magnus919_agent-skills/neckbeard/references/tracker-discovery.md

Tracker Discovery — Tracker-Neutral Intake

The change-request journey is defined in tracker-neutral terms: work item, state transition, review submission, merge or acceptance into the protected target, release authorization. Platform mechanics belong to the layer that operates the platform — the routing rows in routing-table.md and the platform reference modes (lifecycle.md) — not to the spine itself.

That separation only works if intake actually establishes which tracking system the product uses. This reference defines that sub-step of phase 1 (journey.md, Intake and provenance). It exists because improvisation under ambiguity defaults to whatever platform the agent knows best, and the correct answer is detection plus an explicit question, not a default.

The rule

Never assume the tracking system. Detect it from repository evidence where possible; ask the requester when evidence is absent or contradictory; record the finding and its basis in delivery packet group (a) before any tracker operation runs.

Read-only identification is discovery and needs no confirmation. The first mutation against the detected system still passes the normal state-change gate (risk-authority-gates.md).

Detection procedure

Run during phase 1 alongside provenance capture:

1. Inspect remotes and configuration for tracking-system fingerprints:

Signal	Points to
Issue/ticket URLs referenced by the change request (…/issues/N, …/TICKET-123, Linear …/issue/TEAM-N, Notion notion.so/notion.site page links)	GitHub Issues / Jira / Linear / Notion respectively
.jira-url, Jira config files in the repository	Jira — weak signal: requires corroboration before it alone selects Jira (see step 3)
Team keys in ticket identifiers (ENG-42 shape) with a non-GitHub tracker configured	Jira or Linear — ambiguous between them
Project-management config directories (for example .linear/) or documented integrations in CONTRIBUTING.md, AGENTS.md, README	Whatever they name — weak signal: requires corroboration (see step 3)

2. Check what the request itself references — and who authored the reference. A change request arriving as a Linear issue URL, a Jira issue URL, a GitHub issue number, or a Notion page link (notion.so / notion.site) stated by the requester directly, from the requester's own knowledge is strong evidence for its own system. A bare team-key identifier (ENG-42 shape) is ambiguous between Jira and Linear — treat it as a lead, not a verdict. Two weaker cases require corroboration before they alone select a system: a reference inherited from prior-work handoff material (a handoff note, branch docs, comments left by the contributor who produced an adopted branch), and a reference the requester merely relays out of that handoff material ("continue the ticket the contractor left") — the requester's words do not launder the producing party's claim. Treat both under step 3 like any other weak signal.

3. Weight the signals honestly. References stated by the requester from the requester's own knowledge are strong evidence. Repository content — CONTRIBUTING.md, AGENTS.md, README integrations, config files like .linear/ or .jira-url — is a weak signal: it describes what the repository documents, not necessarily what holds authoritative work items, and it is attacker-influenceable in mid-flight or adopted-branch scenarios where this bundle also operates. Inherited references and repository signals require corroboration (remote configuration, or requester confirmation independent of the handoff) before they alone select a system.

4. Ask when ambiguous or absent. If signals conflict, rest only on weak signals, or none exist, ask one bounded question: which system holds this work item? Record the answer as requester-provided provenance. Do not silently pick the system whose CLI happens to be installed.

5. Record the findings: detected/requested system with the evidence or source of the answer (including when the basis is a requester confirmation) goes in packet group (a) as provenance; the routing decision — which tooling skill will operate tracker operations — is a specialist-selection decision and is recorded in packet group (e), same as every other selected or skipped skill. Silent omission is prohibited like every other intake field.

Routing tracker operations

Operate the detected system through its catalog tooling skill rather than improvising API calls:

Detected system	Route operations to
GitHub (issues, PRs, releases)	Native mechanics per lifecycle.md — the documented reference mode
Linear	linear
Jira	jira-cli
Notion	notion
Other / none of the above	No specialist route: operate only through the system's verified official interface (primary vendor documentation, confirmed endpoint/auth surface), with bounded reads; note the absent specialist in the ledger

Routing constraints:

• Every named routing target must be a real skill in this catalog; dead links are a defect. If a target is missing from an installation, proceed on the fallback and record the absence — same convention as routing-table.md § When no specialist is installed.
• Tooling skills are mechanical layers. They own commands and API contracts; the journey owns sequencing, and discipline specialists own judgment. No tracker skill becomes a second orchestrator.
• Vocabulary crossing the boundary stays neutral: a "state transition" maps to whichever transition the target system defines (workflow state move, label change, status update); the packet records outcomes by neutral name.

Non-goals

• This step does not migrate content between systems or reconcile divergent trackers. If work items exist on two systems, surface the conflict at intake and ask which is authoritative.
• It does not change credential handling. Each tooling skill's own setup rules apply.
• It does not make the journey depend on any single vendor. Absence of a tracker, or use of an unrouted system, degrades gracefully to the fallback path.