From User Interviews to Linear and GitHub Issues
A coding agent can implement “add CSV export” perfectly and still solve the wrong problem. UserTold turns reviewed interview Evidence into Work that preserves the affected user, workflow, observed problem, expected outcome, uncertainty, and source links before it enters Linear or GitHub.
The goal is not to auto-file generic tickets. UserTold groups related Evidence into draft Work in the backlog. A human or project-aware agent checks the source moments, grouping, current product context, and proposed problem before moving Work to ready. Only ready Work enters a delivery tracker.
Start with a reviewed problem
Do not hand a literal request directly to a delivery agent:
“Add CSV export”
-> inspect the user, workflow, behavior, expectation, and alternatives
-> review source-linked Evidence
-> verify the current problem
-> mark Work ready
-> push to Linear or GitHub
Use Turn Feedback Into Work Worth Building first when the Evidence is still incomplete or draft Work has not been verified.
The handoff path
- Run interviews against one focused study.
- Extract Evidence from available transcript and observed-behavior sources.
- Review Evidence by interview, type, confidence, and source moment.
- Group related Evidence into draft Work.
- Check the grouping against current project and product context.
- Correct, split, defer, dismiss, or move the Work to ready.
- Push only ready Work to Linear or GitHub.
Draft and ready are states of the same Work item, so the reviewed problem stays connected to the evidence that justified it. Generated delivery context remains an interpretation; it is not presented as something the participant said.
What should ready Work contain?
| Question | Reviewable context |
|---|---|
| What user problem happened? | Work problem statement and linked Evidence |
| Who experienced it and where? | Interview and available page context |
| What did the user say or do? | Quote or observed facts with source moments |
| What did the user expect? | Participant explanation or clearly labelled interpretation |
| Why do these moments belong together? | Grouping rationale, counter-evidence, and uncertainty |
| Does the problem still exist? | Current project and product review |
| Is it ready for delivery? | Ready status after human or project-aware agent review |
This gives an engineer or coding agent enough context to investigate without treating participant or model interpretations as root-cause facts.
Choose the delivery tracker
Use Linear when product work is planned and prioritized there. Use GitHub Issues when engineering work lives closer to the repository. In either tracker, keep the UserTold Work link so reviewers can return to the source Evidence.
Linear completion can resolve currently linked Evidence in UserTold and make future similar evidence available for recurrence review. Do not imply the same completion-sync behavior for GitHub, and do not treat recurrence as causal proof that a shipped fix succeeded or failed.
Continue after handoff
Choose the MCP integration, CLI reference, or dashboard for the handoff path your team already uses. After a linked Linear issue is completed, continue with Track Resolved Evidence.