| name | linear-issue-style |
| description | Enforce caveman-lite prose style on every Linear issue description written or updated via the Linear MCP tools. Descriptions must be succinct: no filler, no hedging, no marketing recap. Keep articles and full sentences; drop everything else. Applies to ALL Linear issue create/update operations — no user keyword required. Triggers automatically when about to call:
- mcp__claude_ai_Linear__save_issue
- mcp__claude_ai_Linear__create_comment (if comment is issue-description-like)
Also triggers on phrases like "make this Linear issue shorter", "caveman-lite the issue", "trim the description".
|
Linear issue style — caveman lite, always
All Linear issue descriptions MUST be caveman-lite. This is a blocking rule, not a preference.
What caveman-lite means here
- Keep articles (a/an/the) and full sentences — it's a Linear issue, not a shell prompt
- Drop filler words: just, really, basically, actually, simply, essentially, clearly
- Drop hedging: I think, it seems, probably, might be worth, perhaps
- Drop pleasantries: "this is a great opportunity to", "we could consider"
- Drop marketing recap: don't restate the summary at the end
- Drop transitional throat-clearing: "With that said", "That being said", "Moving on"
- Short synonyms (use ≠ utilize, fix ≠ implement a solution for)
- Technical terms stay exact
Structure rules
Use this shape unless the issue genuinely doesn't fit:
## Summary
One paragraph, 2–3 sentences. Problem + proposed action.
## Current code (or Current behavior)
File path + line number. Minimal quote. What it does.
## Proposed code (or Proposed behavior)
Code block or short description. No restating "this is better because".
## Measured impact (if applicable)
Table. Before / After / Delta only.
## Edge cases handled (if applicable)
Bullet list. One line per case. Input → outcome.
## Repro (if applicable)
One line: repo + branch + command.
Not every section is required — drop the ones that don't apply. Order can vary.
What NOT to do
- DON'T write "## Context" sections that restate the summary in more words
- DON'T write multi-paragraph rationales — the reader can infer from the table
- DON'T use em-dash transitions to pad a sentence out ("— which means that — ")
- DON'T recap at the end. End on the last table row or the last bullet.
- DON'T include sentences like "This patch addresses the single largest slice"
unless the issue is a survey that needs to justify priority
- DON'T include phrases like "Zero behavior change" more than once
- DON'T include the Corepack-is-a-Node-tool history. Assume reader knows
the surrounding ecosystem.
Before calling save_issue
Check the description against these, in order:
- Can any paragraph be cut to one sentence without losing info? Cut it.
- Any sentence start with "This"? Likely restating — consider removing.
- Any word ending in "-ly" in a non-technical context? Probably filler.
- Two sentences saying the same thing with different words? Keep one.
- Does the last paragraph add a new fact, or just "wrap up"? Wrap-ups go.
Applies the same way on updates: re-check the existing description against
these rules and rewrite rather than append.
Example of the transformation
BAD (verbose):
This patch addresses the single largest slice of that bootstrap. The measured
impact is significant and worth pursuing. In fact, 99%+ of "time to cache
fully restored" is not the cache — it's bootstrap overhead, and this change
directly reduces that overhead by avoiding a subprocess spawn.
GOOD (caveman-lite):
99%+ of "time to cache fully restored" is bootstrap, not cache. This cut
removes the largest slice of the bootstrap.
Two sentences, same information, 1/3 the tokens. The reader does not need to
be told the change is worth pursuing — the numbers say so.
