Add issue compliance checking to review-implementation skill

When review-implementation is called from the issue-to-pr flow, the
reviewers now fetch the linked issue from the PR and verify the
implementation matches the original requirements (problem definition,
reduction algorithm, overhead expressions, etc.).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Author: GiggleLiu

.claude/skills/review-implementation/SKILL.md

@@ -52,6 +52,27 @@ git diff --stat $BASE_SHA..$HEAD_SHA
 git diff --name-only $BASE_SHA..$HEAD_SHA
 ```
 
+### Detect Linked Issue
+
+Check if the current branch has a PR linked to an issue:
+
+```bash
+# Get PR number for current branch
+PR_NUM=$(gh pr view --json number -q .number 2>/dev/null)
+
+# If PR exists, extract the linked issue number from the body
+if [ -n "$PR_NUM" ]; then
+  ISSUE_NUM=$(gh pr view $PR_NUM --json body -q .body | grep -oE '#[0-9]+' | head -1 | tr -d '#')
+fi
+
+# Fetch the issue body if found
+if [ -n "$ISSUE_NUM" ]; then
+  ISSUE_BODY=$(gh issue view $ISSUE_NUM --json title,body -q '"# " + .title + "\n\n" + .body')
+fi
+```
+
+If an issue is found, pass it as `{ISSUE_CONTEXT}` to both subagents. If not, set `{ISSUE_CONTEXT}` to "No linked issue found."
+
 ## Step 3: Dispatch Subagents in Parallel
 
 ### Structural Reviewer (if new model/rule detected)
@@ -64,6 +85,7 @@ Dispatch using `Task` tool with `subagent_type="superpowers:code-reviewer"`:
   - `{REVIEW_PARAMS}` -> summary of what's being reviewed
   - `{PROBLEM_NAME}`, `{CATEGORY}`, `{FILE_STEM}` -> for model reviews
   - `{SOURCE}`, `{TARGET}`, `{RULE_STEM}`, `{EXAMPLE_STEM}` -> for rule reviews
+  - `{ISSUE_CONTEXT}` -> full issue title + body (or "No linked issue found.")
 - Prompt = filled template
 
 ### Quality Reviewer (always)
@@ -76,6 +98,7 @@ Dispatch using `Task` tool with `subagent_type="superpowers:code-reviewer"`:
   - `{CHANGED_FILES}` -> list of changed files
   - `{PLAN_STEP}` -> description of what was implemented (or "standalone review")
   - `{BASE_SHA}`, `{HEAD_SHA}` -> git range
+  - `{ISSUE_CONTEXT}` -> full issue title + body (or "No linked issue found.")
 - Prompt = filled template
 
 **Both subagents must be dispatched in parallel** (single message, two Task tool calls).
@@ -108,6 +131,9 @@ Merge both subagent outputs into a single report:
 ### Semantic Review (from structural reviewer)
 ...
 
+### Issue Compliance (from structural reviewer, if linked issue found)
+...
+
 ### Code Quality (from quality reviewer)
 - DRY: OK / ...
 - KISS: OK / ...

.claude/skills/review-implementation/quality-reviewer-prompt.md

@@ -14,6 +14,10 @@ You are reviewing code changes for quality in the `problemreductions` Rust codeb
 
 {PLAN_STEP}
 
+## Linked Issue
+
+{ISSUE_CONTEXT}
+
 ## Git Range
 
 **Base:** {BASE_SHA}

.claude/skills/review-implementation/structural-reviewer-prompt.md

@@ -6,12 +6,17 @@ You are reviewing a new model or rule implementation for structural completeness
 
 {REVIEW_PARAMS}
 
+## Linked Issue
+
+{ISSUE_CONTEXT}
+
 ## Instructions
 
 1. Run the structural checklist below using Grep and Glob tools
 2. Run `make test clippy` to verify build
 3. Read the implementation files and perform semantic review
-4. Output results in the structured format at the end
+4. If a linked issue is provided, perform issue compliance review
+5. Output results in the structured format at the end
 
 ## Model Checklist
 
@@ -84,6 +89,36 @@ Report pass/fail. If tests fail, identify which tests.
 3. **Example quality** -- Is it tutorial-style? Does the JSON export include both source and target data?
 4. **Paper quality** -- Is the reduction-rule statement precise? Is the proof sketch sound?
 
+## Issue Compliance Review
+
+Only run this section if a linked issue was provided (not "No linked issue found.").
+
+Compare the implementation against the requirements in the original issue. The issue follows either the model checklist (from add-model) or the rule checklist (from add-rule).
+
+### For Models (check against issue):
+| # | Check | How to verify |
+|---|-------|--------------|
+| 1 | Problem name matches | Compare struct name against issue item 1 |
+| 2 | Mathematical definition matches | Read `evaluate()` and verify it implements the definition from issue item 2 |
+| 3 | Problem type matches | Verify optimization direction or satisfaction matches issue item 3 |
+| 4 | Type parameters match | Verify struct generics match issue item 4 |
+| 5 | Configuration space matches | Verify `dims()` matches issue item 6 |
+| 6 | Feasibility check matches | Verify `evaluate()` feasibility logic matches issue item 7 |
+| 7 | Objective function matches | Verify `evaluate()` objective logic matches issue item 8 |
+| 8 | Complexity matches | Verify `declare_variants!` complexity string matches issue item 9 |
+
+### For Rules (check against issue):
+| # | Check | How to verify |
+|---|-------|--------------|
+| 1 | Source/target match | Compare `ReduceTo` impl against issue items 1-2 |
+| 2 | Reduction algorithm matches | Read `reduce_to()` and verify it follows the algorithm from issue item 3 |
+| 3 | Solution extraction matches | Read `extract_solution()` and verify it matches issue item 4 |
+| 4 | Correctness preserved | Verify the reduction logic is consistent with the correctness argument in issue item 5 |
+| 5 | Overhead expressions match | Compare `#[reduction(overhead = {...})]` against issue item 6 |
+| 6 | Example matches | Verify the example program uses the instance from issue item 7 |
+
+Flag any deviation as ISSUE -- the implementation must match what was specified in the issue unless there's a documented reason for the change.
+
 ## Output Format
 
 You MUST output in this exact format:
@@ -105,7 +140,13 @@ You MUST output in this exact format:
 - dims() correctness: OK / ISSUE -- description
 - [other checks]: OK / ISSUE -- description
 
+### Issue Compliance (if linked issue found)
+| # | Check | Status |
+|---|-------|--------|
+| 1 | ... | OK / ISSUE -- deviation description |
+
 ### Summary
 - X/Y structural checks passed
+- X/Y issue compliance checks passed (if applicable)
 - [list of action items for any failures]
 ```