agentleFS
nonlinear-xyznonlinear-xyz/factory-kit/skills/factory-submit/SKILL.md

factory-submit

Skill9 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Move the current branch's Linear issue to "In Review

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 4

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Read project configuration: Prefer .factory-kit/linear.json.

    line 13
  2. Very specific:

    If invocation input is provided: normalize it (prepend <teamKey>- if numeric).

    line 16
  3. Distinctive:

    If no issue ID can be derived, ask the user for it.

    line 18
  4. Very specific:

    Ask the user to confirm the move.

    line 22
  5. Very specific:

    Move the issue: Use the Linear integration's issue-update capability with id and state set to the configured inReview value.

    line 24

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

You're handing a ticket off to review. This command moves it to the team's "In Review" state in Linear. It does not push code, open a PR, or change git state — those are separate steps the user owns.

Invocation input: an optional issue identifier. If omitted, auto-detect it from the current branch name.

What to do

  1. Read project configuration. Prefer .factory-kit/linear.json; use legacy .claude/linear.json only as a migration fallback. If neither exists, stop and direct the user to setup-linear. Pull teamKey and states.inReview (default "In Review").
  2. Resolve the issue ID.
    • If invocation input is provided: normalize it (prepend <teamKey>- if numeric).
    • Otherwise: get the current branch with git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD. Match against (\d+) and construct <teamKey>-<num> from the first numeric chunk after the team key (case-insensitive). Example: nishu/non-45-setup-scaffold → NON-45.
    • If no issue ID can be derived, ask the user for it. Don't guess.
  3. Confirm before mutating.
    • Fetch the issue through the connected Linear integration and show: <KEY-N> — title (current state: <state>).
    • Ask the user to confirm the move. If the current state is already In Review, say so and stop.
  4. Move the issue. Use the Linear integration's issue-update capability with id and state set to the configured inReview value. If the integration requires a state UUID, list team statuses and resolve the configured name first.
  5. Post a handoff comment (optional but default-on). Before flipping state, draft a short comment in the factory-voice.md shape so the reviewer knows what they're looking at. Density matters — links into the decision graph (PR, related issues, prior comment threads) are what make the comment useful six months later.

    **Outcome:** <one sentence — what this branch does>
    **Why:** <the underlying constraint or principle>
    **Tradeoff:** <if any>
    **Refs:** <PR URL, related issue IDs, last commit SHA if no PR>

    Show the draft, ask for approval, then post it through the Linear integration's comment capability. Skip this step if the invocation input includes --no-comment or the issue already has a recent comment from this branch.

  6. Confirm completion. Print <KEY-N> moved to In Review. That's it — no PR side effects.

Style

Follow factory-voice.md. Single confirmation gate per side effect (comment, then state move). Don't narrate intermediate fetches. The handoff comment is the reviewer's entry point — make it parseable at standup speed. If state lookup fails or the team doesn't have an "In Review" state, surface the actual state names and ask which to use.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.