Skip to content
Lytms
← Leaderboard
public scan of linear.app
Lytms reads any B2B homepage the way a buyer does — then scores it across five things and shows every line that costs the visit. What you’re looking at is a live, public scan.
Scored cold, the way a skeptical buyer reads it. No rounding up.
LYTMS
Homepage scanlinear.appLive · public
Lytms score
6.0 / 10
What a buyer asks in 5 seconds
"Is this for me?"
The verdict

The page declares "issue tracking is dead" then spends five sections proving Linear is a better issue tracker.

linear.app· free homepage scan
Share the verdictXLinkedIn
Lytms found 11 places where the story breaks across five scored areas. The top 3 below — each named, quoted, and answered.
The line costing you the moststrategic call
On the page now

You just have to use it and you will see, you will just feel it.

Your best-named testimonial says the least useful thing.
The fix

Ask Gabriel Peal for a follow-up quote that names one specific thing Linear changed about how his team ships. Even a single concrete detail — a workflow, a meeting eliminated, a type of work that got faster — would make this the strongest proof point on the page.

Get the ship-ready rewrite →

The page leads its social proof section with OpenAI's name — the highest-credibility logo available — and immediately spends it on 'you will just feel it.' That's a direct mismatch: the brand signals authority, but the quote delivers...

Ship this one line, re-scan, watch the score move. This fix is free; the line-by-line rewrites are on Pro.
How a buyer actually reads it

A buyer runs five checks before they act — in this order. Lose one and they never reach the next.

Not five scoring areas. Five questions, asked in sequence. The page is judged on how many it answers before the visitor gives up.

01
"What is this?"
The page leads its social proof section with OpenAI's name — the highest-credibility logo available — and immediately spends it on 'you will just feel it.' That's a direct mismatch: the brand signals authority, but the quote delivers...
Half-answered
02
"Is this for me?"
A visitor needs to see their own situation named, or they assume the page is built for someone else.
Unanswered
03
"Why you, not the tool I already have?"
Without a direct contrast against the obvious alternative, the buyer leaves to comparison-shop and rarely comes back.
Unanswered
04
"Can I believe you?"
Your three testimonials are from OpenAI, Ramp, and Opendoor — logos that carry real weight — but none of them say anything a buyer can use to justify a switch. 'You will just feel it' and 'just excellent' are enthusiasm, not evidence. The...
Unanswered
05
"What do I do now?"
The page never gives a buyer a middle step between 'reading the homepage' and 'creating an account.' There is no demo, no product tour, no video walkthrough. For a team evaluating a switch from Jira, that gap kills momentum — they want to...
Unanswered
The bigger moves

Beyond the line items. The architecture of the story.

4 structural reads
click any to expand
Absence

The page is trying to reposition Linear from issue tracker to AI product system, but it buries the most credible proof of that shift — the Ramp customer story, where Linear's coding agent accounts for 60% of merged PRs — inside a customer page that most homepage visitors will never reach.

Read the full takeCollapse

The homepage testimonials are enthusiastic but vague: "you will just feel it" and "just excellent" are fan quotes, not evidence that the AI-native workflow claim is real. The one testimonial that gestures at outcomes ("action biased") doesn't connect to the AI agent story at all. The page is making a category-level claim — "issue tracking is dead" — without showing the buyer what killed it and what replaced it. Pull the Ramp agent stat onto the homepage, above the numbered workflow sections, and let it do the work the vague pull quotes can't.

Internal contradiction

The page opens with "The product development system for teams and agents" and immediately follows with "Purpose-built for planning and building products.

Read the full takeCollapse

Designed for the AI era." These two sentences describe two different products — one is a human-plus-agent collaboration system, the other is a planning tool for human teams. The numbered workflow sections (1.0 Intake through 5.0 Monitor) then present a complete product ops pipeline, which is a third framing entirely. A buyer landing from a search for issue tracking software encounters three different category frames in the first scroll. The page needs to commit to one: either Linear is the system where agents do product work alongside humans (the most differentiated claim, and the one competitors can't match today), or it's the best-designed planning tool for fast teams (the legacy positioning). The current page tries to hold both and lands neither.

Page architecture

The "Issue tracking is dead" callout links to linear.app/next but sits mid-page with no context — the buyer who hasn't already read the announcement doesn't know what they're clicking into or why it matters to them right now.

Read the full takeCollapse

This is the sharpest positioning move on the page, and it's treated as a sidebar. If Linear genuinely believes the category has shifted, that claim belongs in the hero, not as a mid-scroll aside with an arrow link. Either lead with the shift and let the rest of the page prove it, or remove the callout entirely — a half-committed category declaration reads as hedging, not confidence.

Page architecture

The page has five workflow sections (Intake, Plan, Build, Diffs, Monitor) each with its own headline, description, and UI mockup.

Read the full takeCollapse

For a buyer who already uses Jira and is evaluating a switch, this is the right content — it maps the full replacement. But for a buyer who arrived from a "fast issue tracker" search or a word-of-mouth referral, five sequential feature sections with no single conversion surface between them is a reading assignment, not a path to signup. There is one CTA above the fold ("Sign up") and one cluster at the bottom ("Get started / Contact sales / Open app / Download"), with nothing in between across the longest part of the page. A buyer who gets curious at section 3.0 Build has no way to act without scrolling back to the top. Add a signup surface after the Build section — that's where the agent workflow claim peaks, and it's the moment a buyer is most likely to want to try it.

From the scan

3 findings, surfaced. 8 more in the full report.

3 shown
11 across the scan
01Major

Your three testimonials are from OpenAI, Ramp, and Opendoor — logos that carry real weight — but none of them say anything a buyer can use to justify a switch.

From the scan

All three pull quotes are vague sentiment ('feel it,' 'action biased,' 'just excellent'). No quote names a specific outcome, a metric, a workflow problem solved, or a before/after. The named companies are high-credibility but the words attached to them are the weakest possible use of that credibility.

The fix
Read the fix →
02Major

The page never gives a buyer a middle step between 'reading the homepage' and 'creating an account.

From the scan

The only CTAs on the page are 'Sign up,' 'Get started,' 'Contact sales,' and 'Open app.' No 'Watch a demo,' no 'Take a tour,' no interactive preview. The five workflow sections (Intake through Monitor) show static UI mockups but offer no way to experience the product without creating an account.

The fix
Read the fix →
03Notable

Your best-named testimonial says the least useful thing.

From the scan

You just have to use it and you will see, you will just feel it.

The fix
Read the fix →
Not ready to scan yours?
Poke around first — see how the rest of the field scored.
The rest of the scan

You’ve seen 3 of linear.app’s 11 findings.
Your homepage has its own.

Every finding named, quoted, and paired with the rewrite — that’s how Lytms reads a page. Run it on your own site to see all of yours, free.

A CRO consultant charges $2,000–5,000 for an audit like this, and takes 3–5 days. Lytms takes two minutes.
Scan your site free →
Free to run · full report + drafted rewrites on Pro, $49/mo
+Every finding comes with the exact rewrite — copy-paste ready, in the brand’s voice
+The score moves when the page ships a fix — rescan, watch the dial
+One competitor watched daily — same scoring, alert the day they move
+Ads, social and landing-page drafts — generated from the same scan
Every scan reads all five areas. · here’s what’s under 3 of them
Trust1 finding here
What we score

Proof architecture, named-customer recognition, imagery authenticity, claim-vs-evidence gaps.

Call to action1 finding here
What we score

Call-to-action clarity, visual weight, offer strength, form friction, CTA-to-page match.

Message1 finding here
What we score

Hero value, conversion-killing sentences, cliché density, awareness fit, buyer-language gap, competitive differentiation.

Pro

More than the rest of the report. Daily monitoring on linear.app.

Updated dailyPulse alerts on every move
Pulse

Catch market shifts the day they happen.

A live feed of what the category is moving toward, with a drafted response for the moves worth responding to.

Yesterday on linear.app
Pulse warms up after your first day on Pro.
Competitors

A rival, scored daily, side-by-side.

Pick one competitor on Pro. Same scoring this page is held to. Same-day alert when they ship a homepage change.

Your competitors · pick one on Pro
Audience

The exact phrases buyers use about the brand.

Mine reviews, transcripts, support, social. Ranked, attributed, matched against the homepage.

Phrase mining starts on the first weekly sweep.
Studio

Every fix routed to a queue, ready to ship.

Accept, edit, ship. An action queue tied to a CMS or copied straight to clipboard.

Action queue · ready to ship
11 drafted fixes waiting

This is linear.app’s scan. What would yours say?

Lytms reads any B2B homepage the same way — verdict, five scores, every line that costs the visit. Free to run. Full report and drafted rewrites on Pro.

Scan your site free →
© 2026 Lytms · scan of linear.appRe-scores weekly · the score is honest