How to send penetration test findings directly to Linear?

A penetration test report sitting in a security dashboard is easy to ignore.

Engineering teams already have a place where work gets planned, prioritized, assigned, and tracked. For most SaaS companies, that place is Linear. Security findings often live somewhere else. A scan finishes, vulnerabilities get identified, and the results stay inside a security platform until someone exports them, reviews them, creates tickets, and moves them into the engineering workflow. That process takes time, and the longer it takes, the more likely a finding gets pushed to the next sprint, and then the sprint after that.

Security issues compete for the same engineering hours as feature work, bug fixes, and infrastructure. If a finding never becomes a Linear issue, there’s a real chance it won’t get reviewed with the same cadence as the rest of the backlog. It’s not neglect, it’s just how work gets prioritized when everything lives in different places.

When security findings come directly into Linear, the dynamic shifts. Triage happens in the same place as everything else. Ownership is easier to assign. And when a fix is deployed, the verification step is part of the same issue thread rather than a separate round-trip through a security tool.

This guide covers how to connect Beagle Security to your Linear workspace, how to structure findings as issues your engineering team can actually work from, and how to close the loop when a fix is ready to verify.

Why pen test findings need to live where your engineering team works

Teams that use Linear have made a deliberate choice to keep planning, prioritization, and execution in one place. When a penetration test surfaces an issue, asking developers to leave that workflow, open a separate security platform, read through findings, and manually create their own tickets adds steps that slow everything down.

The vulnerability still needs to be triaged, assigned, prioritized, and scheduled. None of that gets easier by starting it in a different tool.

Remediation stalls after the testing phase not because findings are unclear, but because they never properly enter the engineering workflow. Security issues are just another category of work: they have owners, priorities, deadlines, and dependencies like everything else the team is already tracking.

When they land directly in Linear, they show up in the same backlog, the same sprint planning, and the same project views as everything competing for engineering time. Which is where they need to be if they’re actually going to get fixed.

Connecting Beagle Security to your Linear workspace

The Linear integration lives inside the application’s Result Integrations section in Beagle Security. To get there, open the application you want to work with, go to Advanced , and select Result Integrations. Choose Linear from the available options to begin setup.

Authentication uses a Linear API token. To generate one, log in to Linear , open Settings , and navigate to Security & Access. Under Personal API Keys , create a new key, give it a name, and copy the token. Paste that into the API token field in Beagle Security and click Authenticate.

For the step-by-step workflow, checkout Beagle Security’s Linear integration document.

Once authenticated, Beagle Security pulls in the teams and projects associated with that account. Select the team that owns the work, choose the project where findings should land, set the project start and end points, and assign any labels you want applied to incoming security issues. You can create up to two new labels during setup if your existing ones don’t cover what you need.

The account used to generate the token needs access to the team and project where issues will be created. If the account doesn’t have visibility into a particular team or project, it won’t appear as an option during setup. Once everything is configured, click ** Finish Setup** and the integration is live.

Mapping vulnerabilities to Linear priority and labels

Beagle Security’s severity levels map cleanly onto Linear’s four priority tiers:

That gives the engineering team a consistent way to weigh security work against everything else already in the backlog without having to reinterpret severity on a case-by-case basis.

Informational findings are a separate question. These are observations rather than vulnerabilities, as in, they don’t require a fix, just awareness. Pushing them into Linear as issues tends to add noise without adding work that anyone is expected to act on. Most teams document informational findings inside Beagle Security and exclude them from the Linear integration entirely.

Labels are where the backlog stays navigable as findings accumulate over time. A base security label keeps vulnerabilities visually distinct from feature work and product bugs, so the team can filter to security-only work without hunting through the full backlog.

A recommended workflow for handling pen test findings on Linear

When findings land in Linear, triage them the same way the team handles any incoming work. Use Linear’s priority levels to weigh security issues against existing sprint commitments. Urgent and high priority findings get reviewed immediately. Medium and low priority findings get scheduled against current workload during the next planning cycle.

A dedicated Linear project keeps security work visible without pulling it out of the engineering workflow entirely. Findings sit alongside product work in the same workspace, but grouping them under a security project makes it easier to track remediation progress, review what’s open, and report on outcomes without digging through the full backlog. Some teams also run a recurring cycle specifically for security work, which creates a natural cadence for reviewing and closing findings rather than letting them accumulate.

Ownership should follow the component or codebase involved. A finding in the authentication service goes to whoever owns authentication. An API vulnerability goes to the team maintaining that API. Findings move faster when they’re assigned to the people who already understand the affected system.

Done means the fix has been confirmed, not just merged. A pull request closing the issue is not sufficient verification on its own. The vulnerability should be retested and confirmed resolved before the issue is marked complete.

Not every finding ends with a fix. Some are accepted as known risks because the impact is low, mitigating controls already exist, or remediation isn’t practical at that point. When a finding is accepted rather than fixed, document the rationale directly in the Linear issue and apply a label that makes it easy to identify during future audits or assessments. The finding stays visible, the decision is recorded, and there’s no ambiguity about why it was closed without remediation.

How to verify a fix is confirmed before marking an issue complete

A merged pull request is where development work ends, but it is not where a security finding is closed.

Once the engineering team has deployed a fix, run a new scan in Beagle Security against the same application. Beagle Security tracks the status of each finding across scan cycles. A vulnerability that no longer reproduces after a fix will show as fixed in the results. That status change is the confirmation the team needs, not the merge itself.

Before closing the Linear issue, add a note documenting the retest outcome: which scan confirmed the fix, when it ran, and what the result showed. That keeps the verification history attached to the issue rather than buried in a separate platform or lost when someone leaves the team.

If the scan comes back clean on the original finding but surfaces a related vulnerability in the same area of the application, treat them separately. Close or update the original issue to reflect the confirmed fix, and open a new Linear issue for the new finding so it moves through triage and assignment from the beginning.

For compliance purposes, a merged PR is not sufficient evidence on its own that a vulnerability was resolved. Auditors and security reviewers want to see that the fix was tested, not just shipped. The retest result in Beagle Security is what closes that loop, connecting the engineering change back to the original finding and producing the verification record that compliance evidence requires.

Summing up

Security findings that never enter the engineering workflow tend to stay open. They sit in a separate dashboard, get reviewed occasionally, and rarely move at the same pace as the rest of the team’s work. Pushing findings directly into Linear changes that. Triage happens where it should, ownership is clear from the start, and verification closes the loop rather than being left as an assumption.

The integration itself takes a few minutes to set up. The larger shift is treating security work the same way the team treats everything else: with a clear owner, a defined outcome, and a record of what was done and when.

If your team is already working out of Linear, Beagle Security’s agentic AI pentesting platform connects directly to your existing workflow. You can get started with a 14-day free trial with no credit card required.

FAQs

How do I send penetration test findings directly to Linear?

Penetration test findings can be pushed directly into Linear using a result integration. Instead of manually creating tickets from a security report, findings are automatically created as Linear issues with relevant vulnerability details, making them easier to triage and assign within the engineering workflow.

How should vulnerability severity map to Linear priorities?

A common approach is to map critical findings to Urgent priority, high findings to High, medium findings to Medium, and low findings to Low. Teams often adjust the mapping based on their risk tolerance and engineering capacity, but the goal is to make security work fit naturally into existing prioritization processes.

What information should a Linear issue contain for a security finding?

A security issue should contain enough information for an engineer to understand and reproduce the problem. That typically includes the vulnerability name, severity level, affected asset or endpoint, supporting evidence, remediation guidance, and a link back to the original finding for additional context.

Written by

Sufiyan Said Sha

Cyber Security Engineer

Contributor

Adwaith Dilraj

Product Marketing Specialist