Bug-vs-feature-request template split at intake
Split intake into separate bug and feature-request templates before the queue starts growing so each report enters triage with the right shape and destination.
Why this can grow a startup
Teams lose time when every incoming report has to be reclassified by hand. A simple bug versus feature split pushes the first routing decision to the edge of the system, where the context is freshest. That makes triage faster, duplicate detection cleaner, and the follow-up more credible because customers can feel the company already knows what kind of work this is.
Company example
Linear uses separate templates in Intercom and Linear Asks for bugs and feature requests, routing each one into the matching triage queue.
Source and metric
Source: Linear · Browse Linear tactics
Linear maintains 2 intake templates, one for bugs and one for feature requests
Source discovered: May 27, 2026
When to use it
Use this when Support, Product, Slack is relevant to triage, support-led growth, intake quality and you can run a bounded test with a free budget.
When not to use it
Do not use it as a substitute for customer evidence, a clear owner, or a measurable stop condition. Local platform rules and market behavior still need checking.
Founder checklist
- Read Linear and identify what is directly supported.
- Choose one channel context: Support, Product, Slack.
- Define the test around Linear maintains 2 intake templates, one for bugs and one for feature requests.
- Set an owner, evidence window, and stop condition before launch.
Explore the context
Apply this with an operator
Choose product surfaces that compound distribution without hiding weak activation or retention.