Comparison
This is a difference in layer, not a feature war. Linear is excellent at organising work you have already defined. Nazr governs the layer above it: the plan those decisions come from, kept true as calls, commits, and agent work flow in.
| Nazr | Linear | |
|---|---|---|
| Direction | Top-down. Strategy decomposed into work. | Bottom-up. Issues created and grouped. |
| Starting point | Leadership priorities. | Individual tickets. |
| Strategic layer | Built in. Priorities, Workstreams, Tasks. | None. Sits at the execution layer. |
| Change management | Proposed diffs with provenance. A human accepts or dismisses. | Manual edits. |
| Agents | First-class: tasks served over MCP, commits linked back as proof. | Assists with existing tickets. |
Most teams reach for an issue tracker because that is where work has always lived. But a tracker starts at the ticket. It assumes someone upstream has already decided what should be built and why, then hands down a list. That assumption is exactly what has broken now that AI has collapsed the cost of writing code. The work can be produced faster than the organisation can decide what the work should be.
Nazr starts one level up and stays there. Your priorities live as one canonical plan the whole team shares. Customer calls, commits, and agent reports flow in as signals; Nazr analyses them against the plan and proposes changes as diffs you accept or dismiss, each with its provenance attached. Approved tasks route to your coding agents over MCP, and commits link back as proof. Linear is a fine home for tickets once they exist. Nazr keeps the strategy above them from drifting into fiction.
Linear organises the work. Nazr keeps the plan it came from true.