Linear Issue Management
Before using Linear workflows, search for linear MCP tools. If not found, treat as not installed.
⚠️ CRITICAL: PR Creation with Linear Issues
When creating a PR that references Linear issues (LOBE-xxx), you MUST:
- Create the PR with magic keywords (
Fixes LOBE-xxx) - IMMEDIATELY after PR creation, add completion comments to ALL referenced Linear issues
- Do NOT consider the task complete until Linear comments are added
This is NON-NEGOTIABLE. Skipping Linear comments is a workflow violation.
Workflow
- Retrieve issue details before starting:
mcp__linear-server__get_issue - Read images: If the issue description contains images, MUST use
mcp__linear-server__extract_imagesto read image content for full context - Check for sub-issues: Use
mcp__linear-server__list_issueswithparentIdfilter - Mark as In Progress: When starting to plan or implement an issue, immediately update status to "In Progress" via
mcp__linear-server__update_issue - Update issue status when completing:
mcp__linear-server__update_issue - Add completion comment (REQUIRED):
mcp__linear-server__create_comment
Creating Issues
When creating issues with mcp__linear-server__create_issue, MUST add the claude code label.
Language
Issue titles, descriptions, and comments MUST follow the language of the current conversation, not default to English.
- Conversation in 中文 → issue body in 中文;technical terms (file paths, identifiers, library names, commands, error messages) stay in English.
- Conversation in English → issue body in English.
- Code blocks, file paths, and quoted strings always stay in their original form regardless of surrounding language.
- This applies equally to updates — when editing an existing issue (description and titles), preserve the language of the conversation that triggered the edit; do not switch the issue language during a refactor (Chinese → English or vice versa).
Rationale: the issue is a continuation of the conversation. Forcing English when the discussion is in Chinese creates translation friction for the collaborator who came from that thread.
Creating Sub-issue Trees
When breaking a parent issue into a tree of sub-issues (e.g., task decomposition for LOBE-xxx), follow these rules — they work around real limitations of the Linear MCP tools.
1. ALWAYS prefix titles with an ordering index
The Linear Sub-issues panel displays children by sortOrder, which defaults to newest-first (most recently created appears on top). Neither parallel nor serial creation will produce the intended top-to-bottom reading order, and the MCP save_issue tool does not expose a sortOrder parameter — you cannot set order at create time.
Workaround: encode execution order in the title itself:
[1] [db] add schema fields
[2] [db] new table + repository
[3] [service] business logic layer
[4] [api] REST endpoints
[4.1] [sdk] client SDK wrapper
[4.1.1] [app] consumer integration
[4.1.2] [app] UI surface
[4.2] [ui] dashboard page
Even when the panel shuffles, the reader can mentally reconstruct the dependency graph at a glance. Dotted numbering [n.m.k] should mirror the parent-child nesting so the index and the tree agree.
2. Nest sub-issues by logical parent-child, not flat under the root
Linear supports unlimited sub-issue depth. A flat list of 8+ siblings under one root is hard to scan. Group by main-subordinate logic:
- Core service → its SDK → SDK consumers
- Don't create a sibling when a child is more accurate
Use parentId: "LOBE-xxxx" at creation (or save_issue to move). Moving an issue's parent does not disturb its blockedBy relations.
3. Sub-issue creation order is dictated by blockedBy
blockedBy requires the blocker to exist first (you need its LOBE-id). So:
- Topologically sort the DAG — leaves (no deps) first, roots last
- Create issues with zero deps in the first wave
- Create dependent issues only after collecting the blocker IDs from prior responses
blockedByis append-only; passing it again does not overwrite — safe to re-run
4. Don't waste rounds trying to parallelize
MCP tool calls in a single message look parallel but execute sequentially on the server, and you still need blocker IDs from earlier responses. Just issue calls in dependency order; optimizing for parallelism gains nothing here.
5. Keep each sub-issue description self-contained
Each sub-issue should state:
- Goal (1–2 lines)
- Key files to touch
- Concrete changes / acceptance criteria
- Dependencies (link to blocker issues by
LOBE-xxxx) - Validation steps
The implementer may open only the sub-issue, not the parent — don't rely on context that lives only in the parent description.
Completion Comment Format
Every completed issue MUST have a comment summarizing work done:
## Changes Summary
- **Feature**: Brief description of what was implemented
- **Files Changed**: List key files modified
- **PR**: #xxx or PR URL
### Key Changes
- Change 1
- Change 2
- ...
This is critical for:
- Team visibility
- Code review context
- Future reference
PR Association (REQUIRED)
When creating PRs for Linear issues, include magic keywords in PR body:
Fixes LOBE-123Closes LOBE-123Resolves LOBE-123
Per-Issue Completion Rule
When working on multiple issues, update EACH issue IMMEDIATELY after completing it:
- Complete implementation
- Run
bun run type-check - Run related tests
- Create PR if needed
- Update status to "In Review" (NOT "Done")
- Add completion comment immediately
- Move to next issue
Note: Status → "In Review" when PR created. "Done" only after PR merged.
❌ Wrong: Complete all → Create PR → Forget Linear comments
✅ Correct: Complete → Create PR → Add Linear comments → Task done