Validate Issue

Validate Issue Linkage

Compare a PR's implementation against its linked GitHub issue to verify all requirements are met.

Usage

/validate-issue          — Validate the current PR branch
/validate-issue 42       — Validate PR #42

Also works as @claude validate-issue in GitHub PR comments.

Process

1. Find the linked issue

# Get PR body and branch name
gh pr view --json number,title,body,headRefName,files

# Extract issue number from:
# - PR body: "Closes #42", "Fixes #42", "Resolves #42"
# - Branch name: "fix/42-description"

If no linked issue is found, report: "No linked issue found. Add Closes #N to the PR body."

2. Read the issue requirements

gh issue view <number> --json title,body,comments

Extract requirements from:

• Issue title and body
• Acceptance criteria (if listed)
• Comments from maintainers (additional requirements or clarifications)
• Labels (bug, feature, refactor — sets expectations)

3. Read the PR diff

gh pr diff

4. Compare requirements to implementation

For each requirement identified in the issue:

• Is it addressed by the diff?
• Is it fully implemented or only partially?
• Are there edge cases mentioned in comments that aren't handled?

For each change in the diff:

• Does it relate to the issue?
• Is it out-of-scope (not mentioned in the issue)?

5. Output format

## Issue Coverage Analysis

**Issue #<N>**: <issue title>

### Requirements Met
✅ <requirement> — implemented in `file:line`
✅ <requirement> — implemented in `file:line`

### Requirements Missing
❌ <requirement> — <where it was mentioned (body/comment by @user)>
❌ <requirement> — <where it was mentioned>

### Partially Met
⚠️ <requirement> — <what's done vs what's missing>

### Out-of-Scope Changes
🔍 **`file.ts`** — <description of change not mentioned in issue>
<Intentional refactor? Flag for reviewer attention.>

### Verdict
<COMPLETE | INCOMPLETE | NEEDS_DISCUSSION>
<justification — which requirements are blocking if incomplete>

Rules

• ALWAYS read the full issue including comments — requirements often evolve in discussion
• ALWAYS check both issue body AND comments for requirements
• Flag out-of-scope changes as informational, not blocking — they might be intentional
• If the issue is vague, note which requirements were inferred vs explicitly stated
• Don't flag test files or documentation as "out-of-scope" — they support the implementation
• Be specific about what's missing — "auth not implemented" not just "incomplete"