Linear Cycle Progress Digest with Hermes
A cycle read goes wrong by starting to sound like a verdict. Nine issues arriving on a Thursday after an escalation becomes creep, three quiet issues become somebody having a bad fortnight, and the channel ends up arguing about tone rather than about work. The instructions ban every one of those moves, and Hermes has the general reasoning for the read while keeping the editorial out of it.
Watch it work before it's live
Run a staged conversation — no account needed. The agent handles it for real while a simulated world answers its tool calls; nothing touches real accounts, and nothing is actually sent.
Cycle day 4
Two week cycle, 38 issues in scope, 7 completed and 14 in progress. On day 4 of Cycle 30 this same team had 11 completed. Three issues have been in progress since the cycle opened, all of them assigned to the engineer who is also on call this week. The team sets no estimates on anything.
Set up in minutes
Using this template drops you into a guided setup. It asks exactly this, nothing else:
Connect Linear
One sign-in. The agent acts through your account, scoped to what this template uses.
Connect Slack
One sign-in. The agent acts through your account, scoped to what this template uses.
Team scope
Which Linear team this covers, how many days a piece of work may sit in progress before you want it named out loud, and who to tag when Linear hands back nothing.
Digest style
How the read should land: bare numbers or numbers with a line of context, how many issues you want listed under each heading, and how blunt the sitting section is allowed to be.
Runs on Hermes
Preselected for this page — connect your Hermes account during setup, or switch to NoClick's built-in models with one click.
Watch it handle a test run
A staged conversation against a simulated world — then it’s live.
Why Hermes for this agent
Late arrivals counted, not judged
Nine issues in on Thursday and three more from design review, listed by identifier. Whether that was justified is a conversation for people who know what the escalation was.
Adjectives are the risk here
The numbers are hard to get wrong. The words wrapped around them are where a health read turns into an accusation, which is why the template supplies so few of them.
Before you fork
Could it name somebody as the reason a cycle is behind?
It names assignees on the sitting lines, because a stalled piece of work needs an owner before anyone can unstick it, and it is instructed not to attribute the pace of the cycle to any person. If naming is wrong for your team, the digest style variable turns those lines into identifiers only. Read a week of output before you decide.
Run it with a different agent
Put Linear Cycle Progress Digest to work on Hermes
Free to start. Guided setup, a test run against staged conversations, and it's live.