pr-scope-audit

name	pr-scope-audit
description	Audit whether Pawrrtal work is actually in the intended PR and matches the user's full requested scope. Use when continuing long goals, answering "is everything in this PR?", before saying a PR is ready, after operational VPS work, or whenever implementation, CI, reviews, live deploy, and runtime checks are mixed together.

Pawrrtal PR Scope Audit

Use this before claiming that a long Pawrrtal task is complete or that a PR contains the work.

Rule

Separate repo changes, live operations, CI/review state, and unimplemented scope. Do not compress them into "done."

Checklist

1. Identify the authoritative branch and PR.

   git status --short --branch
   git rev-parse --show-toplevel
   git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD
   gh pr view <number> --json number,title,headRefName,baseRefName,url,reviewDecision,statusCheckRollup
   

2. Measure the PR honestly.

   BASE_REF="$(gh pr view <number> --json baseRefName --jq .baseRefName)"
   git fetch origin "$BASE_REF"
   git rev-list --count "origin/${BASE_REF}..HEAD"
   git log --oneline "origin/${BASE_REF}..HEAD"
   git diff --stat "origin/${BASE_REF}...HEAD"
   

3. Map work to the user's requirements. Make a table with:

   Requirement	Evidence in PR	Runtime/ops evidence	Status

   Status must be one of: proven, partial, ops-only, missing, blocked.

4. Call out work that is not in the PR. VPS configuration, service restarts, live smoke tests, runner setup, Cloudflare settings, and manual GitHub settings are not PR code unless committed as docs/scripts/workflows.

5. Do not let a small passing subset redefine the goal. If the user asked for provider/channel/core plugin architecture, a live deploy PR is not that architecture work.

6. Check review threads and CI from GitHub, not memory.

   gh pr checks <number>
   gh api graphql -f query='...' # review thread query when resolving comments
   

7. Before pushing, stage only your files. The Pawrrtal worktree is shared; never use git add -A for a mixed tree.

Answer Shape

Lead with the truth:

• "Yes, the PR contains X, Y, Z."
• "No, it does not contain A, B, C."
• "These items were operational work outside the PR."
• "These checks are still pending/failing."

Do not soften missing scope with "pre-existing" or "mostly." If it is not proved, it is not done.