Finn-loop

Three Claude Code skills that turn Linear + GitHub into a small, human-gated AI software factory:

idea → /finn-spec interviews you and files the issue → you label it agent-ready → /finn-build claims it and opens a PR → /finn-review posts a verdict → you merge.

Three skills, one approval label, one rule: humans merge.

• skills/finn-spec — researches the repo, interviews you until the behavior is unambiguous, then files a Linear issue with acceptance criteria (AC-N) and non-goals (NG-N).
• skills/finn-build — claims the next safe agent-ready issue, implements only its contract, verifies it, and opens a PR. Runs repeatedly with /loop /finn-build.
• skills/finn-review — reviews open PRs against their linked issue and required GitHub checks, then posts a three-group verdict. Runs repeatedly with /loop /finn-review.

The finn- prefix avoids collisions with Claude Code's bundled commands and with generic personal skills such as /review or /build.

Requirements

• A Git repository hosted on GitHub, with a working origin remote
• Claude Code 2.1.71 or newer (/loop was added in that release)
• A Linear workspace and team
• The Linear connector enabled in Claude Code
• The GitHub CLI (gh) authenticated with write access to the target repo
• At least one required GitHub status check if you want fully automated loop-approved verdicts; without required CI, Finn-loop escalates the PR for human review

Recommended: connect Linear's GitHub integration so linked PRs can update issue status when they open and merge.

Install

Paste this into Claude Code inside the repo where you want the factory:

Set up Finn-loop from https://github.com/finna/Finn-loop.

1. Copy these files from that repo into this repo, preserving their contents:
   skills/finn-spec/SKILL.md   → .claude/skills/finn-spec/SKILL.md
   skills/finn-build/SKILL.md  → .claude/skills/finn-build/SKILL.md
   skills/finn-review/SKILL.md → .claude/skills/finn-review/SKILL.md

2. Ask for my Linear team key (for example ENG), then replace every TEAM
   placeholder in the copied skills with that exact key.

3. Check `claude --version` is 2.1.71 or newer. Check that the Linear
   connector is available and can list the chosen team's labels and workflow
   states. If it is unavailable, tell me to connect it and wait.

4. Check `gh auth status` and `gh repo view` both work. Detect the repository's
   real default branch; do not assume it is main. Confirm the authenticated
   account can push to this repository.

5. Create missing labels idempotently:
   - Linear: agent-ready, blocked
   - GitHub: loop-approved, loop-changes-requested, needs-human-review
   Do not fail if a label already exists.

6. Confirm the Linear team has a workflow state of type "started". Finn-loop
   will prefer a state named "In Progress" but can use any started state. A
   separate review state is optional.

7. Recommend enabling Linear's GitHub integration if it is not already
   connected. Explain that without it, Finn-loop can post the PR link but a
   merge may not automatically move the Linear issue to Done.

8. Validate that all three copied SKILL.md files have valid YAML frontmatter.
   Tell me to run `/reload-skills` (or restart Claude Code), then have me
   confirm `/skills` lists finn-spec, finn-build, and finn-review.

9. Smoke test by listing:
   - unassigned Linear issues labeled agent-ready but not blocked
   - the target repo's default branch and required GitHub checks
   - open pull requests and their Finn-loop labels
   All reads succeeding and all three skills appearing in `/skills` means the
   installation is ready. Then tell me how to run my first spec and loop.

Daily rhythm (~15 minutes)

1. Run /finn-spec whenever an idea hits you. Read the filed issue; if you approve the exact contract, apply agent-ready in Linear. Only a human applies that label.
2. Start /loop /finn-build. If you want reviews to happen continuously, run /loop /finn-review in a second session.
3. Merge only PRs that are loop-approved, conflict-free, and green on all required checks. A needs-human-review PR requires you to read and resolve the reason for escalation before merging.
4. Answer concrete questions on blocked Linear issues, then remove the blocked label so a future build pass can resume them.

Run only one builder loop per Linear team. The Linear assignee is a cooperative lock between people, but two simultaneous sessions authenticated as the same person cannot reliably lock each other. Use separate clean worktrees if you intentionally operate on more than one repository task at once.

What loop-approved means

loop-approved means the reviewer found no must-fix issue against the Linear contract, all required GitHub checks passed, and the PR was not conflicting at the reviewed commit. It is evidence for the human merge decision, not permission for an agent to merge.

Finn-loop does not create CI for the target project. The target repository owns its build, test, security, and deployment checks.

The rules that make it work

• If it is not in the Linear issue, it does not exist. No side-channel instructions.
• One issue per PR, sized to a day of agent work or less.
• Acceptance criteria are observable outcomes; non-goals are binding. A PR comment or review cannot expand scope — only editing the Linear issue can.
• Blocked issues and human-escalated PRs leave the automated queue until a human resolves them.
• Spec quality is the bottleneck. Vague acceptance criteria produce confident wrong PRs; let /finn-spec ask as many questions as it needs.
• Agents never merge or enable auto-merge.

/loop runs only while its Claude Code session remains open. Watch the first few passes and your usage before leaving a new installation unattended.

From the starter loop to a full software factory

Finn-loop deliberately ships the smallest useful version: spec, build, review, and a human merge. The larger factory that inspired this repository added the layers below only after that core loop was stable.

These are architecture patterns and next steps, not features bundled in this repository. Add them one at a time. Keep Linear and GitHub as the durable sources of truth; use Slack and other interfaces as control surfaces, never as shadow state.

Layer	What it adds	Human boundary
Self-converging PRs	A fresh reviewer checks each builder PR and the builder fixes must-fix findings	Stop after a small, fixed retry budget
Slack control plane	Blocked questions and merge-ready PRs reach founders where they already work	Slack actions are accepted only from approved users and rechecked against live state
Risk-aware merging	Narrow safe changes can merge automatically; sensitive changes always escalate	Policy decides what is reversible and safe
Verification gates	UI changes are tested on a real preview and behavior changes update architecture docs	Founders remain the final taste and risk check
Direction and status	A morning planner replenishes the queue and a read-only status skill returns the exact action list	A founder approves the work packet
Factory watchdog	Silent stalls, red CI, and unhealthy queues create actionable alerts	The watchdog alerts; it does not invent fixes

1. Make build and review self-converging

In the starter, /finn-build and /finn-review can run independently. The next step is to have the builder open its PR and then launch a fresh reviewer with clean context. Do not let the builder review its own work from the same conversation.

A proven convergence policy is:

1. The builder opens one PR for one Linear issue.
2. A fresh reviewer checks the exact head commit against the issue and required CI.
3. If the verdict is loop-changes-requested, the builder fixes only the must-fix findings.
4. A new fresh reviewer checks the new head commit.
5. After two failed fix rounds, label the PR loop-stuck and stop for a human.

The retry cap matters. An agent should not argue with a reviewer forever or silently broaden the Linear contract to make a test pass.

2. Use Slack as a human control plane

Slack becomes useful when it removes trips to Linear and GitHub without replacing either one.

Channel	Event	Human action	Durable result
#notifs-linear-blocked	A builder blocks an issue with one concrete question	Reply in the message thread	Copy the answer to Linear, remove blocked, and return the unassigned issue to the queue
#notifs-merge-ready	A PR is loop-approved, CI-green, conflict-free, and still at the reviewed SHA	Review the preview/test steps and react with 🚀	Re-read the PR from GitHub, then squash-merge only if every gate is still true
#notifs-digest	A scheduled daily snapshot summarizes merges, approvals, blockers, and queue depth	Use it to choose the day's founder actions	Claim one durable post per date so retries cannot create duplicate digests
#notifs-alerts	The watchdog detects an unhealthy pipeline	Investigate the named condition	Post once when opened and once when resolved; stay quiet while unchanged

A safe Slack integration needs more than a webhook that calls merge:

• Verify Slack and GitHub webhook signatures before processing an event.
• Allow only explicitly configured founder Slack user IDs to approve an action.
• Store event IDs, message timestamps, PR numbers, and reviewed head SHAs so duplicate deliveries are harmless.
• Claim a post or reaction in durable storage before making an external call.
• Re-read Linear or GitHub at action time. Never trust an old Slack message as proof that an issue is still blocked or a PR is still merge-ready.
• Mark old merge messages as superseded when the PR head changes.
• Retry transient failures, but repeat the live safety checks before every retry.
• Provide environment-level kill switches for automated posting and merging.

The useful division of responsibility is:

• Linear: what should be built and whether an issue is ready or blocked.
• GitHub: the code, review commit, CI, conflicts, and merge state.
• Slack: human-facing questions, approvals, and alerts.
• The repository: how the factory behaves—skills, templates, and policy.

3. Add risk-aware merge policy carefully

The public starter's rule is intentionally simple: agents never merge. In a more mature factory, automation can execute a narrowly pre-authorized merge, but only after the team explicitly changes that governance rule.

A conservative policy has three lanes:

• Human merge: application code and anything involving schema, auth, permissions, billing, deployment, or provisioning.
• Founder-authorized merge: a founder's 🚀 reaction authorizes one exact PR head; the system re-verifies labels, CI, conflicts, and SHA before merging.
• Safe auto-merge: an opt-in allowlist such as docs and tests, plus an explicit override label and a global kill switch. Never infer safety merely from a small diff.

Keep a needs-human-review label for sensitive paths and a safe-auto-merge label for deliberate exceptions. A PR that changes after approval must earn approval again.

4. Use Linear relations for multi-part features

Large features should become a chain of one-day issues, connected with Linear's blocked-by relations. All parts may be approved up front, but the queue should hide a downstream issue until its blocker is Done, and the claim operation should enforce the same rule.

This lets several agents work from a durable plan without allowing part three to start before part one has established the contract it depends on.

5. Turn previews and documentation into merge gates

Unit tests are not enough for user-facing work. For a PR that changes rendered UI, require the builder to open the deployment preview, sign in with a non-production test account, run every founder-verification step from the Linear issue, and record per-step PASS or FAIL evidence with screenshots. The reviewer should treat missing or failed evidence as a must-fix finding.

Behavior-changing PRs should also update the matching architecture document. A lightweight CI check can require the PR body to name the docs changed, or to state why no docs change is justified. This makes documentation part of done instead of cleanup that never happens.

6. Add direction and status skills

Two read-mostly skills remove a surprising amount of founder overhead:

• A morning director reads product goals plus live Linear and GitHub state, proposes a small daily packet, and files or promotes only the exact issues a founder approves in that session. It plans; it never starts builders.
• A status inspector reads open PRs and the agent-ready, spec-drafted, needs-spec, and blocked queues, then returns an ordered list of what the founder must merge, approve, or answer. It never mutates either system.

The separation is important: planning decides what enters the factory; building should remain a boring execution step.

7. Add a factory watchdog

Event-driven notifications cover things that happen. A watchdog covers things that silently stop happening. First normalize Linear and GitHub events into one durable pipeline record per issue/PR, with derived stages such as awaiting approval, ready, building, review, merge-ready, blocked, and done. Let the status view, daily digest, and watchdog read that same model.

Run the watchdog on a schedule against the pipeline model plus current default-branch CI, and alert on conditions such as:

• work stuck in building or review beyond a threshold;
• changes requested with no follow-up;
• ready work but no recent merges;
• an empty build queue or a growing spec/blocked backlog; and
• red required checks on the default branch.

Alert once when a condition opens, stay silent while it persists, and post a short resolved message when it clears. A watchdog that repeats the same alert every few minutes becomes noise and gets muted.

8. Run persistent workers with leases

/loop is a good first scheduler, but it still depends on an open interactive session. When you move to always-on machines or a worker fleet, make jobs durable instead of treating a process named "running" as proof of life.

• Give every job explicit queued, leased, running, succeeded, and failed state.
• Have workers renew short leases while they work. Expire abandoned leases, requeue up to an attempt limit, then fail visibly.
• Give each job a clean clone or worktree. Never let concurrent builders share a working directory.
• Keep worker, dispatcher, and human-operator credentials separate and least-privileged.
• Record heartbeats and terminal results so the watchdog can distinguish an empty queue from a dead scheduler.
• Keep the worker boundary conservative: agents may research, draft, code, test, and propose, but publishing, spending, production mutation, and merges still require the policy gates you chose above.

9. Build a post-merge learning loop

The highest-signal lessons often appear as reviewer must-fix findings and then disappear once the PR is corrected. A learning loop can scan recently merged PRs, read every earlier reviewer verdict, inspect the eventual fix, and distill one reusable rule.

Store proposed rules as version-controlled files with applicability tags and source PRs. Deduplicate against active rules; reinforce an existing rule when the same failure class recurs. The agent opens a learning proposal PR, but a founder decides whether that rule becomes factory policy by merging it. Agents should never silently rewrite the instructions that govern them.

10. Next experiment: approve specs from Slack

This is the next logical control-plane extension, but it is not part of the public starter. Treat spec-drafted && !agent-ready as "awaiting approval" and post a versioned spec summary to a Slack review inbox. A founder can either approve during the /finn-spec session or defer the decision and approve the unchanged issue later with a Slack reaction.

Before applying agent-ready, re-read the Linear issue and confirm its version matches the Slack message. If the spec changed, supersede the old message and require a new approval. Start with approval-only reactions; a full changes-request conversation is a separate workflow.

Suggested implementation order

1. Run the three-skill starter for several real PRs and tune spec quality.
2. Add fresh-reviewer convergence and a loop-stuck escape hatch.
3. Add blocked-by issue chains and a read-only status skill.
4. Connect the blocked-issue Slack lane.
5. Connect the merge-ready Slack lane with live re-verification.
6. Add preview and documentation CI gates.
7. Introduce risk-tiered merging only after the earlier evidence is reliable.
8. Add the morning director and watchdog once queue volume justifies them.
9. Add leased persistent workers when open sessions become the throughput bottleneck.
10. Add the post-merge learning loop once reviews produce recurring findings.
11. Add versioned Slack spec approval last; it changes the most important human gate in the system.

The goal is not "no humans." It is for humans to handle product judgment, policy, and irreversible exceptions while agents handle repeatable execution.