---
name: lisa-notion-to-tracker
description: >
  Break down a Notion PRD into Epics, Stories, and Sub-tasks in the configured destination tracker (JIRA, GitHub Issues, or Linear per .lisa.config.json). Use this skill whenever the user
  shares a Notion PRD URL and wants it converted into tracker tickets, or asks to "break down a PRD",
  "create tickets from a PRD", "turn this PRD into tickets", or similar. Also trigger when the user
  mentions creating epics/stories/tasks from a Notion document. This skill handles the full pipeline:
  fetching the PRD, analyzing comments, researching the codebase, identifying blockers, and creating
  all tickets with empirical verification plans.
---

# Notion PRD to Tracker Breakdown

Convert a Notion PRD into a structured ticket hierarchy in the configured destination tracker (JIRA, GitHub Issues, or Linear per .lisa.config.json): Epics > Stories > Sub-tasks.
Each sub-task is scoped to exactly one repo and includes an empirical verification plan.

> **Notion access policy**: all Notion operations in this skill go through `lisa-notion-access`. Do not call Notion REST APIs (`api.notion.com/...`), Notion MCP tools (`mcp__*notion*`), or the `@notionhq/client` library directly. Invoke `lisa-notion-access` via the Skill tool with an operation name and arguments per its dispatch table.

## Modes

This skill supports two modes, controlled by a `dry_run` flag in `$ARGUMENTS`:

- **`dry_run: false`** (default — full mode): run all phases, write tickets via `lisa-tracker-write`, run the preservation gate, report.
- **`dry_run: true`** (planning + validation only — no writes): run Phases 1, 1.5, 1.6, 2, 3, 4 to plan the hierarchy and draft each ticket spec, then call `lisa-tracker-validate` (with `--spec-only`) on every drafted ticket. Aggregate the per-ticket validator reports into a single dry-run report. **Skip Phase 5 (sub-task creation), Phase 5.5 (preservation gate), and Phase 6 (results report)** — none of those make sense without writes. Return the dry-run report so the caller (e.g. `lisa-notion-prd-intake`) can decide whether to proceed.

Dry-run output format:

```text
## notion-to-tracker dry-run: <PRD title>

### Requirement register
- R1 §"<section heading>": "<verbatim requirement text>"
- R2 §"<section heading>": "<verbatim requirement text>"
- ...

### Planned hierarchy
- Epic: <summary>
  prd_section: "<heading text from the PRD that produced this epic>"
  prd_anchor: "<first ~10 chars>...<last ~10 chars>"   # for selection_with_ellipsis; null if no specific section
  requirements: [R1, R2]   # register ids this ticket exists to satisfy; [] only for derived work
  - Story 1.1: <summary>
    prd_section: "<heading or user-story line>"
    prd_anchor: "<start>...<end>"
    requirements: [R1]
    - Sub-task [<repo>]: <summary>
      prd_section: "<heading or AC bullet>"
      prd_anchor: "<start>...<end>"
      requirements: [R1]
    - ...
  - Story 1.2: ...

### Per-ticket validation
- <ticket-id>: PASS | FAIL — <count> failures
  prd_section: "<heading text>"
  prd_anchor: "<start>...<end>"   # mirrored from Planned hierarchy for caller convenience
  failures:
    - gate: <gate-id>
      category: <category from validator>
      product_relevant: <true|false>
      what: <plain-language description from validator>
      recommendation: <1–3 candidate resolutions from validator>

### Verdict: PASS | FAIL
### Total failures: <n>
```

`prd_anchor` and `prd_section` exist so downstream callers (notably `lisa-notion-prd-intake`) can post block-anchored Notion comments via `lisa-notion-access` operation `create-comment`. Build them as you parse the PRD: when you assign a planned ticket to a heading, user-story line, or AC bullet, capture the first ~10 and last ~10 characters of that section's text and emit them in the report. If a planned ticket genuinely doesn't trace to a specific section (cross-cutting infrastructure, derived sub-tasks), set both fields to `null` — the caller will fall back to a page-level comment.

The `failures` array passes the validator's `Failure details` block through verbatim. Do not re-format `what` or `recommendation` here — those fields are already product-readable per the validator's contract, and re-summarizing risks losing concrete recommendations.

The dry-run mode never writes to JIRA and never writes through any vendor tool directly. It also never sets a Notion status — that is the orchestrating skill's responsibility.

## Hard Rule: All Writes Go Through `lisa-tracker-write`

**Every JIRA ticket created by this skill — every epic, story, and sub-task — MUST be created by invoking the `lisa-tracker-write` skill. Never call a vendor MCP tool or REST endpoint directly from this skill or from any sub-agent it spawns.**

`lisa-tracker-write` enforces gates this skill does not:
- 3-audience description (Context / Technical Approach / Acceptance Criteria)
- Gherkin acceptance criteria
- Epic parent validation
- Explicit issue-link discovery (`blocks` / `is blocked by` / `relates to` / `duplicates` / `clones`)
- Single-repo scope check on Bug / Task / Sub-task / Improvement
- Sign-in account and target environment recorded in description
- Post-create verification

Bypassing `lisa-tracker-write` produces thin tickets that the rest of the lifecycle (triage, ticket-verify, journey, evidence) treats as broken. This is the most common failure mode this skill has had — calling `createJiraIssue` directly is a regression, not an optimization. The Atlassian read tools (`getJiraIssue`, `searchJiraIssuesUsingJql`, `getJiraIssueRemoteIssueLinks`, `getAccessibleAtlassianResources`, `getJiraProjectIssueTypesMetadata`, `getVisibleJiraProjects`) ARE allowed for context gathering and the Phase 5.5 preservation gate.

## Source Requirement Section (shared format)

Every ticket created by this skill — epic, story, and sub-task alike —
carries a `## Source Requirement` section in its description so anyone can
answer "why was this done?" without leaving the ticket:

```markdown
## Source Requirement

- **PRD**: [<PRD title>](<PRD URL>) §"<section heading>"
- **Requirement (R3)**: "<verbatim requirement text from the PRD>"

This ticket exists to satisfy the quoted requirement. If implementation
scope drifts from the quoted text, the PRD is the authority — raise the
conflict rather than silently reinterpreting it.
```

Rules:

- **Verbatim quotes, never paraphrases.** The quote is what survives later
  PRD edits, and it must be readable by a non-technical operator.
- **Multiple requirements** → one `**Requirement (Rn)**` line each.
- **Derived / cross-cutting work** (no single requirement) uses the
  supporting form instead:
  `- **Requirement**: Derived work supporting R3, R7 — no single PRD section.`
- **All the way down**: sub-tasks carry full quotes, not just a pointer at
  the parent Story, so a leaf claimed by build-intake in isolation is
  self-explanatory.
- JIRA descriptions render the section as `h2. Source Requirement`;
  GitHub/Linear use the markdown heading. `lisa-tracker-write` and the
  validators treat the section as mandatory for PRD-sourced tickets.

## Input

A Notion PRD URL. The PRD is expected to have:
- A main page with context, problems, and links to Epic sub-pages
- Epic sub-pages with User Stories and functional/non-functional requirements
- Comments/discussions on each page with engineering notes and product decisions

## Configuration

This skill reads project configuration from `.lisa.config.json` (with `.lisa.config.local.json` overriding per key) and operational E2E test config from environment variables. See the `config-resolution` rule for the full schema.

### From `.lisa.config.json`

This skill is a **PRD source** (Notion); destination tracker resolution is handled by `lisa-tracker-write` and `lisa-tracker-validate` internally — this skill does NOT read `tracker` directly. The relevant config for the source side:

| Field | Purpose | Required when |
|-------|---------|---------------|
| `notion.prdDatabaseId` | Notion database hosting PRDs | invoked without an explicit Notion page URL (batch / arg-less mode) |

### From environment variables (E2E test config — operational, not tracker)

| Variable | Purpose | Example |
|----------|---------|---------|
| `E2E_TEST_PHONE` | Test user phone number for verification plans | `0000000099` |
| `E2E_TEST_OTP` | Test user OTP code | `555555` |
| `E2E_TEST_ORG` | Test organization name | `Arsenal` |
| `E2E_BASE_URL` | Frontend base URL for Playwright tests | `https://dev.example.io/` |
| `E2E_GRAPHQL_URL` | GraphQL API URL for curl verification | `https://gql.dev.example.io/graphql` |

If env vars are not available, ask the user to provide them explicitly before proceeding. Do not retrieve credentials from repository files or local agent settings.

## Workflow

### Phase 1: Fetch & Analyze the PRD

1. **Fetch the main PRD page** by invoking `lisa-notion-access` via the Skill tool with operation `read-page` and `id: <PRD-page-id>`. The returned payload includes the page's properties and content blocks.
2. **Identify all Epic sub-pages** from the content (look for child page references in the returned block tree).
3. **Fetch all Epic pages** in parallel — for each child page ID, invoke `lisa-notion-access` operation `read-page`.
4. **Fetch full comments** from every page by invoking `lisa-notion-access` operation `list-comments` with `block_id: <page-id>` (page comments and block-anchored comments alike). If `list-comments` is not in the access skill's dispatch table yet, surface that to the caller — comments are required for engineering-decision synthesis below.
5. **Synthesize decisions and blockers** from the PRD content + all comments:
   - Decisions already confirmed by the team (look for agreement in comment threads)
   - Open questions that need product/engineering input
   - Engineering comments (prefixed with "Engineering:" or wrench emoji) that identify technical constraints
   - Cross-PRD dependencies (references to other features or shared infrastructure)

### Phase 1.4: Requirement Register (traceability)

Every ticket this skill creates must be able to answer "why was this done?"
by pointing at the PRD requirement it satisfies. Build that mapping now,
while parsing the PRD — it cannot be reliably reconstructed afterwards.

1. **Atomize the PRD into requirements** in document order: goals, user
   stories, functional and non-functional requirements, acceptance-criteria
   bullets, and important notes. Use the same atomization
   `lisa-prd-ticket-coverage` uses so the two views line up.
2. **Assign sequential register ids** (`R1`, `R2`, …). Ids are
   per-generation, not durable — the **verbatim quote is the durable
   anchor**; if the PRD is edited and re-planned, ids may shift but quotes
   still identify the requirement.
3. **Record each entry** as `{ id, verbatim_text, section_heading }` plus
   the `prd_anchor` capture described above.
4. **Tag every planned ticket** — epic, story, AND sub-task — with the
   register ids it exists to satisfy. All the way down: sub-tasks carry
   their own requirement quotes so a leaf dispatched in isolation is
   self-explanatory. A ticket that genuinely traces to no single
   requirement (cross-cutting infrastructure, derived enablement work)
   gets `requirements: []` and must say which requirements it *supports*
   in its Source Requirement section instead.

The register feeds three consumers: the `## Source Requirement` section on
every created ticket (Phases 3–5), the dry-run report (above), and the
requirement tokens in the PRD back-link (Phase 7).

### Phase 1.45: Requirement Quality Gates (prd-definition-of-ready)

Validate every Phase 1.4 register entry against the `prd-definition-of-ready` rule before
planning proceeds. Per atom:

- **Singular** — one behavior per entry. An entry welding multiple shall/when clauses together is
  split in the register (R4 → R4a/R4b) when the split is mechanical and meaning-preserving; when
  the split would change meaning, it is a product question, not a repair.
- **Unambiguous** — FAIL on the vagueness lexicon ("as appropriate", "user-friendly", "fast",
  "handle gracefully", "etc.", "and/or", unbounded "optimize"/"support"): phrasing no test can
  check. The full lexicon lives in the rule's reference body.
- **Verifiable** — a fit criterion (the measurable test of satisfaction) is present or
  mechanically derivable from the text; a requirement no test could check is not admitted as a
  requirement.
- **Pattern shape (SHOULD)** — an EARS pattern (ubiquitous / When / While / If-then / Where) or an
  equivalent single-behavior sentence; conforming shapes decompose into Gherkin mechanically.

Failures here are **requirement-level product clarifications**, not internal errors: report each in
the dry-run report as a `product-clarity` item quoting the atom verbatim, naming the defect, and
offering 1–3 candidate rewrites (an EARS-shaped rewrite is the default recommendation). In intake
flows these route to the PRD's `blocked` role with comments, exactly like ticket-validator
failures. Mechanical splits and derived fit criteria are repaired in-register and recorded in the
report — never silently.

### Phase 1.5: Extract Source Artifacts

PRDs typically reference external design, UX, and data artifacts (Figma files, Lovable prototypes, Loom walkthroughs, screenshots, example payloads, Confluence pages). These MUST be preserved onto the resulting tickets — otherwise developers picking up a ticket lose the source of truth. This is the failure mode this step exists to prevent.

1. **Scan the PRD main page, all Epic sub-pages, and every fetched comment thread** for:
   - URLs to design/prototype tools (Figma, FigJam, Figma Make, Lovable, Framer, Penpot)
   - URLs to recording/walkthrough tools (Loom, YouTube, Vimeo, Descript)
   - URLs to collaborative docs (Google Docs/Slides/Sheets, Confluence, Notion peer pages)
   - URLs to code sandboxes (CodeSandbox, StackBlitz, Replit, GitHub permalinks/gists)
   - URLs to diagramming tools (Miro, Mural, Excalidraw, Mermaid Live, draw.io, Lucid)
   - URLs to data/observability tools (Grafana, Datadog, Sentry, Metabase, Looker)
   - Embedded images and file attachments on the page itself
   - Fenced code blocks with example data (JSON, SQL, GraphQL, cURL request/response)

2. **Classify each artifact and apply taxonomy rules** by invoking the `lisa-tracker-source-artifacts` skill. That skill is the single source of truth for: domains (`ui-design` / `ux-flow` / `data` / `ops` / `reference`), per-tool classification rules (Figma `/proto/` vs design, Lovable as `ux-flow`, Loom, screenshots), and coverage smells. Do not restate the rules here — invoke the skill so any drift in the rules propagates uniformly.

3. **Build an `artifacts` map** keyed by domain. Each entry: `{ url, title, domain, source_page, source_page_url, classification_reason }`. The `classification_reason` makes disambiguation auditable ("Figma URL contains `/proto/` → ux-flow"). The `source_page` lets you trace each reference back to where it appeared in the PRD.

4. **Surface coverage smells** as defined in `lisa-tracker-source-artifacts` §5 (zero artifacts, prototype-without-mock, mock-without-prototype, Lovable-without-business-rules). Record any detected smells on the epic.

### Phase 1.6: Source Precedence & Conflict Resolution

Source precedence rules and cross-axis conflict handling are defined in `lisa-tracker-source-artifacts` §3 and §4. Apply them during ticket synthesis: every conflict between artifacts must be recorded under `## Open Questions` on the affected ticket, never silently reconciled.

The existing-component reuse expectation (mocks define visual intent, not implementation shortcut) is defined in `lisa-tracker-source-artifacts` §7. Encode it on every UI-touching story.

### Phase 2: Codebase + Live Product Research

Two complementary inputs ground PRD analysis: the **code** (what's there to reuse / extend) and the **live product** (what users see today). Skipping either produces tickets that misjudge the change.

**2a. Codebase research.** If the session doesn't already have codebase context, explore the repos to understand what exists. Use Explore agents for repos not yet examined. Skip repos already explored in the current session.

Key things to look for:
- Existing entities/modules that overlap with the PRD
- Patterns to reuse (auth decorators, S3 services, existing UI components)
- Data model gaps the PRD requires (new fields, new entities)
- The tech stack per repo (framework, ORM, UI library, deployment)

**2b. Live product walkthrough.** If the PRD touches existing user-facing surfaces (modifies a screen, adds something next to existing functionality, fixes current behavior, re-styles an existing flow), invoke the `lisa-product-walkthrough` skill against `E2E_BASE_URL` using the test user from config. This grounds the ticket plan in what's actually shipped — design-vs-current-product divergence, reuse candidates, and behavioral surprises that the PRD didn't anticipate become inputs to ticket creation rather than discoveries during implementation.

Skip the *walkthrough* only when the work has no user-visible surface, or affects a screen that does not yet exist in dev/prod — and when you skip it, run 2c instead. Skipping 2b never means authoring the ticket with no live-state grounding.

**2c. Deployed-state readback — required whenever 2b does not apply.** Per the `blocker-containment`-style shared-slug precedent, cite the `deployed-state-readback` rule for the full contract; do not restate its routing table here.

2b is waived for work with no user-visible surface. That waiver is about the **observation method**, not about whether to observe: backend, infrastructure, CI-config and dependency work all have live state, it is simply not visible through a browser. So the skip selects a **different probe**, never no probe — describe the deployed resource, call the deployed endpoint, read the configuration the last pipeline run used, read the *installed* artifact. For each thing the candidate tickets would create or change, confirm it is genuinely **absent from the deployed environment** before authoring a ticket for it, and record what was probed and what came back.

**Git ancestry, a merge check and `cdk synth` are never deployment evidence** — a discarded pipeline execution leaves a commit merged and unshipped, and all three still report "present". **An unanswerable probe is not a "no"**: when the state cannot be read back, record that the check could not be performed rather than defaulting to absent.


Walkthrough findings are attached to the originating Notion PRD as a comment ("Current product walkthrough — `<route>`") and inherited onto the resulting epic / stories under a `## Current Product` subsection.

### Phase 3: Create Epics

> **Mode guard**: In `dry_run: true` mode, do not invoke `lisa-tracker-write` in this phase. Instead, draft the epic spec (summary, description_body, artifacts) and validate it with `lisa-tracker-validate --spec-only`. Record the drafted spec (including a placeholder epic key like `DRY-RUN-EPIC-1`) for Phase 4 to use as parent references. In `dry_run: false` mode (default), proceed as described below.

For each PRD epic, **invoke the `lisa-tracker-write` skill** (do not call `createJiraIssue` directly). Pass it everything it needs to enforce its quality gates:

- `project_key`: resolved by `lisa-tracker-write` from `.lisa.config.json`
- `prd_source`: the originating PRD URL — mandatory for every ticket this skill creates; it arms the validator's S16 traceability gate
- `issue_type`: `Epic`
- `summary`: epic title from the PRD
- `description_body`: a draft of the 3-audience description containing:
  - A **Source Requirement** section (see the shared format below) citing the PRD URL, section heading, and the verbatim text of every register requirement (`R-id`) this epic exists to satisfy
  - **Context / Business Value**: epic summary from the PRD, originating Notion URL, business outcome
  - **Technical Approach**: cross-cutting integration points and constraints surfaced in Phase 2 codebase research
  - List of user stories the epic contains
  - Key decisions from comments (with attribution)
  - Blockers and open questions
  - Dependencies on other epics or PRDs
  - A **Source Artifacts** section listing every artifact extracted in Phase 1.5 (grouped by domain)
- `artifacts`: the full Phase 1.5 artifact list — every artifact, regardless of domain. The epic is the canonical hub, and anyone working on the epic or its descendants must be able to reach the full set from one place. No filtering at the epic level. `lisa-tracker-write` Phase 4c attaches them as remote links.
- `priority`, `labels`, `components`, `fix_version`: as appropriate

**Leaf-only build-ready (`leaf-only-lifecycle`)**: an Epic is a container, not a leaf work unit. Do NOT mark it build-ready — `lisa-tracker-write` must not be passed the build-ready role for an Epic, and the Epic's lifecycle state rolls up from its children. The build-ready role is applied only in Phase 5.

Capture the returned epic key — Phase 4 needs it as the parent for stories.

### Phase 4: Create Stories

> **Mode guard**: In `dry_run: true` mode, do not invoke `lisa-tracker-write` in this phase. Instead, draft each story spec and validate it with `lisa-tracker-validate --spec-only`. Use placeholder keys (e.g. `DRY-RUN-STORY-1.1`) for any downstream references. In `dry_run: false` mode (default), proceed as described below.

For each Epic, plan two kinds of stories:
- **One "X.0 Setup" story** for data model and infrastructure prerequisites (new entities, migrations, new fields, infrastructure like S3 buckets or SQS queues)
- **One story per user story** from the PRD (numbered to match the PRD)

**Story naming convention**: Prefix the summary with a short code derived from the PRD title:
- "Contract Upload" -> `[CU-1.1]`
- "Squad Planning" -> `[SP-1.1]`
- Use your judgment for other PRDs

For each story, **invoke `lisa-tracker-write`** with:

- `project_key`: resolved by `lisa-tracker-write` from `.lisa.config.json`
- `prd_source`: the originating PRD URL (arms S16)
- `issue_type`: `Story`
- `epic_parent`: the Epic key captured in Phase 3 (mandatory — `lisa-tracker-write` rejects non-bug, non-epic tickets without an epic parent)
- `summary`: prefixed per the naming convention above
- `description_body`: a draft of the 3-audience description containing:
  - A **Source Requirement** section (shared format below) quoting the register requirement(s) this story satisfies
  - **Context / Business Value**: the user story statement from the PRD
  - **Technical Approach**: notes from engineering comments and Phase 2 codebase research
  - **Acceptance Criteria** (Gherkin) derived from the functional requirements — `lisa-tracker-write` will reject prose-only acceptance criteria
  - Blockers with recommendation + alternatives (if any), under `## Open Questions`
  - A **Source Artifacts** section listing the artifacts inherited from the epic that match this story's scope (see propagation rules below)
- `artifacts`: the Phase 1.5 artifacts filtered by domain per the inheritance table below — `lisa-tracker-write` Phase 4c attaches them as remote links
- `priority`, `labels`, `components`, `fix_version`: as appropriate

**Leaf-only build-ready (`leaf-only-lifecycle`)**: a Story is a container (it has child Sub-tasks), not a leaf work unit. Do NOT mark it build-ready — never pass the build-ready role to `lisa-tracker-write` for a Story. Its lifecycle state rolls up from its Sub-tasks. The build-ready role is applied only in Phase 5.

Capture each returned story key — Phase 5 needs it as the parent for sub-tasks.

**Inherit domain-matching artifacts as story remote links**. For each story, the artifact set passed to `lisa-tracker-write` should be the Phase 1.5 artifacts whose domain matches the story's scope:

| Story type | Inherits domains |
|------------|------------------|
| Frontend / UI | `ui-design`, `ux-flow`, `reference` |
| Backend / API / data model | `data`, `reference` |
| Infrastructure | `ops`, `reference` |
| Mixed / setup ("X.0") | All domains |

When classification is ambiguous, err on the side of inclusion — a developer can ignore a link, but they can't inherit one that wasn't attached. Classification mistakes are caught by the preservation gate in Phase 5.5 and by the human reviewing the final report.

### Phase 5: Create Sub-tasks

**Auto-split cross-repo work before delegation.** For each candidate sub-task, apply `lisa-task-decomposition` step 1.5: if the work touches more than one repo, split it into one sub-task per repo under the same parent Story (e.g., `[backend-api] Add field` + `[mobile-app] Display field`), and encode the producer-before-consumer ordering via dependencies. Work units that may span repos (Epic, Story, Spike) stay as planned; work units that must be single-repo (Bug, Task, Sub-task, Improvement) are split now. Splitting is this skill's responsibility — the validator's S10 gate is `product_relevant: false` because cross-repo failures are decomposition errors caught here, not product questions sent back to the PRD.

**S10 hard gate repair loop.** Dry-run validation is not advisory. Before any Phase 5 write, every planned leaf spec MUST pass `lisa-tracker-validate --spec-only` for S10 Single-repo scope. If any Bug / Task / Sub-task / Improvement fails S10 (missing `Repository`, more than one repo, or cross-repo AC), stop the write path, auto-split or restamp the spec using `lisa-task-decomposition` step 1.5, add the repo bracket and `## Repository` / `h2. Repository` section, then re-run `lisa-tracker-validate --spec-only`. If S10 still fails after repair, abort the ticket write and record an internal Error in the dry-run report; do not create the ticket, do not bypass with direct vendor writes, and do not surface the `product_relevant: false` failure as a product clarification.

Delegate sub-task creation to **parallel agents** (one per epic or batch of stories) for efficiency. **Every spawned agent must invoke `lisa-tracker-write` for each sub-task — no agent may call `createJiraIssue` directly.** This is non-negotiable; see the Agent Prompt Template at the bottom of this skill for the exact instructions to pass.

Each sub-task MUST:
1. **Be scoped to exactly ONE repo** — indicated in brackets in the summary: `[repo-name]` and in the description's `## Repository` / `h2. Repository` section. `lisa-tracker-write` enforces single-repo scope on Sub-task; cross-repo or unscoped sub-tasks will be rejected and must be split/restamped before delegation.
2. **Include an Empirical Verification Plan** — real user-like verification, NOT unit tests, linting, or typechecking
3. **Carry its own `## Source Requirement` section** (shared format above) with the full verbatim quote(s) from the Phase 1.4 register — a leaf claimed by build-intake in isolation must be self-explanatory. When a sub-task is split per-repo, every split child inherits the same requirement quote(s).

**Leaf-only build-ready (`leaf-only-lifecycle`)**: Sub-tasks are the **leaf work units** of the decomposition — they are the ONLY items in the hierarchy that receive the build-ready role. `lisa-tracker-write` applies the build-ready role here so downstream build intake (`lisa-tracker-build-intake`) claims the leaves and never the Epic or Stories. **Pass `build_ready: true` explicitly on every Sub-task create** — per the `ready-role-filing` rule an omitted `build_ready` is NOT build-ready on any tracker, so a decomposition that relies on a vendor default silently produces a queue nothing ever claims. Apply the build-ready role to each Sub-task; never to its parent Story or Epic (Phases 3–4). `lisa-tracker-write` enforces the same invariant on the write side, so a Sub-task split into per-repo children (the cross-repo case above) carries build-ready on the children, not on any intermediate parent that gains child work.

**Verification plan examples by stack:**
- **Backend APIs**: curl GraphQL/REST calls with auth token, database queries, checking audit entries
- **Frontend web**: Playwright browser tests (login with test user, navigate, interact, screenshot)
- **Infrastructure**: `cdk synth` / `terraform plan` verification, CLI checks after deploy

Use the test user credentials from config for all verification plans. The credentials are passed to `lisa-tracker-write` as the sign-in account so it can record them in the description per its own rules.

For each sub-task, the spawned agent invokes `lisa-tracker-write` with `issue_type: "Sub-task"` and `parent` set to the Story key. The Story key is the parent — the epic relationship is inherited transitively.

Sub-tasks inherit their parent story's artifacts by reference (the parent link). Do not pass the same artifact list to every sub-task — that creates noise. The only exception is when a sub-task depends on an artifact that the parent story doesn't (e.g., a sub-task spec'd from a specific Figma frame that the broader story doesn't cite) — in that case, pass the specific artifact in the `artifacts` parameter to `lisa-tracker-write`.

### Phase 5.5: Artifact Preservation Gate (mandatory)

Run the preservation gate defined in `lisa-tracker-source-artifacts` §8 against the artifacts extracted in Phase 1.5 and the tickets just created. Do NOT restate or modify the gate logic here — invoke the rules from `lisa-tracker-source-artifacts` so any rule change propagates uniformly.

To run the gate, this skill must:

1. Pull the remote links of every epic and story created in this run via `lisa-tracker-read (vendor-neutral; dispatches to jira-read-ticket or github-read-issue)`.
2. Apply the §8 preservation matrix and verdict rules.
3. If the gate fails: list each dropped/misrouted artifact (domain, title, source page, why it was dropped) and either re-attach via `lisa-tracker-write` (UPDATE mode) or stop and ask the human. Never silently proceed past a gate failure.
4. If the gate passes: print the matrix compactly and proceed to Phase 6.

This gate is not optional. Skipping it is the failure mode the architecture exists to prevent.

### Phase 6: Report Results

After all tickets are created, present a summary table to the user:
- All Epics with keys and URLs
- All Stories grouped by Epic
- All Sub-tasks grouped by Story with repo tags
- **Requirement coverage** — one row per Phase 1.4 register entry (`R-id`, quote excerpt, tickets that declare it); requirements with zero tickets are a gap to resolve before reporting success
- Repo distribution (how many tasks per repo)
- **Artifact Preservation Matrix** — one row per artifact showing which epic/stories reference it
- Blockers list with recommendations and alternatives
- Cross-PRD dependencies

### Phase 7: PRD Back-link

> **Mode guard**: In `dry_run: true` mode, skip this phase entirely — no tickets exist to link.

After Phase 6, invoke the `lisa-prd-backlink` skill to write a `## Tickets` section back into the source PRD. The section becomes the canonical anchor for the **Debrief** flow once the initiative ships, and gives any human reading the PRD months later a one-click path to every work item created from it.

Invoke `lisa-prd-backlink` with:

- `source_type: "notion"`
- `source_ref`: the original PRD URL
- `tickets`: the full list created in Phases 3–5, each entry as `{ key, title, type, url, parent_key, requirements }` — `requirements` is the list of Phase 1.4 register ids the ticket satisfies (empty for derived work)
- `requirement_register`: the Phase 1.4 register (`{ id, verbatim_text, section_heading }` entries), so the back-link section can render the requirement → tickets view

If `lisa-prd-backlink` fails (PRD permission denied, Notion unreachable, source mutated mid-run), surface the error in the Phase 6 report rather than aborting — the tickets are already created and their value to the team is not blocked by the back-link write. Recommend the user re-run `lisa-prd-backlink` standalone once the source is reachable again.

## Handling Ambiguities and Blockers

When you encounter something the PRD + comments + codebase can't resolve:

1. **Don't guess** — mark the ticket with a BLOCKER section
2. **Include your recommendation** with rationale (what you'd pick and why)
3. **List 2-3 alternatives** so the user/product can choose
4. **State what's needed to unblock** (e.g., "Product decision on X", "Sync with Y on Z")

Common blocker categories:
- Missing data model decisions (field types, entity relationships)
- Permission model unclear (who can view/edit)
- UX decisions not finalized (display format, input mechanism)
- Cross-team dependencies (shared infrastructure, coordinated rollouts)
- Preset values not defined (enums, tags, labels)

## Agent Prompt Template for Sub-task Creation

When delegating to agents, provide this context. **The "MUST invoke jira-write-ticket" instruction is load-bearing — do not edit it out when adapting this template.**

```text
Create JIRA sub-tasks in the [PROJECT] project at [CLOUD_ID].

CRITICAL: For each sub-task, invoke the `lisa-tracker-write` skill via the Skill tool.
Do NOT call a vendor MCP tool directly. The `lisa-tracker-write` skill
enforces required quality gates (Gherkin acceptance criteria, 3-audience description,
single-repo scope, sign-in/environment fields, post-create verification). Bypassing it
produces broken tickets that downstream skills (triage, journey, evidence) cannot use.

For each sub-task, invoke `lisa-tracker-write` with:
- issue_type: "Sub-task"
- build_ready: true  # explicit per `ready-role-filing`; omitted is NOT build-ready on any tracker
- parent: the parent story key
- project_key: [PROJECT]
- prd_source: [the originating PRD URL — mandatory; arms the S16 traceability gate]
- summary: prefixed with the repo in brackets, e.g. "[backend-api] Add audit log table"
- description_body: a 3-section draft (Context / Technical Approach / Acceptance Criteria) plus `h2. Repository` naming exactly one repo, plus `h2. Source Requirement` quoting the PRD requirement(s) this sub-task satisfies VERBATIM with the PRD link and register id(s) — [paste the exact requirement text and R-ids for each sub-task from the requirement register; do not let the agent paraphrase]
- gherkin_acceptance_criteria: derived from the story's functional requirements
- sign_in_account: [test user credentials from config — name + role + how to obtain]
- target_environment: "dev"
- empirical_verification_plan: real user-like verification (curl + auth token,
  Playwright browser flow, CLI check after deploy) using the test credentials.
  NOT unit tests, linting, or typechecking.

Each sub-task must:
1. Be scoped to ONE repo only — repo named in brackets in the summary and in `h2. Repository`
2. Include the Empirical Verification Plan in the description
3. Be created via `lisa-tracker-write`, not via direct MCP calls

If `lisa-tracker-write` rejects a sub-task (cross-repo scope, missing Gherkin, missing
sign-in, etc.), fix the input and re-invoke. Do NOT fall back to a direct
`createJiraIssue` call to bypass the gate.

Test user info: [credentials from config]

[Then list all sub-tasks grouped by parent story with details]
```

## Cross-PRD Shared Infrastructure

Track tickets that are shared across PRDs to avoid duplication.
When a sub-task overlaps with an existing ticket, reference it instead of creating a duplicate.
Search JIRA for existing tickets in the project before creating new ones for shared infrastructure.
