How an AI agent can convert Sentry issue evidence and Linear project context into a bugfix handoff with impact, owner, tests, and acceptance criteria
This workflow gives an AI agent a defined job, a bounded set of records, and a result a person can review. The agent reads the relevant Sentry context and matches it with Linear, applies the rules in the prompt, and keeps the source behind every recommendation. It returns a proposed handoff rather than taking consequential actions on its own.
Can an AI agent convert Sentry issue evidence and Linear project context into a bugfix handoff with impact, owner, tests, and acceptance criteria?
Yes. Start with the scope, date range, decision rules, and fields that identify the right records. The agent can collect the evidence, compare states or sources, mark conflicts and missing data, and organize the result around the outcome above. A reviewer then checks the matches and judgment calls before approving messages, record updates, bookings, purchases, publishing, or other write actions. The guide below shows the records, boundaries, prompt, and handoff needed for this specific workflow.
What this agent helps you do
A Sentry and Linear bugfix handoff agent moves from production error to assigned remediation work. Sentry supplies issue evidence, stack traces, affected users, release context, and event frequency. Linear supplies existing issues, team ownership, project priority, dependencies, and the acceptance criteria needed to close the loop.
When to use this workflow
Use it for on-call triage, customer-impacting bugs, release regressions, support escalations, or any incident where production evidence needs to become ready-to-build work. Search for an existing issue before drafting a new one so repeated Sentry events do not fragment ownership.
How Sentry and Linear give the agent context
Connect both plugins and provide the Sentry issue, release, or error cluster plus the relevant Linear team or project. Sentry should show the production symptom and impact; Linear should reveal related work and the correct owner. Make reproduction and acceptance criteria explicit before changing issue state.
Example starter prompt
Analyze Sentry issue [issue ID] and search Linear team [team] for related work. Prepare a de-duplicated bugfix handoff with impact, evidence, reproduction notes, likely owner, tests, and acceptance criteria. Do not create or update an issue without approval.Suggested workflow steps
Start with Sentry impact, stack traces, release, and environment. Then inspect Linear for matching symptoms, affected features, incidents, or planned fixes. A shared keyword is not enough to declare a duplicate; compare the error path, environment, and observed behavior.
Questions this workflow answers
Has this production bug already been reported, and can we prepare a fix ticket without duplicating work?
The agent reduces the error to a searchable fingerprint: affected transaction or route, exception type, first application frame, environment, release, and observed user behavior. It searches issue history with those details, not only the generated error title. A candidate about the same screen can involve a different code path; another with a different title may contain the exact stack signature.
Each candidate is classified as direct, partial, related, or unrelated. The explanation shows shared symptoms and differences in environment, release, reproduction, or cause. If an existing issue already covers the failure, the agent drafts an evidence update with recent impact instead of another ticket. If no issue matches, it prepares new work while linking adjacent incidents and dependencies.
The fix handoff keeps production facts and implementation guesses separate. It includes representative events, impact boundaries, release context, reproduction conditions, likely ownership based on the affected component, and remaining hypotheses. Acceptance criteria describe observable behavior and a regression check using a safe fixture. They do not mandate a guessed code change when the root cause is still open.
Linear’s team, project, labels, and privacy rules control the draft. Full request payloads and personal data remain in Sentry behind existing access. An engineer reviews the duplicate decision, reruns the reproduction, and approves scope before issue creation or updates. The final packet leaves a trace from the work item back to the exact production evidence it is meant to resolve.
Expected handoff
Ask for impact, evidence, duplicate candidates, reproduction notes, likely owner, suggested fix boundary, tests, dependencies, and approval-ready Linear changes.