Skip to content
CosmosCLIChangelog
Context EnginePricingDocsBlog
CustomersCareersStatus PageTrust CenterSecurity
Talk to SalesSign in
Book demo

Coding

PR spec-adherence checker

Check a PR against its linked ticket spec before review, showing which acceptance criteria are met, partial, or missing.

pull requestspecjiralinearacceptance criteriacode reviewadherencecodingqa

[ workflow / coding ]

PR spec-adherence checker

Cosmos reads the PR diff, finds the linked Jira or Linear ticket, extracts acceptance criteria, and checks each requirement against the code changes. It posts an adherence score with met, partial, and missing criteria. Critical gaps flag the PR before a human reviewer starts.

10 nodes

07 edges

Trigger[trigger]
PR opened / ready for review

GitHub / GitLab webhook

System step[fetch-diff]
Fetch diff + ticket refs

PR body, branch, commits

System step[lookup-spec]
Look up linked spec

Jira / Linear criteria

Decision

Spec found?

Ticket with AC exists

No
Output / Result[request-link]
Request spec link

Comment + label + end

YES
AI Agent step[evaluate]
Evaluate each criterion

Met / partial / missing

AI Agent step[score]
Compute adherence score

0–100, weighted by priority

Decision

Score ≥ threshold?

Default: 80 / 100

No
Output / Result[flag-gap]
Flag spec-gap + notify

Red header + Slack alert

YES
Output / Result[post-pass]
Post passing report

Green header + evidence

Workflow prompt

Paste this into Augment to reproduce the workflow end-to-end.

Build a Cosmos workflow that scores a pull request against the spec it was built for.

Trigger: a pull request is opened or marked ready-for-review on GitHub / GitLab.

Steps:
1. Fetch the pull request diff, the PR description, and all linked issue / ticket references (extracted from the branch name, PR body, or commit messages).
2. Look up each linked ticket in Jira or Linear. Extract the acceptance criteria, the full specification text, any designs or wireframe links, and the original requirement written by the PM or tech lead.
3. Decision: "Spec found?".
   - If no linked spec is found, post a comment asking the author to link the relevant ticket, assign a "needs-spec-link" label, and end.
   - If yes, continue.
4. For each acceptance criterion, analyse the diff to determine whether the code change satisfies it: fully met, partially met, or missing entirely. Record evidence (file, line range) for each judgement.
5. Compute an overall adherence score (0–100). Weight critical and must-have criteria above nice-to-haves.
6. Decision: "Score above threshold?". Use a configurable threshold (default: 80).
   - If yes, post the adherence report as a PR comment (green header) and proceed to assign reviewers normally.
   - If no, post the adherence report with a red header, list the unmet criteria with suggested remediation hints, and flag the PR with a "spec-gap" label. Notify the author in Slack with the gap summary.
7. In both paths, the adherence comment includes: overall score, per-criterion status table, evidence snippets, and a link back to the ticket.

Constraints:
- Never block a PR merge directly: only comment and label. The decision to merge remains with human reviewers.
- Always link the evidence (file + line) for each criterion assessment so reviewers can verify the judgement.
- Record score history per ticket so we can trend adherence quality over time.
← All Workflows