Issue Creation Review

Issue Creation Review

Verify that a created Trellis issue accurately reflects original requirements without over-engineering or missing critical elements.

Required Inputs

• Original Requirements: The initial request or specifications
• Created Issue: The issue ID or full issue details
• Additional Context (optional): Clarifications or decisions made during creation

Handling Missing Information

This skill runs as a sub-agent and cannot ask questions directly. If required inputs are missing or unclear, you must return a structured response requesting clarification instead of proceeding with assumptions.

When information is missing or ambiguous, return the following structure:

## Clarification Needed

### Questions
1. [Specific question about missing/​unclear information]
2. [Additional questions as needed]

### Context Collected So Far
- [Summary of what you've already determined]
- [Relevant codebase findings]
- [Partial analysis completed]

### Instructions for Caller
1. Gather answers to the questions above from the user
2. Re-invoke this skill with the original inputs plus the following additional context:
   - Answers to questions: [list the questions by number]
   - Previously collected context: [reference this section]

Do not make assumptions about requirements, scope decisions, or implementation details when critical information is missing.

Verification Process

1. Research Codebase Context

Before evaluating, investigate the existing system:

• Search for similar implementations to verify consistency
• Check architectural patterns used in the codebase
• Identify existing utilities/​libraries that should be leveraged
• Verify integration points mentioned are valid

2. Completeness Check

Verify all required elements are present.

Common to all issue types:

• All functional requirements from input are addressed
• Acceptance criteria are measurable and complete
• Dependencies/​integration points are identified

Type-specific additions:

3. Correctness Check

• Technical Accuracy: Proposed solutions align with codebase patterns
• Requirement Alignment: Interpretation matches user intent
• Feasibility: Approach is technically viable
• Consistency: Aligns with existing system architecture

4. Scope Assessment

Evaluate for over-engineering:

• Identify additions beyond the original request
• Flag unnecessary complexity or premature optimization
• Ensure abstractions are justified by actual requirements

Exception: Expanded scope is acceptable if explicitly requested (e.g., "comprehensive" or "future-proofed" solution).

Output

Provide a verification report covering:

1. Issue Details: Type, ID, title
2. Completeness: Complete/​Partial/​Incomplete with specific gaps
3. Correctness: Correct/​Issues Found with specific findings and codebase alignment
4. Scope: Appropriate/​Over-engineered with analysis of what was requested vs. created
5. Recommendations: Critical issues and suggested improvements
6. Verdict: APPROVED / NEEDS REVISION / REJECTED with summary

Use codebase evidence to support findings. Flag over-engineering only when it adds complexity without benefit.