changes-consistency

Change Consistency Checker

Validate that staged git changes align with what the user described as their expected changes. Report mismatches clearly and precisely.

Workflow

Step 1: Ask for the expected changes description

Ask the user to describe what changes they expected to make. Be explicit:

"Please describe the changes you expected to stage. Be as specific as possible — which files should be affected, what logic should change, what should be added or removed."

Wait for the user's response before proceeding.

Step 2: Collect the staged diff

Run:

git diff --staged

If nothing is staged, inform the user:

"No staged changes found. Stage your changes with git add and try again."

Stop here if there's nothing to compare.

Step 3: Analyze the diff against the description

Compare the staged diff carefully against the user's description. For each discrepancy, classify it as:

• Missing: The user described a change that is NOT present in the diff
• Extra: The diff contains a change the user did NOT describe

Consider these dimensions:

• Files touched (expected vs. actual)
• Logic added, removed, or modified
• Function/method/variable names mentioned
• Scope creep (unrelated changes mixed in)
• Incomplete implementation (partial changes)

Step 4: Output the result

If everything matches:

╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║           CHANGE CONSISTENCY: ALL EXPECTED           ║
╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝

All staged changes are consistent with the described expectations.
No missing or extra changes detected.

If there are discrepancies:

Output a report with this exact structure:

╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║         CHANGE CONSISTENCY: DISCREPANCIES FOUND      ║
╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝

Then produce a table for Missing Changes (if any):

#	File	Description of Missing Change
1	path/to/file.ext	Brief, specific description of what was expected but not found
2	path/to/other.ext	...

And a table for Extra Changes (if any):

#	File	Description of Extra Change
1	path/to/file.ext	Brief, specific description of what was changed but not described

If only one category has issues, omit the other table and say "None detected." below its header.

End with a summary line:

Summary: X missing change(s), Y extra change(s) across Z file(s).

Guidelines

• Be precise about file paths — always use the actual path from the diff, not a vague description.
• Focus on intent vs. implementation: if the user said "add logging" and the diff adds a console.log, that matches — don't flag it as extra just because the exact wording differs.
• Small incidental changes (whitespace-only, import reordering caused by the tool) are generally not worth flagging unless they are substantial.
• If the user's description is ambiguous, use judgment — flag only clear discrepancies, not interpretive differences.
• Don't run tests or validate correctness — only compare description vs. diff.
• Don't apply any change in the code.