---
name: issue-creation-review
description: Verifies Trellis issues against original requirements for completeness, correctness, and appropriate scope. Use when asked to "verify issue", "validate trellis issue", "check issue completeness", or "review created issue".
context: fork
agent: general-purpose
allowed-tools:
- Glob
- Grep
- LS
- Read
- WebFetch
- WebSearch
- TodoWrite
- AskUserQuestion
- mcp__task-trellis__get_issue
- mcp__task-trellis__list_issues
---
# 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
## Asking Questions
**When in doubt, ask.** If required inputs are missing or unclear, use AskUserQuestion to gather what you need before proceeding. Don't make assumptions about requirements - ask for clarification instead.
## 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:**
| Type | Additional Requirements |
| ------- | ---------------------------------------------------- |
| Project | Technical architecture specified |
| Epic | Clear scope boundaries, logical feature grouping |
| Feature | Specific user-facing capability, feature integration |
| Task | Implementable scope, clear technical specifications |
### 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.
