the human reading the issue.
+
+Derive the flag from the stored content, never from a caller's word about a live issue: an exact configured environment key means `true`, a `None —` declaration means `false`, and an **absent section means underivable** — never `false`. On a live issue the stored declaration is authoritative, so a caller asserting a `runtime_behavior_change` that contradicts it **FAILs** this gate naming both values rather than silently preferring either; one of the two is wrong, and picking one quietly is how an unauditable gate gets built. A **proposed spec** with no section **FAILs** — `lisa-github-write-issue` must render it before the write. A **live legacy issue** with no section is `N/A` with a repair note routed to claim time: the same asymmetry S19 uses, for the same reason, because failing every existing issue would turn a legacy queue red for a section no human had a way to add.
+
+#### S9 — Sign-in Required
+
+When `authenticated_surface = true`, body must contain `## Sign-in Required` naming the account/role and credential source.
+
+If the spec doesn't set `authenticated_surface`, infer it: scan the body 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`) — body 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)"`.
+
+(GitHub Issues live in one repo by definition, so the `## Repository` section is technically redundant — keep it for parity with the JIRA path so downstream tooling sees the same shape. Cross-repo references in AC are still possible and still fail this gate.)
+
+An **Epic**, 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-github-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`, body must contain `## Validation Journey`. Skipped for doc-only / config-only / type-only / Epic. When `runtime_behavior_change` is **underivable** — a live legacy issue whose body carries no Target Backend Environment declaration (S8) — this gate is `N/A` with the same repair note rather than `PASS`, because a requirement conditioned on a flag nobody recorded cannot be asserted either way.
+
+The caller controls strictness via `journey_followup`:
+- `auto` (default): missing section is FAIL with remediation `"Invoke lisa-github-add-journey to append the section after create"`. Callers like `lisa-github-write-issue` know to chain the followup automatically.
+- `none`: missing section is FAIL the caller will not auto-fix (used by dry-run paths).
+
+#### S12 — Source Precedence (when artifacts attached)
+
+When `artifacts_attached = true`, body 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`.
+
+Detect by scanning for the phrase `Source Precedence` (case-insensitive) AND verifying the four axes (business rules, visual, flow, data) are each named.
+
+If the spec doesn't set `artifacts_attached`, infer it the same way S9 infers sign-in: scan the body for design/mock/prototype/data-artifact references (design-tool links, "mock", "prototype", spreadsheet or API artifacts). If such artifacts are referenced and no source-precedence guidance exists: FAIL.
+
+#### S13 — Relationship Search documented
+
+The issue must EITHER have at least one entry in `links`, OR the body must contain a `## Relationship Search` block listing the git history queries and `gh issue list` queries that were run with their outcomes. ("Searched git history for `<keywords>` and `gh issue list` for label `component:X`; no related work found.")
+
+An issue with zero links 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 **typed** `[EVIDENCE: <artifact-type>: <name>]` marker. These markers are the work unit's **evidence manifest** — the exact, enumerated set of artifacts that must be captured and attached before the issue 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`).
+
+Each marker must satisfy ALL of:
+
+- `<artifact-type>` is one of the fixed taxonomy: `screenshot`, `recording`, `http-transcript`, `cli-output`, `log-snippet`, `db-query-output`, `perf-trace`, `test-run-log`, `deploy-log`, `state-dump`. (The legacy `[SCREENSHOT: name]` form is accepted as `screenshot`.)
+- `<name>` is kebab-case and unique within the issue.
+
+**A marker names an artifact, not an assertion.** An untyped marker (`[EVIDENCE: load-failure-handled-gracefully]`) is an assertion label with nothing to capture and must FAIL, with a remediation that shows the typed transformation (e.g. → `[EVIDENCE: screenshot: load-failure-error-state]`, `[EVIDENCE: perf-trace: pipeline-load-tti]`).
+
+FAIL when the Validation Journey is present but declares zero binding `[EVIDENCE: ...]` markers, when any binding marker is untyped or uses a type outside the taxonomy, or when any binding 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 binding marker passes but the remediation should recommend adding the error/edge case.
+
+Parse claiming markers by the exact `[EVIDENCE:` prefix. A cross-work-item pointer in the canonical form `[EVIDENCE-REF: <work-item-ref> | <artifact-type>: <kebab-case-name>]` is non-claiming. The Lisa 2.223.0 form `[EVIDENCE-REF: <tracker-ref>: <artifact-type>: <kebab-case-name>]` is also accepted as a legacy non-claiming alias; parse it from the right so the final two fields are type/name and a tracker URL may contain `:`. Exclude both forms from the manifest, S14's minimum-marker count, local marker type/name validation, and duplicate-name checks. Independently validate every `EVIDENCE-REF`: the native work-item reference must be non-empty and unambiguous, the artifact type must use the fixed taxonomy, and the name must be non-empty kebab-case. A malformed reference FAILs S14 as an invalid pointer but never becomes a local evidence obligation. A valid canonical or legacy reference may point to a sibling's artifact, but it never satisfies S14 for this issue. Therefore a runtime-changing leaf whose journey contains only `EVIDENCE-REF` entries FAILs S14 for zero local claiming markers, not because a valid legacy reference is malformed. Quoting or code-formatting another issue's `[EVIDENCE: ...]` marker does not make it a reference; writers must convert it to the canonical pipe form.
+
+This gate depends on S11. It is `N/A` for containers — an **Epic**, 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-github-add-journey`. It is likewise `N/A` with a repair note when `runtime_behavior_change` is **underivable** under S8 — reading an absent declaration as `false` is exactly the silent assumption that made this gate unauditable on a live issue.
+
+#### 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.** Before evaluating this gate, resolve `READY_ROLE` from merged project config (`.lisa.config.local.json` over `.lisa.config.json`) at `github.labels.build.ready`, defaulting to `status:ready` per `config-resolution`. Use that resolved value everywhere this validator interprets build readiness; a project-specific label is not an alias for the literal default.
+
+This is the symmetric write-side guard for the GitHub validator — a stale or hand-applied `READY_ROLE` on a container is a lifecycle error and must FAIL here, regardless of how the issue was produced. (Mirrors the "Build-ready label is leaf-only" rule that `lisa-github-write-issue` applies at write time.)
+
+**When the gate applies.** Run S15 whenever the issue is build-ready — i.e. `build_ready = true`, or the spec/live labels include the resolved `READY_ROLE`. If the issue is not build-ready, S15 is `N/A` (nothing claims a non-ready issue, so the invariant is vacuous). For example, if `github.labels.build.ready = "queue:approved"`, a container carrying `queue:approved` FAILs S15 even when it does not carry the literal `status:ready` default.
+
+**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 **type label** decides. Determine child work from (in order) `child_refs`, native sub-issues, body task-list checkboxes, and `Blocked by #<n>` / parent references — the same hierarchy resolution `lisa-github-read-issue` uses. When validating a live ref, query sub-issues alongside the issue 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 + build-ready** — `issue_type = Epic` with **no** child work, AND build-ready. Still FAIL: an Epic 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 issue 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 | no | yes | **FAIL** (childless Epic — pure rollup container, exception does not apply) |
+| any | any | no | **N/A** (not build-ready) |
+
+Remediation (render `<READY_ROLE>` as the resolved configured label, never as a hard-coded default): `"Build-ready is leaf-only per leaf-only-lifecycle. Move <READY_ROLE> 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.
+
+#### S16 — Source Requirement traceability (PRD-sourced issues)
+
+Answers "why was this done?": every issue generated from a PRD must carry
+the requirement it exists to satisfy, quoted verbatim, at every level of
+the hierarchy — sub-issues included, so a leaf claimed by build-intake in
+isolation is self-explanatory.
+
+**When the gate applies.** Run S16 whenever the spec declares `prd_source`
+(all `*-to-tracker` decomposition paths set it). Without `prd_source`
+(ad-hoc issues with no PRD lineage) the gate is `N/A` — but if a
+`Source Requirement` section is present anyway, still validate its shape
+so a malformed section never passes silently.
+
+**What must be present.** a `Source Requirement` section (`##` markdown heading) containing:
+
+1. A link to the source PRD (the `**PRD**:` line), and
+2. At least one `**Requirement` line with **verbatim quoted text**, or the
+   explicit derived-work form (`Derived work supporting R3, R7 — no single
+   PRD section.`).
+
+Missing section, missing PRD link, empty/paraphrased requirement text
+(quotes shorter than a few words, or prose with no quotation), or a bare
+R-id with no quote: FAIL with remediation
+`"Add a Source Requirement section citing the PRD link and quoting the requirement(s) this issue satisfies verbatim (see the Source Requirement shared format in the *-to-tracker skills). Derived work must name the requirements it supports."`
+
+`product_relevant: true` — a issue whose requirement cannot be traced is
+a product-clarity problem: nobody can tell why the work exists.
+
+#### S17 — Improvement measurability
+
+When `issue_type = Improvement`, the body must define the improvement as a measured delta per `work-item-definition-of-ready`:
+
+- **Metric + measurement method** the agent can run (command, query, dashboard export)
+- **Baseline** — the current measured value (a number, not an adjective)
+- **Target** — the numeric value or bound that defines done
+
+Without a baseline and a target an Improvement has no verifiable terminal state and can never be autonomously closed. FAIL names the missing pieces; when no baseline exists yet, the remediation is to file measuring it as the first step. `N/A` for every other type.
+
+#### S18 — Stateless-pickup dry-run
+
+The autonomy gate, run last, on every build-ready leaf (use the S15 classification; `N/A` for containers and non-build-ready items). Simulate a stateless agent reading only this item and the links it can resolve — session knowledge about the codebase does not count, because the next claimant will not have it. List every question that agent would have to ask a human before starting work, before choosing between materially different implementations, or before declaring the work done.
+
+Zero questions → PASS. Any question → FAIL, with each question listed verbatim as its own remediation line — these are exactly the clarifying comments the caller posts to the source. The structure gates are proxies; this gate checks the readiness property itself: `ready` means a stateless agent can drive this item to its terminal state with zero human clarification (see `work-item-definition-of-ready`).
+
+#### S19 — Branch Plan derivation
+
+Enforces the `derived-branch-plan` rule: the `## Branch Plan` section is **derived only** — recompute it from current config and compare; never trust the rendered branches or read them as input. Resolve the environment under the S8 grammar, map that exact configured key forward through `.lisa.config.json` `deploy.branches`, and require the mapped branch on the remote.
+
+| Case | Verdict |
+|---|---|
+| `runtime_behavior_change = false` (doc-only / config-only / type-only) or an Epic/container, with no plan | `N/A` — absence is correct; never demand one |
+| Exempt work **carrying** a `## Branch Plan` | **FAIL** — hand-authored branches on work that declared no runtime target |
+| `runtime_behavior_change` **underivable** (live legacy item, no Target Backend Environment declaration) | `N/A` with a repair note — absence is never read as `false` |
+| Plan matches the recomputed plan | PASS |
+| Plan conflicts with the recomputed plan | **FAIL** |
+| Plan missing the `Derived from:` provenance line and disagreeing | **FAIL** — treated as hand-authored |
+| `Branch from` and `PR into` name two different branches | **FAIL** — malformed; they are the same branch by construction |
+| Derivation hits a stop condition (env absent from `deploy.branches`, ambiguous / non-unique mapping, branch missing on the remote) | **FAIL** — the same stop `lisa-implement` takes; never default to `main` or the remote default |
+| Proposed spec (pre-write) for applicable work with no plan | **FAIL** — `lisa-github-write-issue` must render it before the write |
+| Live **legacy** issue for applicable work with no plan | `N/A` with a repair note — routed to claim time, where `lisa-implement` writes the derived assumption as a comment and proceeds |
+
+Failing a proposed spec is free; failing every existing issue would turn a legacy queue red for a section no human had a way to add, so legacy absence is repaired at claim time instead.
+
+FAIL names both plans (rendered and recomputed) and points the remediation at **the environment, never the branch** — e.g. `"Branch Plan conflicts with the environment mapping. Rendered 'Branch from: release/staging'; recomputed from Target Backend Environment 'production' via deploy.branches → 'main'. Correct the environment, not the branch — the branches are derived. Then re-render."` Never silently choose between the two plans.
+
+#### S20 — Named-control reachability
+
+Enforces the vendor-neutral `control-reachability` rule: **a work item that names an existing test as a red-before-green control must say what makes that test reach the code the change touches.** A control whose reachability cannot be stated is not a control — its green tells the implementer nothing, and the issue's own stopping rule then instructs a revert of a correct fix.
+
+**When the gate applies.** Run S20 when the body — `Acceptance Criteria`, `Technical Approach`, or `Validation Journey` — names an **existing** test AND predicts a state change for it when the work lands. Signals: "must go red", "currently passes and must fail", "fails before the fix and passes after", "if it still passes the fix did nothing", or any equivalent stopping rule.
+
+**When it must stay silent.** `N/A` otherwise. A issue that introduces a **new** test rather than pinning an existing one carries no reachability obligation and must never be reported as incomplete on this basis. This half is load-bearing: a gate that fires on every work item is one callers learn to route around.
+
+**What must be present.** One marker per named control, inside `## Validation Journey`:
+
+```text
+[CONTROL: <test-identifier> | reaches: <input-or-field>]
+```
+
+Parse by the exact `[CONTROL:` prefix and split on the single `|`.
+
+- `<test-identifier>` — non-empty; the test file path, the test name, or both. It must be enough to run the test.
+- `reaches:` — the literal key, then a non-empty description of the **input, field, fixture key, argument, or state** that carries execution into the changed code.
+
+FAIL when a named existing-test control has no marker, when a marker is malformed (missing the `|`, an empty identifier, a missing or empty `reaches:` half), or when the `reaches:` half restates the assertion instead of naming an input (`reaches: the fix`, `reaches: the changed code path`). Naming the code is not enough; the marker answers "what in this fixture gets execution there".
+
+Remediation: `"Name the input or field that makes <test> reach the code this work changes, as [CONTROL: <test> | reaches: <field>]. If the fixture does not reach it, the test cannot observe this change — extend the fixture or specify a new test instead."`
+
+`product_relevant: true` — an unfalsifiable stopping rule is a specification defect, and whoever wrote the issue is who can repair it. `lisa-github-write-issue` renders the marker; `control-reachability` carries the implementer-side counterpart, which forbids acting on the stopping rule before the cause of an unmoved control is established.
+
+### Feasibility Gates (require GitHub lookups; skip in `--spec-only`)
+
+#### F1 — Issue type label exists in repo
+
+```bash
+gh label list --repo <org>/<repo> --json name --jq '.[].name'
+```
+
+Confirm `type:<issue_type>` exists. Missing labels can be auto-created by `lisa-github-write-issue` Phase 5 — flag the absence as a structural FAIL with remediation "Run `gh label create type:<issue_type>` or let the write path auto-create."
+
+#### F2 — Parent sub-issue exists and is the right type
+
+When `parent_ref` is set:
+
+```bash
+gh issue view <number> --repo <org>/<repo> --json number,labels,state
+```
+
+Confirm the parent issue exists and:
+
+- For an `Epic` child, first resolve whether the validator can prove the native PRD-parent shape
+  allowed by `prd-lifecycle-rollup`: merged project config has `source = github` and
+  `tracker = github`; the spec/live child's `org` and `repo` match configured `github.org` and
+  `github.repo`; and `parent_ref` names that same `org/repo`. These facts are available from the
+  existing spec/live ref plus project config; do not infer the exception from label spelling alone.
+  Only in that proven same-repository GitHub self-host shape may the parent qualify by having one of
+  the configured PRD lifecycle labels from
+  `github.labels.prd` (`draft`, `ready`, `in_review`, `blocked`, `ticketed`, `shipped`, or
+  `verified`; defaults use the `prd-*` namespace). Resolve the configured values from
+  `.lisa.config.local.json` over `.lisa.config.json`, using the defaults from `config-resolution`.
+  The `sentinel` label is not a lifecycle role and does not qualify. This is the native
+  PRD→generated-Epic hierarchy used when GitHub is both source and tracker in one repository; the
+  PRD parent does **not** need `type:Epic`. If any self-host/same-repository predicate is false, a
+  PRD label does not grant the exception: native hierarchy cannot cross repositories or source
+  systems, so a PRD-labelled parent alone FAILs F2.
+- For a `Sub-task` child: the parent has `type:Story`, `type:Task`, `type:Bug`, or
+  `type:Improvement` (anything that can host sub-tasks). This allowlist is unchanged; a PRD
+  lifecycle label or `type:Epic` alone does not qualify.
+- For every other non-Sub-task child: the parent has `type:Epic`. A PRD lifecycle label alone does
+  not qualify, so the Epic→Story (and Epic→ordinary-leaf) hierarchy remains enforced.
+
+| child type | relationship shape | qualifying parent label | F2 |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| `Epic` | source GitHub + tracker GitHub + configured child repo = parent repo | configured PRD lifecycle label | **PASS** |
+| `Epic` | cross-repository or source/tracker is not same-repo GitHub | PRD lifecycle label only | **FAIL** |
+| `Epic` | permitted self-host shape | unconfigured `prd-*` lookalike or `prd-intake-feedback` sentinel only | **FAIL** |
+| `Sub-task` | any | `type:Story`, `type:Task`, `type:Bug`, or `type:Improvement` | **PASS** |
+| `Sub-task` | any | PRD lifecycle label or `type:Epic` only | **FAIL** |
+| any other non-Sub-task | any | `type:Epic` | **PASS** |
+| any other non-Sub-task | any | PRD lifecycle label only | **FAIL** |
+
+#### F3 — Linked issues exist
+
+For each entry in `links`, run `gh issue view <number> --repo <link-org>/<link-repo>` to confirm the ref resolves. Flag broken refs.
+
+#### F4 — Required labels populated
+
+Per `Phase 5` of `lisa-github-write-issue`, every issue MUST carry
+`type:<issue_type>` and `priority:<priority>`. These two labels are unconditional: if either is
+missing from the proposed spec or live issue, FAIL with the missing label name.
+
+The `status:*` requirement uses this validator's S15 leaf/container classification while preserving
+the writer's documented `build_ready` control-input defaults, which the `ready-role-filing` rule
+fixes at "omitted is NOT build-ready" for every vendor:
+
+1. Classify the issue structurally using the S15 child-resolution rules. A container (any issue
+   with child work, plus a childless `Epic`) may omit `status:*`; its state rolls up rather than
+   being assigned directly.
+2. For a proposed leaf spec, normalize omitted `build_ready` to `false`, per `ready-role-filing`:
+   ready is an explicit claim, so only `build_ready: true` asserts it. Explicit `build_ready: false`
+   means the same backlog mode. (This validator previously normalized omitted → `true` to mirror
+   GitHub's implicit-ready writer default; both were removed together, and re-introducing either
+   here would just move the leak.)
+3. For a live issue ref, derive `build_ready` from the labels (`true` exactly when the S15-resolved
+   `READY_ROLE` from `github.labels.build.ready`, default `status:ready`, is present). A live backlog leaf without a status label
+   therefore validates as `build_ready: false`; live data cannot distinguish an explicit false from
+   a historical write that omitted the label.
+4. A leaf with normalized `build_ready: true` MUST carry that same resolved `READY_ROLE`. A leaf with `build_ready: false` may omit
+   `status:*`.
+
+| classification | normalized build_ready | status label | F4 |
+|---|---:|---|---|
+| container | any | omitted | **PASS** |
+| leaf | `false` | omitted | **PASS** |
+| leaf | `true` | configured build-ready role (`status:ready` by default) | **PASS** |
+| leaf | `true` | omitted or a different `status:*` label | **FAIL** |
+
+F4 does not make a container build-ready. S15 remains the independent lifecycle prohibition: any
+container carrying the build-ready role still FAILs S15, even though F4's status-presence check is
+not applicable to containers.
+
+#### F5 — Required external access provable
+
+The factory-gate rule: an input must not enter the pipeline unless the current runtime can actually
+reach every external surface the work requires. Enumerate the surfaces this issue depends on:
+
+- artifact links in the body (documents, designs, dashboards, spreadsheets, recordings),
+- systems named by the description, acceptance criteria, or Validation Journey ("read the CloudWatch
+  alarms", "pull the copy from the Google Doc", "check the Sentry issues"),
+- tooling the work plainly implies (a deploy target, a database, a third-party API).
+
+For each surface, prove **read** access from the current runtime with a target-resource-specific,
+read-only probe through its sanctioned access layer: the matching MCP tool or `lisa-*-access` skill,
+or an authenticated fetch using environment-injected authentication. Identity-only commands such as
+`aws sts get-caller-identity`, `gh auth status`, and vendor equivalents are preflight checks only;
+they never satisfy F5 by themselves. A successful probe for one surface does not cover another:
+reading the named GitHub repository, CloudWatch log group, Sentry project, or linked document must
+each succeed separately when that surface is required.
+
+Attempt to resolve a gap before failing, but only through another configured brokered access layer
+or environment-injected authentication. A sanctioned broker may use its own credential store
+internally; the validator must never autonomously inspect, read, copy, print, or export raw
+credentials, keychains, credential files, or token stores, and must never invoke low-level secret
+tools to recover them. This preserves the intake agent's discover-first duty without exposing
+credential material.
+
+- `PASS` — every required surface has its own successful target-resource read probe or authenticated
+  fetch through the sanctioned access layer.
+- `N/A` — the issue needs nothing beyond the repository and the tracker itself.
+- `FAIL` — a required surface is unreachable after the resolution attempt. Name the exact surface
+  and what was probed. Intake callers must route this to `blocked` + human escalation with the
+  missing access spelled out — an input the factory cannot execute never enters the factory.
+
+Probes are read-only and bounded (seconds, not minutes, per surface); never mutate the external
+system, and never invent or ask for credentials inline.
+
+## Execution
+
+1. Parse `$ARGUMENTS`. Resolve `READY_ROLE` from merged `github.labels.build.ready` config (default `status:ready`). If the input is an issue ref, fetch via `gh issue view --json` and derive the spec fields — including `runtime_behavior_change` (from the `## Target Backend Environment` declaration: an exact configured environment key → `true`, a `None —` declaration → `false`, an absent section → **underivable**, never `false`), `build_ready` (label set contains the resolved `READY_ROLE`, not a hard-coded label) and `child_refs` (native sub-issues plus body task-list / `Blocked by #<n>` parentage, resolved as in `lisa-github-read-issue`) so S15 can classify the issue. Otherwise parse the YAML spec and preserve the proposed `build_ready` value for S15/F4 normalization.
+2. Confirm `gh auth status` succeeds before any feasibility gate runs.
+3. Run every Specification gate in order. Collect PASS / FAIL / N/A with a one-line reason.
+4. Unless the caller passed `--spec-only`, run every Feasibility gate.
+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
+## github-validate-issue: <ISSUE-REF-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 Parent sub-issue 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>
+- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S16 Source Requirement traceability — <one-line reason>
+- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S17 Improvement measurability — <one-line reason>
+- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S18 Stateless-pickup dry-run — <one-line reason>
+- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S19 Branch Plan derivation — <one-line reason>
+- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] S20 Named-control reachability — <one-line reason>
+
+### Feasibility Gates  (omit this section when --spec-only)
+- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] F1 Issue type label exists in repo — <one-line reason>
+- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] F2 Parent sub-issue exists and is the right type — <one-line reason>
+- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] F3 Linked issues exist — <one-line reason>
+- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] F4 Required labels populated — <one-line reason>
+- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] F5 Required external access provable — <one-line reason>
+
+### Verdict: PASS | FAIL
+### Failures: <count>
+### Failure details
+- gate: <gate-id>
+  category: <product-clarity|acceptance-criteria|design-ux|scope|dependency|data|technical|structural>
+  product_relevant: <true|false>
+  what: <plain-language description, no gate IDs, no GitHub jargon — written for a non-engineer product owner>
+  recommendation: <1–3 concrete options the caller (or downstream product team) can pick from. Never "clarify this".>
+- gate: <gate-id>
+  ...
+```
+
+The verdict is `PASS` if every applicable gate is `PASS`. Any `FAIL` makes the verdict `FAIL`. `N/A` does not affect the verdict.
+
+### Failure-detail fields
+
+Same shape and meaning as `lisa-jira-validate-ticket` so downstream PRD-intake skills (Notion, Confluence, Linear, GitHub) can format comments uniformly:
+
+- **gate**: the gate ID (`S1`–`S20`, `F1`–`F5`).
+- **category**: the gate's fixed category from the table.
+- **product_relevant**: matches the gate's table entry. `false` means the failure is an internal data-quality problem the caller should fix without bothering product.
+- **what**: plain-language, product-readable.
+- **recommendation**: 1–3 concrete options.
+
+## Rules
+
+- Never write to GitHub. The `allowed-tools` list intentionally excludes any `gh issue create / edit / comment / close` invocation.
+- Never auto-fix the spec. This skill reports gaps; callers decide what to do.
+- Never silently skip a gate. Return `N/A` with the reason if a gate genuinely doesn't apply; never omit it.
+- The `what` and `recommendation` must be concrete and product-readable — vague guidance ("clarify this") is useless.
+- Never emit a category outside the fixed set.
+- `product_relevant` is determined by the gate, not by the failure context.
+- When validating an existing issue ref, parse the body via the same logic as `lisa-github-read-issue` so the two skills agree on what they see.