review-issue

To validate a PR implementation, the review-issue skill runs mix consistency and mix test, scoring each acceptance criterion against the actual changed files to ensure the Elixir/Phoenix code matches the enriched GitHub issue specification.

Acceptance criterion scoring evaluates each criterion as PASS, FAIL, or N/A by computing the diff scope via origin/main...HEAD and enforcing review mode rules, checking whether test ownership requires actual test coverage or Lite-mode test-hints for Phoenix LiveView changes.

Yes, you can enforce CI quality gates for Ash CRUD-related work by running mix test and mix consistency, which transforms any failures into actionable, line-cited flags and verifies that the implementation satisfies the enriched spec criteria.

The best way to record missing test coverage gaps is to persist them into a structured marker block within the GitHub issue body, creating deterministic gap reporting for the next development iteration.

Yes, you need an enriched-spec block fetched from the GitHub issue because spec validation requires this enriched specification to score acceptance criteria and determine whether test ownership mandates full coverage or Lite-mode test-hints.

Mix consistency fails during PR review when the implementation does not match the enriched spec, and the quality gate captures these failures as actionable, line-cited flags written into the issue's review-gaps marker block.