lisa-linear-validate-issue

name	lisa-linear-validate-issue
description	Validates a proposed Linear work item spec (Project, Issue, or sub-Issue) — or an existing Linear item — against the organizational quality gates without writing anything. Returns a structured PASS/FAIL report per gate with concrete remediation. Single source of truth for what makes a valid Linear item — both the write path (linear-write-issue runs it pre-write) and the dry-run path (linear-to-tracker runs it during PRD intake) call this skill so the bar can never drift.
allowed-tools	["Skill","Bash"]

Validate Linear Work Item: $ARGUMENTS

Run all organizational quality gates against a Linear work item spec OR an existing Linear item. This skill is read-only — it never writes to Linear. The output is a structured report consumed by callers (lisa-linear-write-issue for pre-write gating, lisa-linear-to-tracker for PRD dry-run, lisa-linear-verify for post-write checks).

Configuration

Reads linear.workspace, linear.teamKey from .lisa.config.json (with .local override) for any feasibility lookups.

Input

$ARGUMENTS is one of:

1. An existing Linear identifier (e.g. ENG-123 for an Issue, or <workspace>/project/<slug>-<id> for a Project): fetch and validate the live state.
2. A proposed item spec (YAML block, see schema below): validate as-is without touching Linear.

Spec schema

issue_type: Story          # Epic | Story | Task | Bug | Spike | Sub-task | Improvement
team_key: ENG
summary: "[CU-1.2] Upload contract PDF from settings"
priority: 3                # Linear native: 0=No priority, 1=Urgent, 2=High, 3=Medium, 4=Low
parent_project_id: <uuid>  # Required for Story/Task/Improvement when in Epic context
parent_issue_id: <uuid>    # Required for Sub-task (the Story Issue)
description: |             # Full description text — every required section
  ## Context / Business Value
  ...

  ## Technical Approach
  ...

  ## Acceptance Criteria
  1. 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 picks 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
relations: [{ id: "ENG-99", type: "blocked_by" }]   # known issue relations (may be empty)
remote_links: [{ url: "https://github.com/...", title: "PR #42" }]
build_ready: true                 # caller asserts the build-ready role (the `Ready` state) is/would be set — see S15
child_refs: ["ENG-601", "ENG-602"]   # known child work (sub-issues / project-member issues / 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 identifier, fetch the item via lisa-linear-access operation: get-issue (Issue) or lisa-linear-access operation: get-project (Project), derive the same fields from the fetched data — including runtime_behavior_change (derived from the ## Target Backend Environment declaration per derived-branch-plan, and authoritative over any caller assertion), build_ready (the Issue's state is the configured ready state) and child_refs (sub-issues, project-member issues, plus blocked_by parentage, resolved as in lisa-linear-read-issue) so S15 can classify the item — then run gates.

Gates

Gates are grouped into Specification (spec-only checks, no Linear lookups) and Feasibility (requires Linear lookups). The dry-run path may opt to run Specification gates only; the write path runs both.

Each gate is tagged with a fixed category and a product_relevant boolean. Categories drive how downstream callers (notably lisa-linear-prd-intake) translate failures into product-facing comments; product_relevant=false failures indicate internal data-quality problems the agent should fix itself rather than ask product to clarify.

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 Project parent 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
F1 Issue type valid in team	structural	false

Category values are the same fixed set as lisa-jira-validate-ticket:

• product-clarity — feature behavior or user intent unclear in the PRD
• acceptance-criteria — pass/fail conditions missing or ambiguous
• design-ux — visual or interaction spec missing
• scope — boundary unclear, items overlap, split needed
• dependency — blocked by another team / system / decision
• data — data source / shape / volume unspecified
• technical — engineering decision required
• structural — internal data-quality problem the agent must fix itself, not surface to product

Specification Gates

S1 — Required core fields

team_key, issue_type, summary, priority, description 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

Description text must include all of these sections (case-insensitive ## markdown 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 criterion in Given / When / Then form. Reject prose-only criteria, "should work" language, or numbered lists without Given/When/Then verbs.

S5 — Bug-specific content

When issue_type = Bug, description 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, description 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 — Project parent declared

When issue_type ∈ {Story, Task, Improvement} AND the item is part of an Epic context, parent_project_id must be set. When issue_type = Sub-task, parent_issue_id must be set. (Validity of the IDs is checked in feasibility gates.)

For top-level Bug / Spike not under an Epic, this gate is N/A.

A build-ready leaf work unit that is not part of an Epic context stands 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 ("must not be stranded"), so a missing parent_project_id is N/A, not a FAIL. A Sub-task is exempt from this exception — it always requires parent_issue_id. This mirrors the leaf carve-out already in S10/S15.

S8 — Target Backend Environment

Every leaf work unit carries ## Target Backend Environment in the description. 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 (a Project, 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-linear-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, description must contain ## Sign-in Required naming the account/role and credential source.

If the spec doesn't set authenticated_surface, infer it: scan the description 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) — description 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)".

An Epic (a Linear Project), 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-linear-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, description must contain ## Validation Journey. Skipped for doc-only / config-only / type-only / Epic. When runtime_behavior_change is underivable — a live legacy Issue whose description 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" or "none":

• auto (default): missing section returns FAIL with remediation "Invoke lisa-linear-add-journey to append the section after create". The write path auto-fixes; dry-run path leaves it as a FAIL the caller must address.
• none: missing section is a FAIL the caller will not auto-fix.

S12 — Source Precedence (when artifacts attached)

When artifacts_attached = true, description 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 covering the four axes.

Detect by scanning for the phrase Source Precedence (case-insensitive) anywhere in the description AND verifying the four axes are each named. Missing the phrase OR any axis: FAIL with remediation naming the missing axes.

If the spec doesn't set artifacts_attached, infer it the same way S9 infers sign-in: scan the description 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 item must EITHER have at least one entry in relations, OR the description / a comment must contain a ## Relationship Search block listing the git history queries and Linear MCP queries that were run with their outcomes.

An item with zero relations 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 item 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 item.

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 item. 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 item'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 — a Project (the Epic equivalent), 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-linear-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. This is the symmetric write-side guard for the Linear validator — a container sitting in the configured ready state is a lifecycle error and must FAIL here, regardless of how the item was produced. (Mirrors the "build-ready is leaf-only" rule that lisa-linear-write-issue applies at write time.)

When the gate applies. Run S15 whenever the item is build-ready — i.e. build_ready = true, or the item's live state is the configured ready state. If the item is not build-ready, S15 is N/A (nothing claims a non-ready item, so the invariant is vacuous).

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 issue type decides. Determine child work from (in order) child_refs, native sub-issues, project-member issues (an Epic is modeled as a Linear Project), and blocked_by / parent references — the same hierarchy resolution lisa-linear-read-issue uses. When validating a live identifier, query sub-issues / project members alongside the item 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/Project + build-ready — issue_type = Epic (a Linear Project) with no child work, AND build-ready. Still FAIL: an Epic/Project 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 item 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 (Project)	no	yes	FAIL (childless Epic/Project — pure rollup container, exception does not apply)
any	any	no	N/A (not build-ready)

Remediation: "Build-ready is leaf-only per leaf-only-lifecycle. Move the build-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 description 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 a Project/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-linear-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.

Feasibility Gates (require Linear lookups; skip in dry-run if requested)

F1 — Issue type valid in team

For Issue types: confirm the team supports the issue type via lisa-linear-access operation: get-team. Linear issue types are typically per-team; check that the requested type exists.

For Epic (Project): confirm the team allows projects.

F2 — Project parent exists and is in same team

When parent_project_id is set: fetch via lisa-linear-access operation: get-project, confirm it exists and belongs to the configured team.

When parent_issue_id is set (Sub-task case): fetch via lisa-linear-access operation: get-issue, confirm the issue is non-Sub-task and in the same team / project.

F3 — Linked items exist

For each entry in relations, call lisa-linear-access operation: get-issue to confirm the identifier resolves. Flag broken identifiers.

F4 — Required labels exist (or can be created)

For each label referenced (status:*, component:<name>, prd-*), confirm via lisa-linear-access operation: list-issue-labels (or lisa-linear-access operation: list-project-labels for Project labels) that it exists OR is creatable. Linear labels are team-scoped or workspace-scoped; flag if the requested scope is wrong.

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 item 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 item 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. If it's an identifier, fetch the item and derive the spec from the fetched 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 (the Issue's state is the configured ready state) and child_refs (sub-issues, project-member issues, plus blocked_by parentage, resolved as in lisa-linear-read-issue) so S15 can classify the item. Otherwise parse the YAML spec.
2. Resolve team ID via lisa-linear-access operation: list-teams({query: <teamKey>}) if any feasibility gate will run.
3. Run every Specification gate in order. Collect PASS / FAIL / N/A with a one-line reason.
4. Unless the caller passed --spec-only (dry-run), run every Feasibility gate. Collect results.
5. Emit the report below.

Output

Output is a single fenced text block. Callers parse it; do not add free-form prose around it.

## linear-validate-issue: <IDENTIFIER-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 Project parent 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>

### Feasibility Gates  (omit when --spec-only)
- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] F1 Issue type valid in team — <one-line reason>
- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] F2 Project parent exists and is in same team — <one-line reason>
- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] F3 Linked items exist — <one-line reason>
- [PASS|FAIL|N/A] F4 Required labels exist (or can be created) — <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: <category>
  product_relevant: <true|false>
  what: <plain-language description, no gate-IDs, no Linear jargon>
  recommendation: <1–3 concrete options>
- gate: ...

The verdict is PASS if and only if every applicable gate is PASS. Any FAIL makes the verdict FAIL. N/A does not affect the verdict.

Rules

• Never write to Linear. The allowed-tools list intentionally excludes any save_* tool.
• Never auto-fix the spec. This skill reports gaps; callers decide what to do.
• Never silently skip a gate. If a gate genuinely doesn't apply, return N/A with the reason.
• The what and recommendation fields must be concrete and product-readable — the dry-run path turns each failure into a Linear comment. Vague guidance is useless; always give 1–3 candidate resolutions.
• Never emit a category outside the fixed set.
• product_relevant is determined by the gate, not by the failure context.