agentleFS
onatmonatm/agent-skills/linear-task-planning/SKILL.md

linear-task-planning

Skill7 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Use when generating, decomposing, creating, or updating implementation tasks in Linear through the official Linear MCP. Requires a reviewed preview before every mutation.

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

17 rules. About 0 are common, 17 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈17

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Read only the project material needed for the requested scope.

    line 12
  2. Distinctive:

    Do not generate implementation work that depends on an unresolved decision.

    line 19
  3. Distinctive:

    Use Linear MCP read tools before proposing work:

    line 23
  4. Distinctive:

    Read available statuses, labels, milestones, cycles, and issue relationships.

    line 27
  5. Distinctive:

    Search for matching issue titles and source identifiers to prevent duplicates.

    line 28
  6. Distinctive:

    Ask the user when team or project placement is ambiguous.

    line 29
  7. Distinctive:

    Never invent Linear IDs, status names, labels, projects, or relationships.

    line 31
  8. Distinctive:

    Prefer a vertical, observable outcome over vague layer activity.

    line 40
  9. Distinctive:

    Do not add speculative features, abstractions, or compatibility work.

    line 42
  10. Distinctive:

    Before creating or updating anything, show:

    line 61
  11. Distinctive:

    Ask for explicit approval.

    line 70
  12. Distinctive:

    Create issues with the approved descriptions and placement.

    line 78
  13. Distinctive:

    Add relationships only when supported by the source plan.

    line 79
  14. Distinctive:

    Do not assign owners unless explicitly requested.

    line 80
  15. Distinctive:

    Do not silently alter existing issue scope or status.

    line 81
  16. Distinctive:

    If a mutation partially fails, stop, report what succeeded with URLs, and propose the smallest recovery action.

    line 83
  17. Distinctive:

    Read the resulting Linear objects and confirm:

    line 87

≈ “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

Linear Task Planning

Turn approved engineering plans into clear, self-contained Linear issues. Use the official Linear MCP for discovery and mutations. Do not implement code or edit project files.

Source Authority

Read only the project material needed for the requested scope. Resolve conflicts in this order unless the project says otherwise:

  1. Accepted architecture decisions.
  2. Architecture and component designs.
  3. Roadmap phase gates and phase plans.
  4. The user's current instruction.

Do not generate implementation work that depends on an unresolved decision. Create a decision or research issue only when the source plan explicitly allows it or the user approves it.

Discover Linear Context

Use Linear MCP read tools before proposing work:

  • Identify the workspace and candidate team.
  • Find an existing project before proposing a new one.
  • Read available statuses, labels, milestones, cycles, and issue relationships.
  • Search for matching issue titles and source identifiers to prevent duplicates.
  • Ask the user when team or project placement is ambiguous.

Never invent Linear IDs, status names, labels, projects, or relationships.

Decompose Work

Generate tasks from one approved phase, work package, or implementation plan at a time.

  • Target roughly half a day to three engineering days per issue.
  • Split work above five days or work containing independent contracts.
  • Preserve prerequisite order and capability gates.
  • Prefer a vertical, observable outcome over vague layer activity.
  • Separate reusable harnesses, research decisions, persisted-format changes, and migrations when independently deliverable.
  • Do not add speculative features, abstractions, or compatibility work.

Each issue must be implementable without hidden decisions and contain:

  • Outcome.
  • Scope.
  • Non-goals.
  • Prerequisites and dependencies.
  • Affected contracts or components.
  • Proposed implementation steps when established by source material.
  • Failure cases.
  • Required tests and benchmarks.
  • Documentation impact.
  • Acceptance evidence.

Include project-specific correctness requirements from contributor guidance and design docs. For database work, this may include crash recovery, deterministic concurrency, branch reachability, denied security paths, compatibility fixtures, or correctness-oracle benchmarks.

Preview Before Mutation

Before creating or updating anything, show:

  • Target team and project.
  • Proposed issue titles and concise outcomes.
  • Initial statuses, labels, and milestone or cycle placement.
  • Parent, sub-issue, blocking, and related relationships.
  • Existing issues that will be reused or updated.
  • Ambiguities or decisions requiring review.

Ask for explicit approval. Read-only discovery does not require approval; every create or update does.

Write Idempotently

After approval:

  1. Recheck matching issues immediately before creation.
  2. Reuse or update only confident matches.
  3. Create issues with the approved descriptions and placement.
  4. Add relationships only when supported by the source plan.
  5. Do not assign owners unless explicitly requested.
  6. Do not silently alter existing issue scope or status.

If a mutation partially fails, stop, report what succeeded with URLs, and propose the smallest recovery action. Do not retry creates blindly.

Verify

Read the resulting Linear objects and confirm:

  • Expected issue count.
  • Titles and descriptions.
  • Team, project, status, labels, and milestone or cycle.
  • Parent and dependency relationships.
  • No obvious duplicates.

Return a concise summary with issue URLs, skipped work, unresolved questions, and any verification gaps.

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.