Linear Tickets

Source

This page reprints the English original.

pstack/skills/why/references/sources/linear.md (cursor/plugins 12d587d).

中文页

Linear Tickets

What this source contains

• Issues describing features, bugs, and their motivation
• Project docs attached to issues (often PRDs or specs)
• Parent/sub-issue relationships (broader initiative → specific tickets)
• Comments on issues (clarifications, scope changes, “why we’re doing this” rationale)
• Labels (e.g., compliance, customer-request, perf) that signal the type of motivation
• Status updates that explain scope changes
• Attachments and linked GitHub PRs

Linear is where the product/business context often lives: the “we’re doing this because customer X asked” or “this is for the Q3 compliance initiative” layer.

How to search it

Use the Linear MCP.

1. Start with linked tickets. If the seed commits or PRs reference ticket IDs (e.g., ENG-1234, [BUG-567]), fetch those first with get_issue. Read the full issue including comments.
2. List related issues by keyword. Use list_issues with text search for the feature name, key symbol, or business term. Try multiple phrasings.
3. Walk the issue tree. If you land on a sub-issue, fetch its parent. Sub-issues are tactical. Parents often carry the “why.”
4. Read project docs. If the issue belongs to a project, use get_project and check attached docs. Project-level documents are where specs and rationale are most often captured.
5. Check labels and milestones. Labels hint at the category of motivation (customer-request, incident-followup, compliance). Milestones tie work to deadlines, which often reveal motivation.

What good evidence looks like here

• An issue description stating the business problem: “Customer Acme needs X because of their SOC2 audit”
• A comment recording a decision: “We decided to go with approach B because approach A would require touching the billing service”
• A parent issue titled like an initiative: “Q3 Enterprise Readiness” or “Reduce Payment Failures”
• An attached PRD or spec
• Labels like customer:acme, incident-followup, compliance, perf-regression

Common pitfalls

• Scope drift. The ticket the PR references may have been closed and reopened with a different scope. Read the whole history.
• Mechanical templates. Some teams require “Why” sections but fill them with boilerplate. Generic text (“improve user experience”) is probably not a real answer.
• Stale tickets. Old tickets often reflect a version of the plan that changed. Check dates and cross-reference with the code’s ship date.
• Closed-as-duplicate chains. Follow the duplicate-of relationships back to the canonical ticket.
• Private workspace content. If you can’t access an issue, note that as a gap rather than guessing.

What to return

For each relevant ticket:

• Ticket ID and title
• The problem/motivation quoted from the description or comments (not paraphrased. The synthesizer needs the exact text to cite)
• Labels, parent issue, project
• Author, created date, closed date
• Link to the ticket if available