<!-- PROMPT-ENHANCE:STEP-TASK-ANCHOR:START -->

[BLOCKING] Execute skill steps in declared order. NEVER skip, reorder, or merge steps without explicit user approval.
[BLOCKING] Before each step or sub-skill call, update task tracking: set in_progress when step starts, set completed when step ends.
[BLOCKING] Every completed/skipped step MUST include brief evidence or explicit skip reason.
[BLOCKING] If Task tools are unavailable, create and maintain an equivalent step-by-step plan tracker with the same status transitions.

<!-- PROMPT-ENHANCE:STEP-TASK-ANCHOR:END -->

[TOP REMINDER — WHY-REVIEW FINDINGS-VALIDATION GATE IS NON-NEGOTIABLE]

If this review produces ANY finding (Critical / High / Medium / Low) in standalone mode, you MUST invoke the /why-review skill through the Skill tool with --validate-findings <report-path> before any fix, docs-update, commit, or handoff. An actual skill call is the ONLY way to pass this gate — re-reading the cited file:lines yourself, "self-validating," or any inline/manual substitute does NOT count.

Create the todo the moment the first finding is recorded — never rely on memory: call TaskCreate → [Review Phase 6] Why-review findings validation gate — invoke /why-review so the gate is tracked and cannot be skipped. Inside $workflow-review-changes, stop after the report; parent step 2 owns validation. Full protocol in Phase 6; mirrored in the Closing Reminders at the bottom.

Quick Summary

Goal: Review current working-tree, staged, branch, or commit diffs across code, docs, config, infra, and non-code artifacts — finding correctness bugs, flaws, missing updates, stale docs, and convention drift with evidence — so every reviewed change is defect-free, evidence-backed, convention-aligned, and synchronized with required tests/docs before handoff; when code files changed, also prove the code stays easy to change.

Summary: read-this-if-nothing-else digest —

• Report-driven and evidence-gated. Every finding is written to plans/reports/code-review-{date}-{slug}.md with file:line proof; speculation is forbidden, "looks fine" is not a verdict, codebase convention (grep 3+ examples) wins over textbook rules.
• Self-recursive loop is protocol-bound (goal-gated when available). Standalone mode's FIRST action (Phase -1) binds the review loop as a standing protocol obligation you self-drive — and installs a /goal Stop-hook condition WHEN available — so stopping is BLOCKED until the loop converges. Findings are never auto-fixed on sight: validate (Phase 6 /why-review --validate-findings, an actual skill call) → SELF-FIX (Phase 7) → restart /changes-review from Phase 0 over the WHOLE updated diff (combined with prior fixes, not just the last fix), looping until one whole pass clears that round's exit bar — zero findings in rounds 1-2, zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM from round 3 (a LOW-only round ENDS the loop; list those LOWs as deferred, never fix-and-loop for them). Inside $workflow-review-changes you skip Phase -1, stop after the report, and hand findings to the parent (which owns the goal).
• When code changed, three delegated gates are MANDATORY: Phase 3.5 /code-simplifier (clarity/maintainability), Phase 3.7 /integration-test-review Gate-7 coverage (every behavior change → covering test + spec TC), and — for every behavior change — Spec Drift Adjudication + the Dual-Feedback Ledger (the gap feeds BOTH spec AND tests).
• Docs-update is the unconditional terminal step. Once the loop converges clean, Phase 8 /docs-update ALWAYS runs over the full changeset (deferred only to the parent inside the workflow).
• MUST ATTENTION — run ALL main phases in order (the steps AI keeps forgetting): Phase -1 bind self-recursive review loop — protocol-primary, optional /goal gate when available (standalone, FIRST action) → 0 /graph-blast-radius → 0.1 change-context + full-pipeline trace (tier FE↔BE + cross-service/event) → 0.3 change-type risk tasks → 0.7 surface-detection dimension tasks → 0.8 parallel full-mode /why-review rationale sub-agent, spawned in the SAME batch as the 0.7 agents → 0.5 plan compliance → 1 collect diff + create report → 2 file-by-file review → 3 fresh-context gate (SKIP when findings exist) → 3.5 /code-simplifier (code diffs) → 3.7 /integration-test-review Gate-7 coverage (behavior diffs) → 4 finalize + Dual-Feedback Ledger → 5 docs triage → 6 /why-review --validate-findings → 7 self-fix + full restart from Phase 0 → 7.5 holistic full-mode /why-review → 8 /docs-update (unconditional terminal) — why: a skipped phase silently drops a guard (coverage, spec-drift, holistic review, or docs sync) and ships unreviewed work.

Routing boundary: This skill reviews a git diff — working-tree (default), staged, branch, or commit. For an explicit file-set or SHA-range review, processing received review feedback, or a pre-completion verification gate over already-known scope, use code-review instead.

Shared engine (keep in sync): changes-review and code-review share the same review-protocol SYNC: blocks. Canonical source: .claude/skills/shared/sync-inline-versions.md; policy: SYNC:shared-protocol-duplication-policy. When you change a shared block in one skill, update the canonical file AND the sibling skill so the two never drift. The skills differ only in entry intent (diff vs explicit scope) and diff-specific gates (integration-test-sync, translation-sync, the Phase 3.7 integration-test-review coverage gate) — not in review quality.

Workflow:

1. Phase -1: Bind the Self-Recursive Review Loop (FIRST ACTION — standalone-only; protocol-first, /goal optional) — Before any other work, in standalone mode bind the review loop as a standing protocol obligation you self-drive — and, WHEN available, invoke the /goal command as an ACTUAL call — with a self-recursive review-loop condition so stopping is BLOCKED until the loop converges: review the full diff → validate findings (Phase 6) → SELF-FIX validated findings (Phase 7) → restart /changes-review from Phase 0 over the WHOLE updated diff (combined with the prior fixes, never just re-checking the last fix) → loop until one complete pass clears that round's exit bar — zero findings in rounds 1-2, zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM from round 3 (a LOW-only round ENDS the loop; list those LOWs as deferred, never fix-and-loop for them), then docs-update. Skip this gate when running as step 1 inside $workflow-review-changes (the parent owns the goal). Full procedure in Phase -1.
2. Phase 0: Blast Radius — Call /graph-blast-radius skill FIRST (if .code-graph/graph.db exists)
3. Phase 0.1: Change Context & Full-Pipeline Impact Trace (MANDATORY comprehension-first) — Note the change context, then holistically trace the main affected area's full pipeline across BOTH boundaries — client↔server tier (FE↔BE) AND service/event/external — classifying each seam/touchpoint NONE/ADDITIVE/BREAKING (explicit N/A for single-tier or monolith)
4. Phase 0.3: Change Types — Detect high-risk change types; create risk tasks
5. Phase 0.5: Plan Compliance — Verify against active plan (conditional)
6. Phase 0.7: Surface Detection — AI categorizes changed files; creates dimension tasks
7. Phase 0.8: Parallel Rationale Review — Spawn a full-mode /why-review sub-agent in the SAME parallel batch as the 0.7 dimensional agents; its findings merge into the Phase 4 final evaluation (standalone-only)
8. Phase 1: Collect — Run git status/diff, create report file
9. Phase 2: File Review — Review each changed file, update report incrementally
10. Phase 3: Fresh-Context Gate — Skip when findings already exist; run a second-round sub-agent only for an explicit user/workflow/high-risk synthesis trigger
11. Phase 3.5: Code-Simplifier Optimization (MANDATORY when code files changed) — Invoke /code-simplifier scoped to the changed code files to surface clarity/consistency/maintainability simplifications; record them as findings that flow into the same validation/fix loop (skip docs-only diffs)
12. Phase 3.7: Integration-Test-Review Coverage Gate (MANDATORY when behavior-bearing code changed) — Invoke /integration-test-review over the full diff; its 8 quality gates audit changed tests AND its Gate 7 (Change Coverage) maps every behavior-changing production file to a covering test (integration-first; unit fallback needs justification) and a spec TC. GAP/SPEC-GAP results become findings for the same validation/fix loop (skip docs-only diffs; deferred to the parent's dedicated step inside $workflow-review-changes)
13. Phase 3.8: Domain Entity Gate (MANDATORY when the diff touches an entity/VO/aggregate) — Apply SYNC:domain-entity-change-gate over the changed domain types; Mode A reviews inline, Mode B delegates to /domain-entities-review (its A–P checklist owns the gate). Findings flow into the same validation/fix loop (skip when no domain-entity surface)
14. Phase 4: Finalize — Generate critical issues, recommendations, suggested commit message
15. Phase 5: Docs Triage — Record stale-doc findings for validation/fix loop
16. Phase 6: Why-Review Findings Validation (standalone-only; REQUIRED before any standalone fix) — Whenever the report contains one or more findings, you MUST invoke the /why-review skill (an actual Skill-tool call) with --validate-findings to verify every finding is correct, proof-backed, reasonable, and best-practice before fixing. This is a genuine skill invocation — re-reading the cited lines yourself, "self-validating," or any inline/manual substitute does NOT satisfy this gate. When this skill is step 1 inside $workflow-review-changes, stop after the report; parent step 2 owns findings validation.
17. Phase 7: Recursive Fix + Full Re-Review Loop (standalone-only) — If validated findings remain in standalone mode, auto-fix them, then re-invoke /changes-review from Phase 0 with a fresh task breakdown over the full current diff; repeat until an entire review pass clears that round's exit bar — zero findings in rounds 1-2, zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM from round 3 (a LOW-only round ENDS the loop; list those LOWs as deferred, never fix-and-loop for them). When inside $workflow-review-changes, parent steps 10-15 own plan/feature-implement/restart.
18. Phase 7.5: Holistic Standalone Full-Mode Why-Review Gate (standalone-only) — Once the dimensional review/fix loop converges clean, invoke /why-review in FULL mode (NOT --validate-findings) ONCE over the WHOLE review target combined with the current changes as a single artifact — a real standalone /why-review call, the same as a user running /why-review against the target directly. The per-file/per-dimension reviewers and the Phase 6 validate-findings gate routinely miss holistic design-rationale and whole-package issues that a standalone full-mode review catches. If it surfaces findings, fix them and re-run Phase 7.5 (run→fix→run) until a full-mode pass clears that round's exit bar — zero findings in rounds 1-2, zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM from round 3 (a LOW-only round ENDS the loop; list those LOWs as deferred, never fix-and-loop for them). When inside $workflow-review-changes, SKIP this — the parent workflow's dedicated standalone /why-review step (step 13) owns the holistic pass.
19. Phase 8: Mandatory Final Docs-Update Gate (MANDATORY — runs once the review/fix loop converges clean) — After the review reaches zero findings and all fixes are applied, ALWAYS invoke /docs-update over the full changeset as the terminal step so no stale docs survive. This is unconditional (not gated on a flagged finding) — /docs-update independently detects impacted docs the review may not have surfaced. When inside $workflow-review-changes, the parent workflow's /docs-update step owns this; do not run it locally.

Key Rules:

• Report-driven: ALWAYS write findings to plans/reports/code-review-{date}-{slug}.md
• MUST ATTENTION create todo tasks for ALL phases before starting
• Skeptical: every claim needs file:line proof
• Verify convention by grepping 3+ existing examples before flagging violations
• Actively check DRY violations, YAGNI/KISS over-engineering, correctness bugs
• When changed files include source code, run the Easy-to-Change gate: estimate future edit sites, coupling, hidden state, duplicated knowledge, unclear intent, and abstraction boundary health
• When changed files include source code, run the Phase 3.5 /code-simplifier optimization gate over the changed code files — its simplification opportunities are findings that flow through the same Phase 6 validation → Phase 7 fix loop (never auto-applied unvalidated)
• When changed files include behavior-bearing code, run the Phase 3.7 /integration-test-review coverage gate over the full diff — every behavior change must map to a covering test (integration-first) and a spec TC; GAP/SPEC-GAP verdicts are findings for the same Phase 6 → Phase 7 loop, never silently logged
• Cross-reference changed files against related docs — flag stale docs, test specs, READMEs
• MANDATORY FINAL step: once the review/fix loop converges to zero findings, ALWAYS run the Phase 8 /docs-update sweep over the full changeset — unconditional, never skipped on a clean verdict — why: a clean code review still leaves docs stale unless docs-update reconciles them against the actual changes
• Findings are not eligible for auto-fix until Phase 6 why-review validation returns CLEAN for the current finding set
• FIRST ACTION (standalone): bind the Phase -1 self-recursive review loop — the protocol loop is the primary, host-independent binding you self-drive, plus an optional /goal Stop-hook gate WHEN available — so stopping is blocked until a complete review pass over the whole diff is clean; soft "loop until clean" prose alone is not enough, and the protocol binding makes abandoning the loop early impossible whether or not /goal exists
• After Phase 6 validation, the skill MUST SELF-FIX every validated finding in Phase 7 (standalone) — a surfaced+validated finding that is reported but left unfixed keeps the review loop open (and, when available, the /goal gate); never hand validated findings back to the user as "recommendations" in standalone mode
• Every fix cycle invalidates the prior review result; restart /changes-review from Phase 0 and review the full updated diff AS A WHOLE FROM THE BEGINNING — combined with the prior fixes, NOT just re-reviewing the previous cycle's fix in isolation
• Continue review → validate findings → self-fix → full whole-diff re-review until a complete review pass clears that round's exit bar — zero findings in rounds 1-2, zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM from round 3 (a LOW-only round ENDS the loop; list those LOWs as deferred, never fix-and-loop for them); do not add a fresh-context pass just because findings exist or a fix cycle restarted the review
• Severity floor — from round 3, LOW stops blocking. Rounds 1-2 of the Phase 7 loop require zero findings at any severity. From round 3 the bar is zero validated CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM — a round whose validated findings are ALL LOW ENDS the loop. Do NOT restart Phase 0 for LOW findings alone: record them under ## Deferred LOW Findings (severity floor, round ≥3) in the report and advance to Phase 7.5. NEVER re-tier a real CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM down to LOW to reach the exit, and NEVER apply the floor to a binary gate (a missing §8 TC for a behavior change is HIGH, not a deferrable LOW). Severity tiers per SYNC:severity-rubric.

MANDATORY Plan ToDo Task to discover and READ project-specific reference docs:

1. Search for code standards docs: code-review, patterns, conventions, style-guide — read any found
2. Search for architecture docs: architecture, adr-, README.md at service/module roots
3. Look for docs referencing changed technology areas (backend, frontend, infra, etc.)
4. Read docs most relevant to the categories of files changed

Prerequisites: MUST ATTENTION READ before executing:

Critical Purpose: Ensure quality — no flaws, no bugs, no missing updates, no stale content. Verify both artifacts AND documentation.

External Memory: For complex or lengthy work (research, analysis, scan, review), write intermediate findings and final results to a report file in plans/reports/ — prevents context loss and serves as deliverable.

Evidence Gate: MANDATORY — every claim, finding, and recommendation requires file:line proof or traced evidence with confidence percentage (>80% to act, <80% must verify first).

OOP & DRY Enforcement: MANDATORY — flag duplicated patterns that should be extracted to a base class, generic, or helper. Classes in the same group or suffix MUST ATTENTION inherit a common base (even if empty now — enables future shared logic and child overrides). Verify project has code linting/analyzer configured for the stack.

Code Review: Current Or Branch Diff

Review current changes or explicit branch/commit diffs against project standards.

Review Scope

Target: current working-tree changes by default; explicit branch/tag/commit diff when user asks branch comparison.

Use these sources:

• Current changes: git status, git diff, and git diff --cached
• Branch diff: git diff <base>...<head> plus git diff --name-only <base>...<head>
• Commit range: git diff <base>..<head> plus git diff --name-only <base>..<head>

Review Mindset (NON-NEGOTIABLE)

Be skeptical. Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80%.

• Verify correctness by reading actual implementations, never accept it at face value
• Every finding MUST include file:line evidence (grep results, read confirmations)
• Include a claim only when a trace proves it; otherwise leave it out of the report
• Question assumptions: "Does this actually work?" → trace call path to confirm
• Challenge completeness: "Is this all?" → grep related usages
• Verify side effects: "What else does this change break?" → check consumers and dependents
• No "looks fine" without proof — state what was verified and how

First Principle — Easy to Change

Apply this gate when diff includes source-code or code-adjacent files (.cs, .ts, .html, .scss, .css, tests, scripts, build/config-as-code). Pure docs-only changes skip this gate except for executable examples or code snippets.

Success metric: future change cost.
DRY, SRP, abstraction, design patterns, naming, layering, tests — all serve one goal: make next change cheaper.

When evaluating code, refactor, test, or abstraction, ask: does this make next change cheaper or more expensive?

• Reject "best practices" raising change cost: premature abstraction, speculative generality, leaky indirection, ceremony without payoff.
• Name real enemies in findings: coupling, hidden state, duplicated knowledge, unclear intent, irreversible decisions exposed too early.
• Favor project-owned boundaries around external libraries, e.g. component/service input-output contracts, when they localize future library changes; reject pass-through wrappers adding ceremony without lowering change cost.
• Simpler design easy to change beats sophisticated design that isn't.

Apply this lens before specific rules, patterns, or checklists below. If downstream rule raises change cost, this principle wins.

---

Core Principles (ENFORCE ALL)

YAGNI — Flag code solving hypothetical future problems (unused parameters, speculative interfaces, premature abstractions) KISS — Flag unnecessarily complex solutions. "Is there a simpler way meeting same requirement?" DRY — Actively grep for similar/duplicate code before accepting new code. 3+ similar patterns → flag for extraction. Clean Code — Readable > clever. Names reveal intent. Functions do one thing. No deep nesting. Follow Convention — Before flagging ANY pattern violation, grep for 3+ existing examples. Codebase convention wins over textbook rules. No Flaws/No Bugs — Trace logic paths. Verify edge cases (null, empty, boundary values). Check error handling covers failure modes. Proof Required — Every claim backed by file:line evidence or grep results. Speculation FORBIDDEN. Doc Staleness — Cross-reference changed files against related docs (feature docs, test specs, READMEs). Flag stale or missing updates.

Run python .claude/scripts/code_graph batch-query <f1> <f2> --json on changed files for test coverage and caller impact.

Blast Radius Pre-Analysis (MANDATORY FIRST REVIEW STEP)

IMPORTANT MANDATORY MUST ATTENTION: FIRST review action in every review — only the Phase -1 self-recursive review-loop binding (standalone) precedes it. Call /graph-blast-radius BEFORE any other review work.

If .code-graph/graph.db exists, run graph-blast-radius analysis before reviewing changes:

• Call /graph-blast-radius skill (runs python .claude/scripts/code_graph blast-radius --json)
• Include in review: impacted files count, untested changes, risk level based on blast radius size
• Use results to prioritize file review order (highest-impact files first)

Graph-Assisted Change Review

For each changed file, trace full impact:

1. python .claude/scripts/code_graph trace <changed-file> --direction downstream --json — all files affected by changes
2. Flag any affected file NOT covered by tests
3. Catches cross-service impact simple diff review misses

Review Approach (Report-Driven Multi-Phase — CRITICAL)

MANDATORY FIRST: Create Todo Tasks for Review Phases Before starting, call TaskCreate with:

• [Review Phase -1] Bind self-recursive review loop — protocol-primary; optional /goal gate when available (standalone-only; skip inside $workflow-review-changes) - in_progress (MUST ATTENTION BE FIRST)
• [Review Phase 0] Run /graph-blast-radius to analyze change impact - pending (FIRST review step after the goal gate)
• [Review Phase 0.1] Note change context + holistic full-pipeline trace across BOTH boundaries — client↔server tier (FE↔BE) AND service/event/external — classify each seam/touchpoint NONE/ADDITIVE/BREAKING - pending (MANDATORY comprehension-first; record explicit N/A for single-tier or monolith)
• [Review Phase 0.3] Detect high-risk change types, create risk tasks - pending
• [Review Phase 0.7] Categorize changed files, create dimension review tasks - pending
• [Review Phase 0.8] Spawn parallel /why-review full-mode rationale sub-agent in the SAME batch as the Phase 0.7 dimensional agents; merge its findings into the final evaluation - pending (MANDATORY standalone; skip inside $workflow-review-changes — parent steps 2-3 own it)
• [Review Phase 0.5] Plan compliance check (skip if no active plan) - pending
• [Review Phase 1] Get changes and create report file - pending
• [Review Phase 2] Review file-by-file and update report - pending
• [Review Phase 3] Evaluate fresh-context gate; skip when findings already exist - pending
• [Review Phase 3.5] Run /code-simplifier on changed code files to optimize code quality - pending (MANDATORY when code files changed; skip docs-only diffs)
• [Review Phase 3.7] Run /integration-test-review coverage gate over full diff - pending (MANDATORY when behavior-bearing code changed; skip docs-only diffs; deferred to parent step inside $workflow-review-changes)
• [Review Phase 3.8] Run the domain entity change gate over changed entities/VOs/aggregates - pending (MANDATORY when the diff touches an entity, value object, or aggregate; skip otherwise)
• [Review Phase 4] Generate final review findings - pending
• [Review Phase 5] Record stale-doc findings for validation/fix loop - pending
• [Review Phase 6] Why-review findings validation gate before any fix - pending (MANDATORY when findings exist)
• [Review Phase 7] Auto-fix validated findings and restart /changes-review from Phase 0 - pending (MANDATORY when validated findings remain)
• [Review Phase 7.5] Run standalone full-mode /why-review over the whole target+diff; fix and re-run until zero findings - pending (MANDATORY when review loop converges clean; standalone-only — skip inside $workflow-review-changes)
• [Review Phase 8] Run /docs-update over full changeset to sync all impacted docs - pending (MANDATORY FINAL — always runs once review converges to zero findings; never skipped)

Update todo status as each phase completes.

Note: If Phase 1 reveals 10+ changed files, replace Phase 2-4 tasks with Systematic Review Protocol tasks:
[Review Phase 2] Categorize and fire parallel sub-agents, [Review Phase 3] Synchronize and cross-reference, [Review Phase 3.5] Run /code-simplifier on changed code files, [Review Phase 3.7] Run /integration-test-review coverage gate, [Review Phase 4] Generate consolidated report

Phase -1: Bind the Self-Recursive Review Loop (FIRST ACTION — standalone-only; protocol-first, /goal optional)

IMPORTANT MANDATORY MUST ATTENTION: This is the VERY FIRST action in standalone mode — before Phase 0, before any git/graph command. Its purpose is to make the review→fix→re-review loop UNABANDONABLE. The loop is bound by TWO layers: the protocol loop (primary, host-independent) you self-drive, plus an optional /goal accelerator (a session Stop hook) WHEN available. Correctness rides on the protocol loop — hooks/commands are accelerators only, so /goal's absence NEVER weakens it.

Entry gate:

• Run in standalone invocation (user called /changes-review directly).
• SKIP when this skill is invoked as step 1 inside $workflow-review-changes — the parent workflow owns the loop goal (its own Phase -1 / step-0 goal gate). Record: Phase -1 deferred to parent $workflow-review-changes goal gate.

Procedure:

1. Set the [Review Phase -1] task to in_progress.
2. Protocol loop — ALWAYS binding (hook/command-independent). You, the running agent, are personally responsible for not stopping until the loop below converges or bounded-escalates. This binds Claude, Codex, and Copilot equally, whether or not /goal exists:

> Review the full diff → run /why-review --validate-findings on every finding → SELF-FIX each validated finding → restart /changes-review from Phase 0 over the WHOLE updated diff (combined with the prior fixes, not just the last fix) → loop until one complete review pass clears that round's bar (rounds 1-2: zero findings; round 3+: zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, a LOW-only round ENDS the loop with the LOWs recorded as deferred) → then run Phase 7.5: one standalone FULL-mode /why-review over the whole target+diff (NOT --validate-findings), fixing and re-running until it is clean → only then run the Phase 8 /docs-update. Do not stop while any validated finding is unfixed, any review pass is non-clean, or the holistic full-mode /why-review has unaddressed findings.

1. /goal command — invoke as an accelerator WHEN AVAILABLE. If a /goal command exists and you are permitted to run it in this environment, ALSO invoke it (the actual command, NOT a paraphrase) with the SAME condition, so a session Stop hook mechanically enforces the loop:

`` /goal changes-review self-recursive loop: review the full diff → run /why-review --validate-findings on every finding → SELF-FIX each validated finding → restart /changes-review from Phase 0 over the WHOLE updated diff (combined with the prior fixes, not just the last fix) → loop until one complete review pass clears that round's bar (rounds 1-2: zero findings; round 3+: zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, a LOW-only round ENDS the loop with the LOWs recorded as deferred) → then run Phase 7.5: one standalone FULL-mode /why-review over the whole target+diff (NOT --validate-findings), fixing and re-running until it is clean → only then run the Phase 8 /docs-update. Do not stop while any validated finding is unfixed, any review pass is non-clean, or the holistic full-mode /why-review has unaddressed findings. ``

The /goal Stop hook blocks stopping until that condition holds and auto-clears when it does — do not tell the user to clear it. If /goal is unavailable, unregistered, or not permitted (e.g. Codex/Copilot, or a Claude run without the command): DO NOT error, DO NOT block, and DO NOT invent a stand-in gate. Record /goal accelerator unavailable — review loop bound by protocol (Phase -1 step 2) on the [Review Phase -1] task and proceed; the protocol loop IS the gate, enforced by discipline instead of a hook.

1. Set the [Review Phase -1] task to completed and proceed to Phase 0.

Why bind the loop, not just prose: the loop rules below ("restart from Phase 0", "continue until zero findings") are soft directives an agent can rationalize away after one cycle. Binding them as a standing protocol obligation (and, WHEN available, a /goal Stop hook) converts them into a mechanical block — the session cannot end with a validated finding still unfixed or a non-clean review pass. — why: a review that reports findings but stops before fixing-and-reproving them ships unreviewed work.

Phase 0: Run Graph Blast Radius Analysis (MANDATORY FIRST REVIEW STEP)

IMPORTANT MANDATORY MUST ATTENTION: FIRST review step, after the Phase -1 goal gate and before ANY other review work.

• Call /graph-blast-radius skill
• Record in report: changed files count, impacted files count, untested changes, risk level
• Use blast radius output to prioritize which files to review most carefully in Phase 2
• If .code-graph/graph.db does not exist, note "Graph not available — skipping blast radius" and proceed to Phase 0.1

Phase 0.1: Change Context Comprehension & Full-Pipeline Impact Trace (MANDATORY — comprehension-first)

IMPORTANT MANDATORY MUST ATTENTION: First comprehension step — before any file-by-file or dimensional review. Blast radius (Phase 0) gathers impact data; here holistically UNDERSTAND the change, trace main affected area's full pipeline across every boundary it crosses. Apply BOTH the Cross-Stack Impact Trace and Cross-Service Check protocols (bodies in the SYNC section below). This holistic first-pass map FEEDS the later Phase 0.3 change-type risk tasks and the conditional Phase 3 synthesis — does not replace them.

Write a one-paragraph Change Context note (what changed · intent · originating tier · main affected feature/flow), then run both traces per the Cross-Stack Impact Trace and Cross-Service Check protocols (SYNC blocks below).

Parent workflow boundary: Inside $workflow-review-changes, still RUN Phase 0.1 (comprehension is local review value) but hand findings to the parent — same pattern as Phase 3.5/3.7.

Phase 0.3: Change Type Detection + Risk Tasks (MANDATORY)

Purpose: Identify HIGH-RISK change types in this diff before dimensional review.
Each detected type creates a focused risk task. Change types are ORTHOGONAL to file category:
the same file can be both a migration AND a security change — detect all independently.

Step 1: Detect change types

git diff --name-only HEAD       # unstaged
git diff --cached --name-only   # staged
# For branch or commit-range review, use the user-provided diff source:
git diff --name-only <base>...<head>

Evaluate each change type for this diff:

Record in report:

## Change Type Analysis
DepUpgrade: [YES/NO] | Migration: [YES/NO] | BusEvent: [YES/NO]
ApiContract: [YES/NO] | SecurityChange: [YES/NO] | ConfigChange: [YES/NO] | InfraChange: [YES/NO]

Step 2: Create change-type risk tasks (ALWAYS before any review work)

MANDATORY: Call TaskCreate for each TRUE signal. Do NOT create tasks for FALSE signals.
The concerns listed are starting points — apply domain knowledge beyond them.

AI-SDD risk lenses: Apply these lenses when the changed files touch specs, workflows, tooling, or shared guidance.

Step 3: Work through change-type tasks before dimensional review

For each created change-type task:

1. Set task to in_progress
2. Work through ALL applicable concerns — the table above is a starting point, not a ceiling
3. For each concern: cite file:line for PASS or describe finding for FAIL/WARN
4. Write findings under ## {Task Subject} Findings in report
5. Set task to completed

IMPORTANT: Complete ALL change-type tasks FIRST, then proceed to Phase 0.7.
If no change-type signals detected, log "No high-risk change types detected" and proceed.

Phase 0.7: Change Surface Detection + Dynamic Review Tasks (MANDATORY)

Purpose: Let AI categorize the changes by nature and create review tasks accordingly.
Derive categories from what the project's actual changed files are, never assume a fixed set.
Think, don't classify into a preset grid. The AI owns this step entirely.

Step 1: Derive categories from the diff

git diff --name-only HEAD        # unstaged
git diff --cached --name-only    # staged
# For branch or commit-range review, use the user-provided diff source:
git diff --name-only <base>...<head>

For each changed file, infer its category by examining:

• Language/extension: What technology or domain does this file belong to?
• Directory semantics: What layer, module, or concern does this path represent in the project?
• Change nature: Is this logic, data schema, configuration, documentation, infrastructure, styling, testing, or tooling?

Do NOT map to fixed buckets. Derive categories that fit the current repository's actual structure and vocabulary.

Common category types to consider as starting points (not exhaustive — derive what fits):

• Server-side logic — business rules, API handlers, services, consumers, event processors
• Client-side logic — UI components, state management, API integration
• Data/Schema — migrations, schemas, seed data, domain models
• Styles/Assets — CSS/SCSS, design tokens, images, fonts
• Configuration — app settings, env vars, feature flags
• Infrastructure — Docker, CI/CD, pipelines, cloud manifests
• Documentation/Specs — markdown docs, ADRs, feature specs, test specs
• Tests — unit, integration, E2E test files
• Build/Tooling — build scripts, linters, formatters, bundlers, agent scripts
• Security — auth config, permission definitions, certificates

Record in report:

## Change Surface
{Category name} ({category type}): {N} files
{Category name} ({category type}): {M} files
...

Step 2: For each category, enumerate concerns and create a task

This is where you THINK, not fill in blanks. Apply SYNC:category-review-thinking for each category.

For EACH identified category:

1. Understand the domain: What is this category's purpose? What invariants govern it? Who depends on it?
2. Read project conventions: Grep for style guides, patterns docs, READMEs specific to this area
3. Derive concerns from first principles — DO NOT limit to any fixed list; trust your domain knowledge
4. Create a TaskCreate task named [Review-{Category}] {brief concern summary} listing derived concerns
5. Select the appropriate sub-agent type (see Sub-Agent Type Selection)

ALWAYS create: [Review-General] — universal quality: correctness, YAGNI/KISS/DRY, doc staleness, test coverage. Runs across ALL changed files regardless of other categories.

Sub-Agent Type Selection:

Spec-compliance pre-pass (when the changeset implements a documented docs/specs/capability or a PBI/story):** spawnspec-compliance-reviewerFIRST — it verifies the implementation matches the spec (catches spec drift, missing requirements, extra features) BEFORE thecode-reviewerquality pass runs. Skip when no spec/PBI governs the change (thencode-revieweris the sole code pass). This is the one wired dispatch site forspec-compliance-reviewer (sub-agent-selection-guide.md "Spec compliance" row).

UI/frontend dimension (OWNED by this skill): When a Client-side logic or Styles/Assets category surfaces frontend files matching the project's configured frontend/UI file patterns, /changes-review owns the UI review and invokes /ui-review as its UI dimension — preferably as a dedicated ui-ux-designer sub-agent spawned in the same parallel batch as the other dimensional agents (inline-fold its checklist only when sub-agent spawning is unavailable). The checklist: long-content overflow (wrap vs ellipsis+tooltip), responsive multi-screen via flex, flex-grow vs fixed sizing (prefer min/max + flex over fixed px), z-index scale discipline (no raw numbers, no !important), and SCSS/BEM quality. This is the SAME behavior in both standalone and workflow contexts — /ui-review is NOT a separate workflow step; it always runs here. Skip entirely if no frontend files changed.

Step 2.5: Declare the Dimensional Wave (MANDATORY before spawning any reviewer)

Purpose: the dimensional reviewers are read-only over the same frozen diff and share no write target — they are ONE wave, not a queue. This declaration lives in the SKILL, not only in a parent workflow's injected context, because standalone runs receive no injected context at all and would otherwise serialize the batch.

1. Spec-compliance pre-pass FIRST, then declare and spawn the wave in ONE message. When a documented spec/PBI governs the change, spawn spec-compliance-reviewer ALONE and let it RETURN before wave 1 is spawned — its completion is a precondition for the wave, per the pre-pass rule above — why: a pass running concurrently with the pass it precedes is not a pre-pass, and the parallel-dispatch protocol below forbids parallelizing an order this skill explicitly fixes. When no spec/PBI governs the change, record the skip and spawn the wave immediately — a skipped pre-pass NEVER delays it. Then declare: Parallel plan: SEQ pre-pass = [spec-compliance-reviewer (conditional — returns BEFORE wave 1 is spawned)] · wave 1 = [every [Review-{Category}] agent from Step 2, [Review-General], ui-review (conditional), Phase 0.8 /why-review] · SEQ = [Phase 4 consolidation, Phase 6 validation, Phase 7 fixes] (each consumes the whole wave).
2. Batch members = every [Review-{Category}] task created in Step 2 + the always-created [Review-General] + the Phase 0.8 /why-review rationale agent, each routed per Sub-Agent Type Selection above (code-reviewer, security-auditor, performance-optimizer, ui-ux-designer, general-purpose).
3. Conditional members are skipped ENTIRELY when their trigger files are absent — and a skipped member counts as "returned" for the barrier; never hold the wave open for an agent that was correctly never spawned. Record each skip with its trigger: ui-review (no frontend files in the diff) and any derived category with no changed files.
4. The batch is READ-ONLY. No member edits code, docs, or specs — findings only, each with file:line proof, persisted incrementally to its own plans/reports/ file. Many agents reading one file is safe; any agent WRITING during the wave races the diff every other agent is reading.
5. Barrier before every mutating step. Phase 4 consolidation waits for ALL members; /code-simplifier (3.5), Phase 7 fixes, and the Phase 8 /docs-update act only on the consolidated post-barrier snapshot — consolidating on a partial agent set silently drops a whole dimension's findings.
6. One level deep. A dimensional reviewer reviews its own file set and does not fan out further; a category too large for one agent escalates through SYNC:systematic-review-batching (size-capped batches), which YOU orchestrate.

Inside $workflow-review-changes: this local wave is nested INSIDE parent step 1 and covers only this skill's own dimensions; the parent's own parallel groups and barriers are declared in .claude/workflows.json (the authority — read them there, never restate them here), and each phase's workflow-mode entry gate owns its own defer/skip rule.

Phase 0.8: Parallel Why-Review Rationale Dimension (MANDATORY — spawned in the SAME batch as the Phase 0.7 dimensional agents)

Purpose: every Phase 0.7 dimensional reviewer is scoped — one category, one file set, one concern. NONE asks the rationale question: was this change the right call, and does its reasoning survive an adversarial pass? /why-review owns it. Run it CONCURRENTLY with the dimensional agents so rationale findings enter the finding set from the START and flow through the same validate → fix → re-review loop as every other finding; NEVER defer them to Phase 7.5, where fixes already rest on an unquestioned premise. — why: a diff can be clean on every dimension and still be the wrong change; discovering that after the loop converges wastes the whole loop.

Entry gate:

• Run in standalone mode on EVERY diff — code, docs, specs, config. NEVER exempt one as "too small to have a rationale".
• SKIP inside $workflow-review-changes — parent steps 2-3 (/why-review --target=whole-review-target → /why-review) run immediately after this skill and own the rationale pass. Record: Phase 0.8 deferred to parent workflow /why-review steps (2-3). — why: firing here AND at parent step 2 reviews the identical target twice, back to back.

Protocol:

1. Set the [Review Phase 0.8] task to in_progress.
2. Spawn ONE Agent sub-agent (subagent_type: general-purpose) in the SAME parallel batch as the Phase 0.7 dimensional agents — one message, all agents together — so review runs concurrently, NEVER as a blocking pre-step. Its prompt MUST invoke /why-review in FULL mode (an actual Skill call, NOT --validate-findings) over the Phase 1 diff + the Phase 0.1 Change Context note, and MUST carry all four constraints below verbatim.
3. Report-only constraints (ALL FOUR are binding on the sub-agent):

1. Capture — NEVER auto-fix. Integrate the returned SYNC:subagent-return-contract summary into the main report under ## Why-Review Rationale Findings, preserving each finding's file:line proof, severity, confidence.
2. Set the [Review Phase 0.8] task to completed once the sub-agent returns. Per the parallel-phase barrier, advance to Phase 4 consolidation ONLY after this agent AND every Phase 0.7 dimensional agent has returned — why: consolidating on a partial agent set silently drops a whole dimension's findings.

Pipeline integration: Phase 0.8 findings are ORDINARY findings — consolidated in Phase 4 (Final Review Result), validated in Phase 6 (/why-review --validate-findings), fixed in Phase 7 ONLY once validated. They also arm the Phase 3 entry gate: rationale findings count as "findings already exist", so Phase 3's fresh-context pass is skipped exactly as for any other finding.

Relationship to Phase 7.5 — DISTINCT gates, NEITHER replaces the other:

A clean Phase 0.8 NEVER exempts Phase 7.5, and vice versa — they review different artifacts at different times. Recording one as satisfying the other is a skipped gate.

Step 3: Work through tasks in order

For each created task:

1. Set task to in_progress before starting
2. Review ONLY files in that category's scope
3. Apply SYNC:category-review-thinking — trust your domain knowledge beyond the examples there
4. Write findings to report under ## {Task Subject} Findings section
5. Set task to completed before starting next task

NEVER mark a dimension task completed by scanning. Work through each relevant file explicitly.
For large categories (10+ files): escalate to a parallel sub-agent using the Systematic Review Protocol.

Phase 0.5: Plan Compliance Check (CONDITIONAL — only when active plan exists)

Check ## Plan Context in injected context:

• If "Plan: none" → skip, log "No active plan — skipping plan compliance"
• If "Plan: {path}" → load plan and verify:

1. Read {plan-path}/plan.md — get phase list and scope
2. Read relevant phase files — extract files to modify, test specifications, success criteria
3. Verify (MUST ATTENTION — all four):

- Scope match — changed files listed in plan phases (warn on unplanned files) - Test evidence — tests mapped to completed phases have evidence (file:line), not "TBD" - Success criteria met — phase success criteria satisfied by changes - Test intent traceability — mapped tests name the business rule/invariant they protect, not just current behavior

1. Add "Plan Compliance" section to review report

Phase 1: Get Changes and Create Report File (MUST ATTENTION)

• Identify diff source: current working tree, staged changes, branch comparison, or commit range
• Run git status for current changes, or git diff --name-only <base>...<head> for branch comparisons
• Run git diff or git diff <base>...<head> to see actual changes
• Create plans/reports/code-review-{date}-{slug}.md
• Initialize with Scope, Files to Review, Blast Radius Summary sections

Phase 2: File-by-File Review (Build Report Incrementally)

For EACH changed file, read and immediately update report with:

• File path and change type (added/modified/deleted)
• Change Summary: what modified/added
• Purpose: why change exists
• Convention check: Grep 3+ similar patterns — does new code follow existing convention?
• Correctness check: Trace logic paths — handles null, empty, boundary values, error cases?
• DRY check: Grep similar/duplicate code — does this logic already exist elsewhere?
• Intention check: Does change serve stated purpose? Flag unrelated modifications
• Logic trace: Trace one happy path + one error path. Logic matches requirements?
• Semantic correctness: Does the artifact DO what it's supposed to?
• Issues Found: naming, typing, responsibility, patterns, bugs, over-engineering, logic errors
• Continue to next file, repeat

Phase 3: Fresh-Context Gate (Conditional Protocol — branch on findings and Phase 0.7 surface)

Protocol: SYNC:double-round-trip-review + SYNC:fresh-context-review + SYNC:review-protocol-injection (all inlined above).
INVARIANT: Phase 3 is review-only. It may add findings, but it MUST NOT fix or validate them. Existing findings do not require a fresh-context re-review; any non-zero finding set flows to Phase 6 why-review validation, then Phase 7 auto-fix + full /changes-review restart from Phase 0. A Phase 7 restart alone is NOT a Phase 3 trigger.

Entry gate:

1. If Phase 2 or any dimensional review already found findings, SKIP Phase 3. Record: Skipped fresh-context pass because findings already exist; Phase 6 why-review validation is the required next gate. Then proceed to Phase 4 consolidation and Phase 6 validation.
2. If there are zero findings and no explicit independent-review trigger, SKIP Phase 3. Record: Skipped fresh-context pass because the current review is clean and no second-round trigger exists. Then proceed to Phase 4 finalization.
3. Run Phase 3 only when the current finding set is zero and at least one trigger exists:

- the user explicitly requested a second-round/fresh-context review; - the selected workflow explicitly requires an independent reviewer for this invocation; - high-risk multi-domain changes need synthesis before a clean verdict.

Anti-waste rule: Do not run Phase 3 to re-review known findings before Phase 6. Do not run Phase 3 solely because Phase 7 restarted the review after fixes. The restarted review is already the required full pass; if it has zero findings and no explicit trigger above, finalize cleanly.

If the entry gate allows Phase 3, check categories from Phase 0.7 — if multiple distinct domains changed (e.g., server-side + client-side), run Synthesis Mode. Otherwise run Holistic Mode.

---

[SYNTHESIS MODE — when multiple distinct domains changed]

Spawn a Synthesis Agent as Round 2. Purpose: catch cross-boundary issues individual dimensional tasks cannot see.

When constructing Agent call prompt:

1. Copy Agent call shape from SYNC:review-protocol-injection template verbatim, subagent_type: "code-reviewer"
2. Embed all 11 universal SYNC blocks verbatim
3. Set Task as:

``` Synthesis review — cross-boundary concerns ONLY across the changed domains in this diff. You have these dimensional findings as context: {summary from each dimensional task}. Re-read ALL changed files from scratch via your own tool calls.

Focus ONLY on cross-boundary concerns — do NOT re-review each domain's internals: 1. Contract Alignment: Do callers match what callees expose? (routes, parameters, field names, types) 2. Data Consistency: Are field names/types consistent across layer boundaries? 3. Security Boundary: Is auth enforced on BOTH sides (enforcement AND display control)? 4. Cross-Layer Naming: Same concept named differently across layers? 5. Missing Wiring: New producer with no consumer? New consumer with no producer? New feature with no doc? 6. Documentation: Docs reflect changes in BOTH domains together? ```

1. Set Target Files as "use the selected diff source from Phase 1"
2. Set report path as plans/reports/synthesis-review-{date}.md

After sub-agent returns:

1. Read synthesis report
2. Integrate findings as ## Synthesis Round Findings in main report — DO NOT filter or override
3. If findings exist: do NOT fix here; mark Phase 3 complete and proceed to Phase 6 why-review validation
4. If no findings exist: proceed to Phase 4 finalization as a clean synthesis pass

---

[HOLISTIC MODE — when single domain changed]

No cross-boundary synthesis needed. Spawn standard holistic Round 2.

When constructing Agent call prompt:

1. Copy Agent call shape from SYNC:review-protocol-injection template verbatim
2. Select subagent_type based on domain's dominant concern (see Sub-Agent Type Selection)
3. Set Task as: "Review the selected diff holistically. Focus on big picture — overall technical approach coherence, architecture layers, logic placement (lowest layer), DRY violations, YAGNI/KISS, function complexity. Domain: {category from Phase 0.7} — apply domain knowledge for this category accordingly."
4. Set Target Files as "use the selected diff source from Phase 1"
5. Set report path as plans/reports/changes-review-round{N}-{date}.md

After sub-agent returns:

1. Read sub-agent's report
2. Integrate findings as ## Round {N} Findings (Fresh Sub-Agent) in main report — DO NOT filter or override
3. If findings exist: do NOT fix here; mark Phase 3 complete and proceed to Phase 6 why-review validation
4. If no findings exist: proceed to Phase 4 finalization as a clean holistic pass
5. Final verdict must incorporate findings from ALL review passes executed in this invocation

The following checks are handled by sub-agent but can be verified in Phase 4:

Clean Code & Over-engineering Checks:

• MUST ATTENTION YAGNI: Code solving hypothetical future problems? Unused params, speculative interfaces?
• MUST ATTENTION KISS: Unnecessarily complex solution? Could this be simpler while meeting the same requirement?
• MUST ATTENTION Function complexity: Methods too long? Nesting too deep? Multiple responsibilities?
• MUST ATTENTION Readability: Would a new team member understand without reading the full implementation?

Documentation Staleness Check (REQUIRED):

For each changed file, identify related documentation:

• Search for feature docs, architecture references, READMEs at module/service roots, API docs, test specs, setup guides
• Flag any doc where content no longer matches the changed artifact
• Flag missing docs for new features or components that should be documented
• Flag in the report with the specific stale section and what changed. Do not fix yet; Phase 6 must validate the finding before Phase 7 invokes /docs-update or applies doc edits.

Spec Drift Adjudication (REQUIRED when behavior changed): Apply SYNC:spec-drift-adjudication. For every behavior-bearing change, compare it against the canonical Feature Spec under docs/specs/ and classify any divergence as CODE-WRONG (change violates an intended spec rule/AC/invariant → BLOCKING finding, fix code/test), SPEC-STALE (intentional behavior change the spec no longer reflects → route to /spec [update] + /spec [mode=tests] [update]), AMBIGUOUS (AskUserQuestion before editing either side), or SPEC-SILENT (code correctly enforces an invariant no spec artifact states → ENRICH: add the §4 BR/§3 AC + a §8 TC via /spec [update] + /spec [mode=tests], then a guarding test). Record the verdict per changed behavior (Spec in sync when no divergence). Do not normalize drift just because code/tests pass. This is the bidirectional generalization of the post-bugfix "Was spec wrong?" check — it runs for ALL behavior-changing reviews, not only post-bugfix. Flag findings here; Phase 6 validates and Phase 7 fixes (CODE-WRONG fixes route through the fix loop; SPEC-STALE and SPEC-SILENT fixes route to the canonical spec updater before /docs-update).

Correctness & Bug Detection: Apply SYNC:bug-detection — null safety, boundaries, error handling, resource cleanup, concurrency.

Test Spec Verification: Apply SYNC:test-spec-verification — locate specs, verify coverage, flag gaps.

Integration Test Sync: Apply SYNC:integration-test-sync-check — surface missing tests via AskUserQuestion.

Translation Sync: Apply SYNC:translation-sync-check — for multilingual UI text changes, require translation updates or explicit user risk acceptance.

Phase 3.5: Code-Simplifier Quality Optimization (MANDATORY when code files changed)

Purpose: A correctness review proves the change WORKS; this gate proves the changed code stays easy to read, consistent, and cheap to change. Bug-finding (Phases 2-3) and simplification optimization are different lenses — run both. /code-simplifier is the canonical owner of clarity/consistency/maintainability refinement, so this skill delegates to it rather than duplicating that logic.

Entry gate:

• Run when the diff includes source-code or code-adjacent files (.cs, .ts, .tsx, .html, .scss, .css, tests, scripts, build/config-as-code).
• SKIP for docs-only / markdown-only diffs. Record: Skipped Phase 3.5 — no code files in diff.

Protocol:

1. Set the [Review Phase 3.5] task to in_progress.
2. Invoke /code-simplifier scoped to the changed code files only (pass the Phase 1 diff source — working-tree, staged, branch, or commit range — so it refines the related changed files, NOT the whole codebase). Direct it to surface reuse, DRY, KISS/YAGNI, naming, dead-code, altitude/layer-placement, and readability simplifications.
3. Capture, do NOT auto-apply. In review context, /code-simplifier runs in report mode: integrate its recommendations into the main report under ## Code-Simplifier Optimization Findings with file:line evidence and a one-line rationale each. These are findings, not edits.
4. Set the [Review Phase 3.5] task to completed.

Pipeline integration: Phase 3.5 findings are ordinary findings — they consolidate in Phase 4, are validated in Phase 6 (/why-review --validate-findings filters false-positive or change-cost-raising simplifications), and only validated ones are fixed in Phase 7. NEVER let /code-simplifier mutate the working tree before Phase 6 validates its suggestions.

Parent workflow boundary: When this skill is invoked as step 1 inside $workflow-review-changes, still run Phase 3.5 (it is a review dimension, producing findings for the report) but do NOT fix here — the parent workflow's /code-simplifier self-review and /feature-implement fix cycle own application. Record the findings and hand the report to parent step 2.

Phase 3.7: Integration-Test-Review Coverage Gate (MANDATORY when behavior-bearing code changed)

Purpose: Phases 2-3 prove the change is correct as written; this gate proves the change is covered and specced. /integration-test-review is the canonical owner of the 7-gate test-quality audit — its Gate 7 (Change Coverage) maps every behavior-changing production file in the diff to a covering test (integration-first; unit fallback needs explicit justification) AND a spec TC. This skill delegates to it rather than duplicating that logic. SYNC:integration-test-sync-check stays as the lightweight file-pairing check; this gate goes deeper — assertion quality, data-state verification, repeatability, and bidirectional spec↔test↔code alignment over the full change set.

Entry gate:

• Run when the diff includes behavior-bearing source code: handlers, commands, queries, services, entities, event consumers, controllers, background jobs, or frontend logic.
• SKIP for docs-only / markdown-only / pure styling-asset diffs. Record: Skipped Phase 3.7 — no behavior-bearing code in diff.

Protocol:

1. Set the [Review Phase 3.7] task to in_progress.
2. Invoke /integration-test-review scoped to the Phase 1 diff source (working-tree, staged, branch, or commit range) so it audits the FULL change set — changed production code AND changed test files, never just the test files. It runs all 8 quality gates, builds the Gate 7 Coverage Mapping Table, and cross-checks spec TCs in both directions.
3. Capture, do NOT auto-fix. Integrate its output into the main report under ## Integration-Test-Review Findings: per-gate verdicts, the Coverage Mapping Table, and every GAP / SPEC-GAP / unjustified COVERED-UNIT as a finding (GAP = HIGH severity minimum; CRITICAL for auth/money/data-integrity paths).
4. Set the [Review Phase 3.7] task to completed.

Pipeline integration: Phase 3.7 findings are ordinary findings — consolidated in Phase 4, validated in Phase 6, fixed in Phase 7. GAP fixes WRITE the missing test via /integration-test; SPEC-GAP fixes run /spec [mode=tests] [update]. The Phase 7 restart then re-audits coverage over the full updated diff, including the new tests.

Parent workflow boundary: When this skill is invoked as step 1 inside $workflow-review-changes, do NOT run Phase 3.7 locally — the parent workflow's dedicated /integration-test-review step owns the 7-gate audit and coverage mapping. Record Phase 3.7 deferred to parent workflow /integration-test-review step. (SYNC:integration-test-sync-check still applies locally as the lightweight pairing check.)

Phase 3.8: Domain Entity Change Gate (MANDATORY when the diff touches an entity, value object, or aggregate)

Purpose: Phase 3.7 proves the change is covered and specced; this gate proves the domain model itself is sound. /domain-entities-review is the canonical owner of the A–P entity checklist — this skill routes to it rather than judging aggregate boundaries, invariant ownership, or concurrency by eye. Apply SYNC:domain-entity-change-gate (inlined below) — the SAME protocol /plan and /plan-review read, so a design planned under it is reviewed under it.

Entry gate:

• Run when the diff adds or changes a domain entity, value object, aggregate root, repository, domain event, or a cross-aggregate reference.
• SKIP when no domain-entity surface is touched. Record: Skipped Phase 3.8 — no domain-entity surface in diff.

Protocol:

1. Set the [Review Phase 3.8] task to in_progress.
2. Detect paradigm (OO-mutable / type-driven-immutable / event-sourced, per aggregate) and subdomain fit (core / supporting / generic / CRUD) FIRST — both decide which rules apply. NEVER report anemic model before stating the subdomain judgment with evidence.
3. Apply the gate's 6 decision points as review lenses — Mode A (default): read /domain-entities-review Phase 2 A–P and apply inline. Mode B: delegate to /domain-entities-review when standalone AND the diff carries 3+ entity files.
4. Findings enter the normal set with file:line + severity — they consolidate in Phase 4, validate in Phase 6, and only validated ones are fixed in Phase 7.
5. Set the [Review Phase 3.8] task to completed.

Parent workflow boundary: When this skill is invoked as step 1 inside $workflow-review-changes, do NOT run Phase 3.8 locally — the parent workflow's dedicated /domain-entities-review step 5 owns the A–P audit. Record Phase 3.8 deferred to parent workflow /domain-entities-review step 5. — why: running both duplicates a parallel-batch member and closes a review cycle.

Phase 4: Generate Final Review Result

Update report with final sections (MUST ATTENTION — include every section below):

• Overall Assessment (big picture summary)
• Critical Issues (must fix before merge)
• High Priority (should fix)
• Why-Review Rationale Findings (from the Phase 0.8 parallel sub-agent — its verdict + every rationale finding with file:line, severity, confidence; or Phase 0.8 deferred to parent workflow /why-review steps (2-3)). MUST ATTENTION fold these into the Overall Assessment rather than listing them apart — a diff that is dimensionally clean but rationally unsound is NOT a passing review.
• Architecture Recommendations
• Cross-Boundary Impact (from Phase 0.1 — per client↔server seam AND per service/event/external touchpoint: NONE / ADDITIVE / BREAKING with routed fix; or explicit "Single-tier / monolith — N/A")
• Documentation Staleness (list stale docs with what changed, or "No doc updates needed")
• Spec Drift Adjudication (per behavior-changing file: CODE-WRONG / SPEC-STALE / AMBIGUOUS / SPEC-SILENT / Spec in sync, with the routed fix; or "No behavior change — N/A")
• Dual-Feedback Ledger (REQUIRED — see below; or "No behavior change — N/A")
• Positive Observations
• Suggested commit message (based on changes)

Dual-Feedback Ledger (REQUIRED for every behavior-changing finding). A behavior gap must feed back into BOTH the spec AND the tests — not merely fix the code. The Spec Drift Adjudication row above and the Phase 3.7 Gate 7 coverage row each cover only ONE axis; this ledger unifies them into a single "update BOTH" assertion so neither is silently skipped. For each behavior-changing finding, emit one row with two cells:

| Finding (file:line) | Spec feedback | Test feedback |
| --------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| {cite} | {the §8 spec/Feature-Spec update needed — e.g. /spec [update] then /spec [mode=tests], OR N/A-because-CODE-WRONG-spec-already-correct} | {the TC/regression test needed — e.g. new §8 regression TC via /spec [mode=tests], or covering integration test via /integration-test} |

- A blank cell on EITHER axis = FAIL. "N/A" alone is not allowed — every N/A must carry its reason inline (e.g. N/A — CODE-WRONG: canonical spec already describes the correct behavior, so no spec edit; only the regression TC is owed).
- CODE-WRONG finding → Spec feedback is typically N/A — spec correct, Test feedback is REQUIRED (regression TC first, per SYNC:spec-drift-adjudication).
- SPEC-STALE finding → BOTH cells are non-N/A: Spec feedback = /spec [update] then /spec [mode=tests]; Test feedback = the new/updated TC + guarding test.
- SPEC-SILENT finding (code correctly enforces an invariant the spec never states) → BOTH cells are non-N/A: Spec feedback = add the missing §4 BR / §3 AC (+ §5 invariant if applicable) and a §8 TC via /spec [update] + /spec [mode=tests]; Test feedback = the new property/regression test guarding the now-written invariant. The highest-value capture — never leave a discovered invariant only in code or only in tests.
- Covered-but-stale TC (Gate 7 SPEC-GAP routed by /integration-test-review — its Gate 7 classifies a TC that exists but no longer describes current behavior as a SPEC-GAP, not a satisfied coverage row): Spec feedback = correct the stale §8 TC via /spec [mode=tests] [update]; Test feedback = update the guarding test to the corrected TC.
- This ledger is itself an ordinary finding set: it consolidates here (Phase 4), is validated in Phase 6 (/why-review --validate-findings confirms BOTH axes are present for each behavior change), and its owed spec/test actions are applied in Phase 7. A ledger row with a blank axis that survives to Phase 7 = the review is INCOMPLETE.

Phase 5: Docs-Update Triage (CONDITIONAL)

If Documentation Staleness Check in Phase 4 identified stale docs:

1. Record impacted documentation and the proposed sync/update path in the review report
2. Add each stale-doc item to the Phase 6 findings validation payload
3. Do NOT invoke /docs-update yet; stale-doc findings are fixed in Phase 7 only after /why-review --validate-findings returns CLEAN for them
4. If Phase 7 later applies doc fixes, the next recursive /changes-review invocation must re-review the updated docs from Phase 0

Phase 5 triages only the docs the review FLAGGED. Regardless of whether anything is flagged here, the mandatory Phase 8 final /docs-update gate still runs once the review converges clean — it independently detects impacted docs this triage may have missed. Phase 5 is conditional; Phase 8 is unconditional.

Readability Checklist (MUST ATTENTION evaluate)

Before approving, verify artifacts are easy to read, maintain, understand:

• Schema visibility — Function computes data structure? Comment shows output shape so readers don't trace code
• Non-obvious data flows — Data transforms through multiple steps? Brief comment explains pipeline
• Self-documenting signatures — Params explain their role; flag unused params
• Magic values — Unexplained numbers/strings → named constants or inline rationale
• Naming clarity — Variables/functions reveal intent without reading implementation

Review Checklist

1. Architecture Compliance (MUST ATTENTION)

• Follows project's layer/module boundaries (read docs/project-config.json or equivalent)
• No cross-module/service direct data access where boundaries exist
• Logic placed in lowest responsible layer (not in orchestrators/top-layer classes)

2. Code Quality & Clean Code (MUST ATTENTION)

• Single Responsibility Principle — each function/class does ONE thing
• No code duplication (DRY) — grep for similar code, extract if 3+ occurrences
• Appropriate error handling following project patterns
• No magic numbers/strings (extract to named constants)
• Type annotations on all functions (where language requires)
• Early returns/guard clauses used
• YAGNI — no speculative features, unused parameters, premature abstractions
• KISS — simplest solution meeting requirement
• Follows existing codebase conventions (verify with grep for 3+ examples)

2.5. Naming Conventions (MUST ATTENTION)

• Names reveal intent (WHAT not HOW)
• Specific names, not generic (orderRecords not data)
• Booleans: prefix with state-indicating verb (isActive, hasPermission, canEdit)
• No cryptic abbreviations

3. Project-Specific Patterns (MUST ATTENTION)

• Read project's patterns/conventions reference docs BEFORE flagging violations
• Verify 3+ existing examples before concluding a pattern is a violation
• Flag deviation from project patterns with evidence (file:line showing existing pattern)

4. Security (MUST ATTENTION)

• No hardcoded credentials, tokens, or secrets
• Proper authorization checks at all entry points
• Input validation at system boundaries (user input, external APIs, message payloads)
• No injection risks (SQL, command, template, etc.)

5. Performance (MUST ATTENTION)

Concise hot-path pass — OOM first, then structure, then batching. Deep multi-dimension analysis belongs to /performance-review; flag here, route there if it needs measurement.

• [MOST IMPORTANT] OOM / out-of-memory bad practices — bound EVERY result set (page/limit/cursor); no unbounded read-all / SELECT *, no full materialization before paging/filtering, stream/chunk instead of buffering a whole export, no blobs/large-JSON/tracked entities loaded for list views, no unbounded cache/accumulator, no accidental multiple enumeration. Reduce rows AT THE SOURCE — row COUNT before row SIZE
• Best data structure & algorithm for the stack — O(1) Set/Map/dict lookup instead of linear find/includes/contains inside a loop; no O(n²) where O(n log n)/O(n)/O(1) exists
• Batch once, or parallelize — never serial fan-out — collapse per-item query/API/cache calls into one batched call (IN/bulk/aggregate/prefetch); run independent calls bounded-parallel, not sequential awaits (preserve ordering/authorization)
• No N+1 query patterns (batch load related data before iterating); query patterns have appropriate indexes
• Async/await used correctly (no blocking in async context)

6. Common Issues (MUST ATTENTION)

• Unused imports or variables
• Debug/logging statements left in that should not be in production
• Hardcoded values that should be configuration
• Missing async/await or promise handling
• Incorrect or absent exception handling
• Missing validation at boundaries

6.5 Bugfix Debugger Trace Gate (MUST ATTENTION)

For bugfix, failed-verification, stale/incorrect final output, regression, or behavior-changing fixes, FAIL review if any required proof is missing:

• Debugger Trace: End -> Start names the observed final state and final reader/query/renderer/assertion
• backward hops are evidenced from reader -> storage/projection/cache -> writer -> consumer/handler/job -> producer/origin
• all feeder paths that can write the final state are enumerated or explicitly marked unknown
• hypothesis matrix classifies root causes as primary, contributing, ruled out, latent, or unknown
• owning fix layer is justified as the lowest shared owner, not the symptom site by default
• forward convergence proof and regression test/proof mapping show why the final symptom cannot persist

7. Documentation Staleness (MUST ATTENTION)

• For each changed file: identify related docs (feature docs, architecture references, READMEs)
• Changed logic → verify relevant feature/module docs still accurate
• Changed tooling (scripts, configs, CI) → verify setup/getting-started docs still accurate
• New feature/component added → flag if corresponding doc missing
• Test specs reflect current behavior after changes
• API changes reflected in relevant API docs or specs
• Spec-drift adjudication (SYNC:spec-drift-adjudication): for every behavior-changing file, decide whether a divergence from the canonical Feature Spec is CODE-WRONG (change is the defect — BLOCKING, fix code/test), SPEC-STALE (change is intended — update spec via /spec [update] first), AMBIGUOUS (intended behavior unclear — AskUserQuestion before editing either side), or SPEC-SILENT (code correctly enforces an invariant no spec artifact states — enrich: add §4 BR/§3 AC + §8 TC + guarding test). Do not flag a divergence as a one-directional "stale doc" without naming which side is canonical. Unadjudicated behavior-vs-spec divergence is a FAIL; an unwritten-but-enforced invariant left uncaptured is equally a FAIL.

8. M1-M7 Compliance Gate — Code-to-Spec Drift (BLOCKING, MUST ATTENTION)

Contract: See .claude/skills/shared/sdd-artifact-contract.md → "AI-SDD Mandates (M1-M7)". This review enforces M6 for any spec/feature-doc/PBI/story/test-spec touched by — or supposed to be synced by — this change. Frame each check as: did this change introduce M1/M2 prose leakage, break a logical-ID mapping (M3), create AC/expected-result ambiguity (M4), or ADD A NON-DEMOABLE CASE TO A BUSINESS SPEC (M7)? A FAIL must name the violated mandate ID and cite the changed file + line. Passing an introduced M1-M5/M7 violation makes this review itself defective. (M6 binds THIS review, not the artifact — hence the artifact-facing set reads M1-M5 and M7, never "M1-M6".)

Carriers are EXEMPT from M1/M2 — source identifiers stay CORRECT inside [Source: ...], Evidence, CoveredBy: fields, legacy IntegrationTest: migration fields, YAML frontmatter, and `mermaid ` blocks. Only flag leakage in spec/doc narrative prose. Banned prose token list: docs/project-reference/spec-principles.md §3.2. Scope this gate to changed artifact files (docs/specs/**, PBI/story/test-spec files in the diff); SKIP with a one-line note when the diff touches no such artifact.

• M1 — No introduced tech leakage in prose. FAIL if the diff adds a framework/product, language-native type, or product/design-pattern class name to spec/doc narrative prose, headings, or AC text (banned list in spec-principles.md §3.2). Cite the changed file + line + token.
• M2 — No introduced source code in prose. FAIL if the diff expresses a requirement as a class/method/file-path/namespace used as a noun instead of a business operation. Source identifiers belong only in evidence carriers. Cite the changed line.
• M3 — Logical-ID mapping preserved. FAIL if the change adds a requirement/rule/TC without a logical ID (FR-/BR-/OP-/TC-), strips a logical ID, demotes it below the [Source:] evidence, writes physical code coordinates or repository-root paths instead of a stack-portable abstract anchor ([Source: namespace/service/id]), OR drops the [Source:] abstract-anchor evidence (evidence is REQUIRED and KEPT — SECONDARY to the logical ID; a code move alone does NOT change the anchor — physical coords live only in the provenance sidecar).
• M4 — No introduced AC ambiguity. FAIL if the change leaves an AC/expected-result vague ("handle appropriately", "process normally", "as needed"), implementable two different ways while both claim conformance, or with no observable completion state / named error condition.
• M5 — Spec stays rebuildable. FAIL if the change makes the spec/doc depend on reading the new code to be understood (a zero-codebase-knowledge team could no longer re-implement on a different stack from the artifact alone). Cite the file + missing detail.
• 🔴 M7 — No introduced NON-DEMOABLE case in a business spec. For every case this diff ADDS to a business-tree artifact, apply the demo test to its BODY: "what would a stakeholder SEE change?" — no answer → FAIL as TECHNICAL-ONLY. FAIL an added case whose When is an invocation (a handler runs, a consumer receives, a job fires, data syncs, a model/schema is inspected) or whose Then asserts a schema/type/nullability/column/call-count rather than a business outcome. Cite the changed file + line + the offending When/Then. The case belongs in the technical tree — the fix is to move it there, or rewrite it demoably, NOT to reword it.

🔴 M7 is the gate on the bugfix→spec pump — this is the step where business specs actually rot. The failure has a signature: a technical bug is fixed (a sync, a consumer, an event handler, a load path, a UI defect), no business behavior changes, and a new case is nonetheless appended to the business spec — carefully worded to avoid technical vocabulary, and therefore passing M1 and M2 cleanly while remaining a case no user or QC could ever demo. ⚠️ M1 governs vocabulary; M7 governs subject matter. A reviewer who checks only M1/M2 waves these through forever, one defensible case at a time, and the business tree fills with cases that cannot be demoed.

Ask on every diff that fixes a technical bug: did the BUSINESS behavior change? If NO, the business spec should usually gain NOTHING — ⚠️ "a no-op is a correct outcome" (see the contract's [HARD] A no-op is a correct outcome). A regression test in the technical tree is the correct home for a technical fix. Adding a business TC "for coverage" is the defect, not diligence.

If ANY item fails → the verdict is FAIL; list each violated mandate ID with its changed-file/line citation in the Critical Issues or High Priority section.

Output Format

Provide feedback in this format:

Summary: Brief overall assessment

Critical Issues: (Must fix before commit)

• Issue 1: Description and suggested fix

High Priority: (Should fix)

• Issue 1: Description

Suggestions: (Nice to have)

• Suggestion 1

Documentation Staleness: (Docs that may need updating)

• Doc 1: What is stale and why
• No doc updates needed — if no changed file maps to a doc

Spec Drift Adjudication: (Behavior-changing changes only — per SYNC:spec-drift-adjudication)

• <behavior/file> → CODE-WRONG | SPEC-STALE | AMBIGUOUS | SPEC-SILENT — verdict + routed fix (/spec [update], regression TC, AskUserQuestion, or enrich-spec: add §4 BR/§3 AC + §8 TC + guarding test)
• Spec in sync — if changed behavior matches the canonical Feature Spec
• No behavior change — N/A — if the diff is docs/tooling/style only

Debugger Trace Gaps: (Bugfix/behavior-changing changes only)

• Trace complete — if the required trace, feeder paths, hypothesis matrix, owner, and forward proof are present
• Gap 1: Missing or weak trace evidence and why it blocks PASS

Goal Satisfaction: (MANDATORY before any PASS verdict — resolve the active Goal Contract per the goal-contract-satisfaction-loop protocol: active plan goal.md → plans/goals/{YYMMDD-HHmm}-{slug}/goal.md; if none exists, record No active goal — skipped: {one-line reason})

• Overall PASS is BLOCKED while any required criterion is FAIL — a code-quality-clean review that misses the saved goal is NOT a PASS.
• BLOCKED status requires a user-facing escalation reason recorded in the matrix row and the goal file.
• Cite evidence references; never restate the goal text or copy secrets/sensitive payloads into the matrix or goal file.
• After the verdict, update the goal file: append an Iteration Log entry and sync its Goal Satisfaction matrix.

Positive Notes:

• What was done well

Suggested Commit Message:

type(scope): description

- Detail 1
- Detail 2

---

Systematic Review Protocol (for 10+ changed files)

When Phase 1 finds 10+ changed files, apply the Systematic Review Batching protocol (map-reduce: size-capped batches + hierarchical synthesis) defined below.

---

Workflow Recommendation

MANDATORY — NO EXCEPTIONS: If NOT already in a workflow, MUST use AskUserQuestion to ask user. Do NOT judge task complexity or decide "simple enough to skip" — user decides, not you:

1. Activate workflow-review-changes workflow (Recommended) — run the canonical workflow from .claude/workflows.json; it sequences this skill, findings validation, parallel reviewers, code-simplifier self-review, fix-plan cycle, full re-review restart, docs, and handoff.
2. Execute /changes-review directly — run this skill standalone

---

Architecture Boundary Check

For each changed file, verify no import from forbidden layer:

1. Read rules from docs/project-config.json → architectureRules.layerBoundaries
2. Determine layer — For each changed file, match path against each rule's paths glob patterns
3. Scan imports — Grep file for import statements
4. Check violations — If any import path contains layer name listed in cannotImportFrom, it is a violation
5. Exclude framework — Skip files matching any pattern in architectureRules.excludePatterns
6. BLOCK on violation — Report as critical: "BLOCKED: {layer} layer file {filePath} imports from {forbiddenLayer} layer ({importStatement})"

If architectureRules not present in project-config.json, skip silently.

---

Phase 6: Why-Review Findings Validation Gate (MANDATORY before fixing findings)

Purpose: Validate own findings BEFORE any fix. Verify EVERY finding is correct, proof-backed (file:line), reasonable, and convention-aligned. Catch false positives, inflated severity, and missed improvements before code/doc edits.

MANDATORY: REQUIRED todo task whenever findings exist. Register via TaskCreate as [Review Phase 6] Why-review findings validation gate (already in Phase task list above). Do NOT fix, docs-update, commit, or hand off until this gate passes CLEAN or reaches an explicit blocked state.

Trigger: Any finding produced (Critical, High, Medium, OR Low). A Medium or Low severity NEVER exempts a finding — even a single low-severity nit, naming note, or "minor" suggestion triggers the full /why-review --validate-findings gate. The ONLY skip is a literally empty finding set (unconditional PASS, zero findings of any severity). — why: severity is itself a finding claim the gate must validate; letting "it's only Low" bypass validation is exactly the inflation/false-positive the gate exists to catch.

UNCONDITIONAL INVOCATION: If even one finding exists, the /why-review skill MUST be invoked via the Skill tool before any fix, docs-update, commit, or handoff. There is NO inline alternative — manually re-reading the cited file:lines, re-tracing in your head, or declaring the findings "already validated" does NOT count. The only way to pass this gate is an actual /why-review --validate-findings skill call that returns a verdict.

Parent workflow boundary: When this skill is invoked as step 1 inside $workflow-review-changes, do NOT run this Phase 6 locally. Stop after the review report and hand it to parent workflow step 2; the parent runs /why-review --validate-findings before any parallel reviewers or fixes.

Protocol (capped re-do loop):

1. Read own finalized report from plans/reports/{skill}-{date}-{slug}.md
2. Invoke the /why-review skill via the Skill tool (terminal --validate-findings mode — runs in the SAME main-agent session, never spawns a sub-agent, never recurses). "Same session" means the why-review skill executes in this conversation — it does NOT mean you may substitute your own inline re-reading for the skill call. The skill MUST actually run. Pass arg: --validate-findings plans/reports/{skill}-{date}-{slug}.md — for EACH finding verify (a) file:line proof exists and is accurate, (b) the finding is correct (re-trace the cited code), (c) severity is reasonable and not inflated, (d) it reflects project best practices/conventions; steel-man each rejected interpretation; and surface any MISSED finding or enhancement opportunity the review overlooked
3. Read the validation verdict path returned by why-review, expected as plans/reports/why-review-validate-{date}.md
4. Classify the why-review verdict:

- CLEAN — all findings confirmed correct / proof-backed / reasonable / best-practice, AND no new finding issue or enhancement opportunity surfaced → append ## Why-Review Validation line to own report ("All N findings re-validated against actual code; no changes."), gate PASSES; if N > 0, proceed immediately to Phase 7. - HAS ISSUES — why-review demotes/removes a finding, flags a missing or inaccurate proof, OR surfaces a new finding issue / enhancement opportunity → go to step 5.

1. Reconcile: UPDATE own finalized report — revise severities, remove false positives, add the surfaced findings/enhancements, and record a ## Why-Review Validation Notes section citing what changed and why.
2. RE-DO /why-review --validate-findings on the UPDATED report (return to step 2) — re-validation is required ONLY because the report changed. Each pass is terminal (validate mode never recurses); the loop is owned and bounded HERE. Repeat until a why-review round comes back CLEAN, or max 2 re-do rounds (3 total validate passes) is reached.
3. If still not CLEAN after the cap: record unresolved items under ## Why-Review Validation — Unresolved and escalate to the user via AskUserQuestion instead of silently looping.

Skip conditions (record explicit reason if skipping):

• Verdict is unconditional PASS with zero findings → log "Skipped — no findings to validate" and do NOT run Phase 7
• /why-review itself is the active skill context → do NOT recurse; why-review re-validates via its own terminal --validate-findings mode (see its Findings Validation Gate)

Why this exists: AI reports can inherit confirmation bias, false positives, and severity inflation. Validation proves findings before edits; re-validation after report changes closes the gap where corrected findings are never checked again.

---

Phase 7: Recursive Auto-Fix + Full Re-Review Loop (MANDATORY when validated findings remain)

Purpose: Fixes change the review target. Next check MUST be a full new /changes-review invocation from Phase 0, not continuation from old review state.

Trigger: Phase 6 returns CLEAN and the validated report still contains one or more findings, weaknesses, stale-doc items, missing-test items, or required improvements.

Parent workflow boundary: When this skill is invoked as step 1 inside $workflow-review-changes, do NOT auto-fix or re-invoke /changes-review from here. Parent workflow steps 10-15 own /plan, /plan-review, /plan-validate, /why-review, /feature-implement, and the full restart gate.

Protocol:

1. Create fresh fix-cycle tasks before editing: one task per validated finding, one targeted-verification task, one /changes-review restart task.
2. Auto-fix validated findings at the owning layer. Stale docs: run /docs-update or edit canonical docs only after validation. Tests/specs: update canonical artifact before derived dashboards.
3. Run targeted verification for the fix set: tests, lint, docs/spec sync, SDD, graph, or config checks as applicable.
4. Append ## Fix Cycle {N} to the review report: findings fixed, files changed, verification commands/results, and unresolved items with reasons.
5. Re-invoke /changes-review in the SAME main-agent session on the full current review target:

- Create brand-new task list for all phases - Re-run Phase 0 blast radius, Phase 0.3 risk detection, Phase 0.7 surface categorization, Phase 1 diff collection, and later phases - Re-read all changed files from scratch, including original changes and Phase 7 fixes - Treat previous report as historical context only; never reuse prior findings as truth

1. Repeat Phase 0 → Phase 7 until one complete /changes-review invocation clears that round's bar: rounds 1-2 → unconditional PASS with zero findings and Phase 6 skipped as "no findings to validate"; round 3+ → zero validated CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, with any remaining LOW findings recorded under ## Deferred LOW Findings (severity floor, round ≥3) instead of triggering another round.

Stop conditions:

• If the same validated finding repeats for 3 full review invocations with no observable progress, stop and ask the user for a decision instead of spinning.
• If a finding cannot be safely auto-fixed without product/owner input, record the blocker and ask the user.
• If required verification tools or sub-skills are unavailable, stop and ask before adapting the protocol.

Non-negotiable rules:

• NEVER fix findings before /why-review --validate-findings confirms the current finding set.
• NEVER mark review clean after a fix without rerunning the full /changes-review protocol from Phase 0.
• NEVER review only the fixed files after a fix; review the full current diff because fixes can interact with earlier changes.
• NEVER reuse old todo tasks after restart; each recursive review invocation breaks down all phases again.
• NEVER declare unconditional PASS without the Output Format's Goal Satisfaction matrix showing every required saved criterion PASS (or BLOCKED with a user-facing escalation reason). A required-criterion FAIL is a validated finding for this fix loop.
• The Phase -1 review-loop binding stays in force until this loop converges (the /goal gate too, WHEN available) — the session cannot stop while any validated finding is unfixed or any review pass is non-clean. Do NOT report findings to the user and stop; SELF-FIX them here, then re-review the whole diff. (Standalone only; inside $workflow-review-changes the parent's goal gate governs.)

---

Phase 7.5: Holistic Standalone Full-Mode Why-Review Gate (MANDATORY when the loop converges clean — standalone-only)

Purpose: The dimensional/per-file reviewers (Phases 2-3.7) and the Phase 6 --validate-findings gate are SCOPED — each looks at one file, one dimension, or one supplied finding-list. They routinely miss whole-package problems: design-rationale gaps, an alternative the change silently foreclosed, assumptions that only break when the changed files are read together, a pre-mortem failure mode spanning the whole diff. A standalone full-mode /why-review of the entire review target — exactly what a user gets running /why-review against the target by hand — applies the adversarial SKEPTIC pass over the package as one artifact and catches what scoped review cannot. This gate exists because, in practice, /changes-review alone has missed issues that a standalone /why-review of the same target surfaces immediately.

Trigger: The Phase 7 review/fix loop has converged — one full /changes-review pass produced zero findings and all validated fixes are applied. This gate runs in standalone mode only.

Parent workflow boundary: When this skill is invoked as step 1 inside $workflow-review-changes, SKIP Phase 7.5 entirely — the parent workflow now has its own dedicated standalone /why-review step (step 13, after the dimensional review steps and before /docs-update) that owns the holistic full-mode pass. Record Phase 7.5 deferred to parent workflow standalone /why-review step (13).

Protocol:

1. Set the [Review Phase 7.5] task to in_progress.
2. Invoke /why-review in FULL mode — an ACTUAL Skill-tool call, NOT --validate-findings, NOT a manual/inline self-review — over the WHOLE review target combined with the current changes as a single artifact (the full Phase 1 diff plus every Phase 7 fix, read together). Frame it as a standalone holistic review of the target, identical to a user running /why-review against that target directly. Let /why-review apply its own adversarial mindset (steel-man rejected alternatives, invert stated reasons, stress-test top assumptions, pre-mortem, surface missed alternatives) and its own internal validation/self-recursion.
3. If /why-review returns CLEAN (zero findings): record Phase 7.5: full-mode /why-review of whole target — CLEAN in the review report and proceed to Phase 8.
4. If /why-review returns findings: treat them as validated holistic findings — auto-fix them at the owning layer (same fix discipline as Phase 7), append a ## Phase 7.5 Holistic Fix Cycle {N} block to the report (findings, files changed, verification), then re-run Phase 7.5 from step 2 over the full updated target. Repeat run→fix→run until one full-mode /why-review pass clears the round's bar (rounds 1-2: zero findings; round 3+: zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, LOW-only ENDS the loop with the LOWs deferred).
5. Set the [Review Phase 7.5] task to completed once a full-mode pass is clean (or the gate was deferred to the parent workflow).

Stop conditions: Same as Phase 7 — if the same holistic finding repeats for 3 full-mode passes with no observable progress, or a finding needs product/owner input, stop and ask the user instead of spinning. The Phase -1 review-loop binding stays in force until this gate's loop also converges clean (the /goal gate too, WHEN available).

MANDATORY: In standalone mode, never advance to Phase 8 or hand off until one full-mode /why-review pass over the whole target has cleared the round's bar — zero findings, or (from round 3) zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM with the remaining LOW findings recorded as deferred — (or the gate was explicitly deferred to the parent workflow). A passing dimensional review with a skipped holistic /why-review is an INCOMPLETE review — it is exactly the gap this gate closes.

---

Phase 8: Mandatory Final Docs-Update Gate (MANDATORY — always runs after the review/fix loop converges clean)

Purpose: Guarantee no stale docs survive the change. Phases 5-7 fix only docs the review flagged as findings; this terminal gate runs /docs-update unconditionally so impacted docs the dimensional review never surfaced still get reconciled against the actual changes. A clean code-review verdict does NOT imply docs are current.

Trigger: The review has converged — one full /changes-review pass produced zero findings, all validated fixes are applied, and (standalone) the Phase 7.5 holistic full-mode /why-review pass has also returned clean. This gate ALWAYS runs in standalone mode; it is NOT gated on a flagged staleness finding.

Parent workflow boundary: When this skill is invoked as step 1 inside $workflow-review-changes, do NOT run Phase 8 locally — the parent workflow's own /docs-update step (after /feature-implement and the restart gate) owns the final docs sync. Record Phase 8 deferred to parent workflow /docs-update step.

Protocol:

1. Set the [Review Phase 8] task to in_progress.
2. Invoke /docs-update over the FULL changeset (the Phase 1 diff source plus any Phase 7 fixes). Let it detect impacted docs from the changes — feature docs, architecture references, READMEs, API docs, test specs, setup/getting-started guides.
3. If the Phase 4 Spec Drift Adjudication (SYNC:spec-drift-adjudication) returned any SPEC-STALE verdict — the canonical Feature Spec no longer reflects the intended behavior (includes the post-bugfix case where the spec documents the bug as correct behavior) — run /spec [update] BEFORE /docs-update so the spec is corrected to intended behavior first. Never let /docs-update codify broken or superseded behavior. CODE-WRONG verdicts are NOT a spec edit — they were already fixed in the Phase 7 code-fix loop. Any SPEC-SILENT verdict — an invariant the code already enforces but no spec artifact states — is an ENRICHMENT: run /spec [update] (add the §4 BR/§3 AC) + /spec [mode=tests] (add the §8 TC) BEFORE /docs-update, then ensure a guarding test exists; never leave the discovered invariant unwritten.
4. Record applied doc updates (or No impacted docs — verified N changed files against related docs) under ## Phase 8 Docs-Update in the review report.
5. Set the [Review Phase 8] task to completed.

Termination guarantee: Distinguish two edit kinds in Phase 8. Docs PROSE edits (narrative/reference doc text, no new spec rule) do NOT re-trigger the loop (no code behavior changed); they ARE subject to the M1-M7 spec-drift check (Review Checklist §8) and a final read-back — termination preserved. SPEC-CONTENT edits — a newly WRITTEN spec rule (a SPEC-SILENT invariant promoted to §3/§4/§8, or a SPEC-STALE correction that changes documented intent) — trigger exactly ONE bounded, module-scoped re-review of the whole package (spec + tests + code for the affected module) against the enriched spec, to confirm the newly-written rule is actually enforced in code and guarded by a test, and to surface any further hidden rule. That single bounded pass terminates unless it itself produces a new validated finding (which then enters the normal loop). Termination stays guaranteed: the bounded pass is module-scoped and runs at most once per enrichment — not a full Phase-0 restart — and a clean bounded pass ends the skill. This converts enrichment from "fires once at the end, never rechecked" into "fires, then gets one convergence pass," instead of looping review↔docs forever.

MANDATORY: Never declare the review complete or hand off until Phase 8 has run (or been explicitly deferred to the parent workflow). A passing review with skipped docs-update is an INCOMPLETE review.

---

Next Steps

MANDATORY — NO EXCEPTIONS after completing this skill, MUST use AskUserQuestion to present options. Do NOT skip because task seems "simple" or "obvious" — user decides:

• "/code-review (Recommended)" — Deeper code quality review
• "/watzup" — Wrap up session and review all changes
• "Skip, continue manually" — user decides

AI Agent Integrity Gate (NON-NEGOTIABLE)

Completion ≠ Correctness. Before reporting ANY work done, prove it:

1. Grep every removed name. Extraction/rename/delete touched N files? Grep confirms 0 dangling refs across ALL file types.
2. Ask WHY before changing. Existing values are intentional until proven otherwise. No "fix" without traced rationale.
3. Verify ALL outputs. One build passing ≠ all builds passing. Check every affected stack.
4. Evaluate pattern fit. Copying nearby code? Verify preconditions match — same scope, lifetime, base class, constraints.
5. New artifact = wired artifact. Created something? Prove it's registered, imported, reachable by all consumers.

Related Skills

Standalone Chain

When called outside a workflow (i.e., user ran /changes-review directly):

changes-review (you are here)
  │
  ├─ Phase 0.8: Parallel rationale dimension (INTERNAL — /why-review FULL mode in a sub-agent, spawned WITH the Phase 0.7 dimensional agents)
  │    → Reviews the diff AS AUTHORED, before any fix — catches a wrong premise the dimensional reviewers cannot see
  │    → Sub-agent is report-only: no /goal bind, no fixes, no integration-test linkage (Phase 3.7 owns it), no /changes-review callback
  │    → Findings merge into the Phase 4 final evaluation → Phase 6 validation → Phase 7 fix
  │    → SKIP inside $workflow-review-changes — the parent's /why-review steps (2-3) own it
  │
  ├─ Phase 3.5: Code-simplifier optimization (INTERNAL — /code-simplifier over changed code files, report mode)
  │    → Simplification findings feed Phase 6 validation → Phase 7 fix (skip docs-only diffs)
  │
  ├─ Phase 3.7: Integration-test-review coverage gate (INTERNAL — /integration-test-review over the FULL diff, 8 gates)
  │    → Gate 7 maps every behavior-changing production file to a covering test (integration-first) + spec TC
  │    → GAP/SPEC-GAP verdicts feed Phase 6 validation → Phase 7 fix
  │    → GAP fix = WRITE the missing test via /integration-test; SPEC-GAP fix = /spec [mode=tests] [update] (skip docs-only diffs)
  │
  ├─ Phase 3.8: Domain entity gate (INTERNAL — SYNC:domain-entity-change-gate over changed entities/VOs/aggregates)
  │    → Mode A reviews inline; Mode B (3+ entity files) delegates to /domain-entities-review
  │    → Gate findings feed Phase 6 validation → Phase 7 fix (skip when no domain-entity surface)
  │
  ├─ Follow-on quality checks (architecture-review → code-review → performance)
  │
  ├─ Phase 5: Documentation Staleness Triage
  │    → If stale docs detected: [REQUIRED] include as finding for Phase 6 validation
  │    → If validated in Phase 6: [REQUIRED] fix in Phase 7 via /docs-update or canonical doc edit
  │    → Then recursively restart /changes-review from Phase 0
  │
  ├─ Integration test check (SYNC:integration-test-sync-check):
  │    → If logic changes touch tested areas: [REQUIRED] → /integration-test [from-changes]
  │    → Then: /integration-test-review → /integration-test-verify
  │
  ├─ Translation sync check (SYNC:translation-sync-check):
  │    → If multilingual UI text changes lack locale updates: [REQUIRED] AskUserQuestion + explicit decision
  │
  ├─ Spec drift adjudication (SYNC:spec-drift-adjudication) — ALL behavior-changing reviews:
  │    For every behavior-bearing change diverging from the canonical Feature Spec, classify:
  │    → CODE-WRONG (change violates an intended spec rule/AC/invariant) → [REQUIRED] BLOCKING finding; fix code/test (regression TC first)
  │    → SPEC-STALE (intentional new behavior the spec no longer reflects) → [REQUIRED] /spec [update] BEFORE /docs-update, then /spec [mode=tests] [update]
  │    → AMBIGUOUS → [REQUIRED] AskUserQuestion (or canonical spec owner) before editing either side
  │    → SPEC-SILENT (code enforces a correct invariant the spec never states) → [REQUIRED] enrich: /spec [update] add §4 BR/§3 AC + /spec [mode=tests] add §8 TC, then guarding test
  │    Bugfix sub-case: if post-bugfix AND spec documents the bug as expected behavior → SPEC-STALE; never let /docs-update codify broken behavior.
  │    Never normalize drift just because code/tests are green.
  │
  ├─ Phase 6 + Phase 7 recursive loop
  │    → If ANY findings exist: /why-review --validate-findings
  │    → If validated findings remain: auto-fix, verify, then restart /changes-review from Phase 0
  │    → Repeat until a full review invocation clears the round's bar (rounds 1-2: zero findings; round 3+: zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, LOW-only ends it)
  │
  ├─ Phase 7.5: [MANDATORY after the loop converges clean — standalone-only] → /why-review FULL mode (NOT --validate-findings)
  │    → ONE real standalone /why-review of the WHOLE target + diff as a single artifact (what scoped per-file/per-dimension review misses)
  │    → If it finds issues: fix, then re-run Phase 7.5 until a full-mode pass is clean
  │    → SKIP inside $workflow-review-changes — the parent's dedicated /why-review step (13) owns this
  │
  ├─ Phase 8: [MANDATORY FINAL after zero findings] → /docs-update over the full changeset
  │    → ALWAYS runs (unconditional) — syncs every impacted doc so none stay stale
  │    → docs PROSE edits (no new spec rule); M1-M7 check + read-back, NO full code re-review (guarantees termination)
  │    → SPEC-CONTENT edits (a newly written spec rule — SPEC-SILENT promoted to §3/§4/§8, or a SPEC-STALE correction changing documented intent) → exactly ONE bounded, module-scoped re-review of the affected module's package (spec + tests + code) to confirm the new rule is enforced in code + guarded by a test; that single pass terminates unless it itself yields a new validated finding (then normal loop). At most once per enrichment, never a full Phase-0 restart.
  │    → A passing review with skipped docs-update is an INCOMPLETE review
  │
  └─ [RECOMMENDED after Phase 8] → /watzup
        Summary of all review findings, doc changes, and test coverage status.

[CRITICAL — TOP 3 RULES]

1. MUST ATTENTION Phase 0 graph blast-radius FIRST — NEVER skip; informs entire review order
2. Findings trigger validate → fix → full restart. Run /why-review --validate-findings, fix validated findings, then rerun /changes-review from Phase 0 until a full pass clears the round's bar — zero findings in rounds 1-2, zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM from round 3 (a LOW-only round ENDS the loop; defer those LOWs).
3. MUST ATTENTION TaskCreate ALL phases before starting; missing tests MUST surface via AskUserQuestion — NOT silently logged

[IMPORTANT] Use TaskCreate to break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting — including tasks for each file read. Prevents context loss from long files. For simple tasks, AI MUST ATTENTION ask user whether to skip.

<!-- SYNC:cross-stack-impact-trace -->

Cross-Stack Impact Trace — FIRST review action: comprehend change holistically, THEN judge files. Every reviewed diff: note change context, trace full pipeline of main affected area end-to-end across client↔server seam, so a change on one tier can never silently break the other. (Distinct from SYNC:cross-service-check, which owns service-to-service / event boundary — this owns client↔server tier seam inside one app; pair both for full-pipeline coverage.)

1. Comprehend context FIRST — before file-by-file review, write short Change Context note: what changed, intent (why), originating tier (frontend / backend / shared / infra), main affected feature/flow. Do before flagging anything.
2. Identify cross-stack seam(s) — for main affected area, locate contract seam(s) between client and server: API route/endpoint + verb, request/response DTO or payload shape, shared type/schema, event/message contract, query/route params. Infer tier layout from docs/project-config.json and project conventions.
3. Trace full pipeline end-to-end, in change's direction:
- Backend change → trace FORWARD to every frontend consumer: handler/controller → response DTO/serializer → API client/service → store/state → component/template rendering or submitting it.
- Frontend change → trace BACKWARD to backend contract: component/form → API client call → route/endpoint → request DTO/validation → handler/domain.
- When .code-graph/graph.db exists, use /graph-connect-api and python .claude/scripts/code_graph trace <file> --direction both --json to map connection; otherwise grep route path, DTO/type name, each field name across BOTH tiers.
4. Verify BOTH sides still agree — for every changed seam confirm other tier matches: route path & verb, field names & types, nullability/optionality, required vs optional params, enum values, auth/permission, error/status shape. Any mismatch = BREAKING finding (backend change breaks a frontend consumer, or frontend now sends what backend rejects).
5. Classify each seam: NONE (no contract change) / ADDITIVE (backward-compatible) / BREAKING (consumer on other tier must change too). BREAKING seam whose other-tier consumer NOT updated in same diff = HIGH severity minimum (CRITICAL for auth/money/data-integrity paths).

Skip ONLY when change has no cross-tier seam — pure docs, pure styling with no data contract, or single-tier tooling. State explicitly: Single-tier change — no cross-stack seam. Backend-only or single-tier repo still traces internal consumers (SYNC:cross-service-check for service/event boundaries).

BLOCKED until: Change Context noted · seam(s) identified or explicit N/A · full pipeline traced in change direction · every changed seam classified NONE / ADDITIVE / BREAKING.

<!-- /SYNC:cross-stack-impact-trace -->

<!-- SYNC:cross-service-check -->

Cross-Service Check — Microservices/event-driven: MANDATORY before concluding investigation, plan, spec, or feature doc. Missing downstream consumer = silent regression.

| Boundary | Grep terms |
| ------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Event producers | Publish, Dispatch, Send, emit, EventBus, outbox, IntegrationEvent |
| Event consumers | Consumer, EventHandler, Subscribe, @EventListener, inbox |
| Sagas/orchestration | Saga, ProcessManager, Choreography, Workflow, Orchestrator |
| Sync service calls | HTTP/gRPC calls to/from other services |
| Shared contracts | OpenAPI spec, proto, shared DTO — flag breaking changes |
| Data ownership | Other service reads/writes same table/collection → Shared-DB anti-pattern |

Per touchpoint: owner service · message name · consumers · risk (NONE / ADDITIVE / BREAKING).

BLOCKED until: Producers scanned · Consumers scanned · Sagas checked · Contracts reviewed · Breaking-change risk flagged

<!-- /SYNC:cross-service-check -->

<!-- SYNC:systematic-review-batching -->

Systematic Review Batching (map-reduce) — When a changeset is large, do NOT review files one-by-one. Partition into size-capped batches, fire one specialized sub-agent per batch in parallel, then reduce. This bounds EVERY context — each batch agent AND the orchestrator — so coverage stays complete as file count grows.

Trigger ladder (one ordered escalation — not competing thresholds):

1. < 10 changed files → sequential per-file review (default; no batching).
2. ≥ 10 changed files → switch to systematic parallel mode. Announce: "Detected {N} changed files. Switching to systematic parallel review protocol." Then: categorize → size-capped batches → flat consolidation.
3. categories > 6 OR files > 40 → additionally insert the hierarchical synthesis tier (below). Everything from rung 2 still applies.

Step 1 — Categorize. Group changed files into logical categories derived from the project's actual structure (not forced). Category is the concern axis; orient with these examples, derive what fits the repository:

| Category Type | Example Groupings |
| ------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Agent/Tooling | AI scripts, hooks, skill definitions, workflow configs, linting rules |
| Root config/docs | Root README, project config, CI/CD pipeline configs |
| Reference docs | Architecture docs, patterns references, setup guides |
| Feature/domain docs | Business feature documentation, spec files, ADRs |
| Backend logic | Service/handler/controller source (infer from project structure) |
| Frontend logic | UI component/state/API source (infer from project structure) |
| Data/Schema | Migrations, schema files, seed data |
| Tests | Unit, integration, E2E test files |
| Infrastructure | Docker, k8s, CI/CD, cloud manifests |

Step 2 — Size-capped batches. One sub-agent per batch of ≤8 files OR ≤2000 diff-lines, whichever hits first. Category stays the concern axis, but any category exceeding a cap splits into multiple size-capped batches (30 backend files → 4 batches). Size caps — not category caps — make "many files" safe: a category cap alone lets one giant category blow a single agent's context.

Step 2a — Sub-agent type per batch (match the batch's dominant concern):

- Code logic (any stack) → code-reviewer
- Security-sensitive changes → security-auditor
- Performance-critical paths → performance-optimizer
- Docs, plans, specs, configs, infra → general-purpose

Each batch sub-agent receives: its full file list; SYNC:category-review-thinking as its primary thinking model — derive each category's concerns from first principles, NOT a fixed checklist (if the consuming skill does not carry that block, apply category-first thinking directly); project reference docs relevant to its concern (discover via patterns, conventions, style-guide); cross-reference verification instructions (counts, tables, links). All batch agents run in parallel and write findings to plans/reports/ (per SYNC:task-tracking-external-report); reducers read from disk, never from memory.

Step 3 — Reduce.

- Flat reduction (rung 2, ≤6 categories AND ≤40 files): the orchestrator collects each batch report, cross-references counts/tables/contracts ACROSS batches, detects gaps visible only across categories (feature in code but missing from docs; new API endpoint with no client call), and consolidates into one categorized holistic report.
- Hierarchical reduction (rung 3, > 6 categories OR > 40 files): insert a mid-tier — each concern gets ONE synthesizer agent that reads only its own batch reports and emits a single concern-synthesis. The orchestrator reads the concern-syntheses (~5), never the raw batch reports — keeping the reducer's context O(#concerns), not O(#files).
- Cross-concern interaction pass (mandatory at rung 3 — closes the synthesis-tier blind spot): concern-siloed synthesis can drop an interaction spanning two concerns AND two batches (tainted source in data-layer/batch 7 → sink in api/batch 3). So: (a) each concern-synthesizer MUST emit an explicit "cross-concern interaction candidates" list — entities/symbols/contracts it touched that plausibly bind to another concern (shared DTOs, event names, table/collection names, exported symbols); (b) the orchestrator MUST run the Step-3 cross-reference/gap step over those candidate lists across all concern-syntheses, not only within a batch, before concluding. Without this pass the tier trades completeness for context-bounding on exactly the large diffs it targets.

Step 4 — Holistic assessment. With all findings combined, judge: overall coherence as a unified intent; cross-category sync (docs match code? contracts match callers?); risk areas where categories interact; missing doc/spec updates for changed artifacts.

No silent truncation. If any cap forces sampling or a batch is dropped for budget, ANNOUNCE the dropped/sampled scope explicitly — bounded coverage must never read as complete coverage.

<!-- /SYNC:systematic-review-batching -->

<!-- SYNC:end-to-start-debugger-trace -->

End-to-Start Debugger Trace — For non-trivial bugs, failed verification, regression fixes, behavior-changing code, or unclear code flow, start from the observed final state and walk backward before proposing a fix.

1. Frame 0: observed end state — Name the exact user-visible output, failing assertion, log line, persisted value, API response, rendered UI, or aggregate bucket. Record the reader/query/renderer that produced it with file:line evidence.
2. Walk backward one hop at a time — Trace final reader -> projection/cache/storage -> writer -> consumer/handler/job -> producer/caller -> original trigger. At every hop record: input, transformation, output, owner, and evidence.
3. Enumerate all feeder paths — Find every upstream producer/caller/event/job that can write into the final path, including retry, async, cache, background, and alternate UI/API paths. Mark each path verified, ruled out, or still unknown.
4. Build the hypothesis matrix — For each plausible cause, list evidence for, evidence against, how to reproduce/verify, blast radius, and status (primary, contributing, ruled out, latent). Do not fix until competing causes are explicitly resolved or bounded.
5. Choose the owning fix layer — Identify the invariant owner and the lowest shared point that protects all downstream consumers. A fix at the symptom site is rejected unless the symptom site owns the invariant.
6. Prove convergence forward — After choosing the fix, walk start -> end again and show how the corrected state reaches the observed final output. Map each root cause to a fix part and each fix part to a test/proof.

BLOCKED until: final state named · backward trace written · all feeder paths enumerated · hypothesis matrix completed · owning fix layer justified · forward convergence proof mapped to tests.

NEVER: Start at the first suspicious code path. Collapse multiple producers into one "flow". Treat duplicate symptoms as duplicate records without proving the read model. Skip ruled-out hypotheses.

<!-- /SYNC:end-to-start-debugger-trace -->

<!-- SYNC:critical-thinking-mindset -->

Critical Thinking Mindset — Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act.
Anti-hallucination: Never present guess as fact — cite sources for every claim, admit uncertainty freely, self-check output for errors, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence — certainty without evidence root of all hallucination.

<!-- /SYNC:critical-thinking-mindset -->

<!-- SYNC:sequential-thinking-protocol -->

Sequential Thinking Protocol — Structured multi-step reasoning for complex/ambiguous work. Use when planning, reviewing, debugging, or refining ideas where one-shot reasoning is unsafe.

Trigger when: complex problem decomposition · adaptive plans needing revision · analysis with course correction · unclear/emerging scope · multi-step solutions · hypothesis-driven debugging · cross-cutting trade-off evaluation.

Format (explicit mode — visible thought trail):

1. Thought N/M: [aspect] — one aspect per thought, state assumptions/uncertainty
2. Thought N/M [REVISION of Thought K]: ... — when prior reasoning invalidated; state Original / Why revised / Impact
3. Thought N/M [BRANCH A from Thought K]: ... — explore alternative; converge with decision rationale
4. Thought N/M [HYPOTHESIS]: ... then [VERIFICATION]: ... — test before acting
5. Thought N/N [FINAL] — only when verified, all critical aspects addressed, confidence >80%

Mandatory closers: Confidence % stated · Assumptions listed · Open questions surfaced · Next action concrete.

Stop conditions: confidence <80% on any critical decision → escalate via AskUserQuestion · ≥3 revisions on same thought → re-frame the problem · branch count >3 → split into sub-task.

Implicit mode: apply methodology internally without visible markers when adding markers would clutter the response (routine work where reasoning aids accuracy).

Deep-dive: see /sequential-thinking skill (.claude/skills/sequential-thinking/SKILL.md) for worked examples (API design, debugging, architecture), advanced techniques (spiral refinement, hypothesis testing, convergence), and meta-strategies (uncertainty handling, revision cascades).

<!-- /SYNC:sequential-thinking-protocol -->

<!-- SYNC:understand-code-first -->

Understand Code First — HARD-GATE: Do NOT write, plan, or fix until you READ existing code.

1. Search 3+ similar patterns (grep/glob) — cite file:line evidence
2. Read existing files in target area — understand structure, base classes, conventions
3. Run python .claude/scripts/code_graph trace <file> --direction both --json when .code-graph/graph.db exists
4. Map dependencies via connections or callers_of — know what depends on your target
5. Write investigation to .ai/workspace/analysis/ for non-trivial tasks (3+ files)
6. Re-read analysis file before implementing — never work from memory alone. — why: long context drifts from the file; the file is ground truth
7. NEVER invent new patterns when existing ones work — match exactly or document deviation. — why: divergent patterns fragment the codebase and slow every future reader

BLOCKED until: - [ ] Read target files - [ ] Grep 3+ patterns - [ ] Graph trace (if graph.db exists) - [ ] Assumptions verified with evidence

<!-- /SYNC:understand-code-first -->

<!-- SYNC:design-patterns-quality -->

Design Patterns Quality — Priority checks for every code change:

1. DRY via OOP: Identify classes/modules with the same purpose, naming pattern, or lifecycle. Apply your knowledge of the project's language/framework to determine the idiomatic abstraction (base class, mixin, trait, protocol, decorator). 3+ similar patterns → extract to shared abstraction.
2. Right Responsibility: Logic in LOWEST layer (Entity > Domain Service > Application Service > Controller). Never business logic in controllers.
3. SOLID: Single responsibility (one reason to change). Open-closed (extend, don't modify). Liskov (subtypes substitutable). Interface segregation (small interfaces). Dependency inversion (depend on abstractions).
4. After extraction/move/rename: Grep ENTIRE scope for dangling references. Zero tolerance.
5. YAGNI gate: NEVER recommend patterns unless 3+ occurrences exist. Don't extract for hypothetical future use.

Anti-patterns to flag: God Object, Copy-Paste inheritance, Circular Dependency, Leaky Abstraction.

Serial Attention for Design Quality — Scan one quality dimension at a time (serial passes), not all concerns at once. — why: split attention misses violations that single-focus passes catch.

1. Identify applicable dimensions — Based on the code's language, domain, and patterns, determine which quality dimensions apply: DRY, SOLID principles (SRP/OCP/LSP/ISP/DIP), OOP idioms, cohesion/coupling, GRASP, Law of Demeter, CQRS invariants, etc. Your list is NOT fixed — derive from what the code actually does.
2. One focused pass per dimension — Dedicate single-focus attention to EACH dimension in sequence. Do NOT mix concerns across passes.
3. Threshold: 3+ similar patterns = MANDATORY extraction — Not optional suggestion. Flag as mandatory structural fix requiring action.
4. 2+ violations of same kind = structural finding — Report as "pattern problem" needing architectural resolution, not a list of individual instances.

<!-- /SYNC:design-patterns-quality -->

<!-- SYNC:complexity-prevention -->

Complexity Prevention (Ousterhout) — MANDATORY. Measure code by cost of change: one business change should map to one code change. Flag ALL of the following in review:

1. Change amplification — small business change forces edits in >3 places → structural flaw. Count edit sites for a plausible future change (add variant, add field, add authorization). >3 = reject.
2. Cognitive load — reader must hold too much context to safely modify. Flag deep inheritance, long parameter lists, boolean traps, implicit ordering dependencies.
3. Cross-cutting duplication at entry points — logging, error handling, validation, auth, transactions reimplemented per controller/handler/route. Lift to middleware / interceptor / filter / decorator / aspect.
4. Leaked implementation technology — repos returning IQueryable/QuerySet/Criteria/raw cursors/ORM entities to callers. Return finished results + intent-revealing methods (GetActiveVipUsers() not Query()).
5. Type-switch scattering — switch/if-chains on enum/discriminator in >1 place. New variant = new file, not N edits. One factory/registry switch at the boundary OK; scattered switches = reject.
6. Anemic models — domain objects with only getters/setters, logic floats in services. Move invariants/behavior onto the object (order.Checkout(), not order.Status = ...).
7. Primitive obsession — raw string/int/decimal for account numbers, emails, money, percentages, date ranges, with re-validation at every entry. Wrap in value objects / records / structs that validate once at construction.
8. Inline cross-cutting concerns — authorization/tenant isolation/audit/sanitization hand-written at top of every handler. Flag intent with declarative markers (@RequirePermission("Order.Delete")), enforce once centrally.
9. Shallow modules — tiny class, big interface (many public methods, many flags, many ctor params) wrapping little logic. A module is deep when a small interface hides a lot of implementation. If interface ≈ implementation cost to learn → inline.
10. Missing base class for repeated component/handler lifecycle — 3+ forms/CRUD handlers/list views reimplementing loading/dirty/submit/pagination → extract to base class / hook / composable / mixin / trait.
11. Premature vs delayed abstraction — rule-of-three. First occurrence: write it. Second: notice duplication. Third: extract. Don't build generic frameworks before real variation; don't copy-paste for the 4th time.
12. Embedded utility logic not extracted to helpers — inline paging loops (while (hasMore) { skip += take; ... }), ad-hoc datetime math, string parsing/formatting, collection partitioning, retry/backoff loops, URL/query-string building. If the algorithm is non-trivial AND stack-generic (not business-specific), extract to util/helper/extensions and let consumers call one line. Inline duplicates → duplicated bug surface.
13. Logic in wrong (higher) layer — downshift to callee — business/derivation logic written in the caller when the callee owns the data. Defaults: Controller code that should be App Service. App Service code that should be Domain Service or Entity. Component code that should be ViewModel/Store/Service. Caller reaching into callee's data shape to compute something → move the computation behind an intent-revealing method on the callee. Lowest responsible layer wins (Entity > Domain Service > App Service > Controller · Model/VM > Store > Component). Higher-layer placement = duplicated logic when a sibling caller needs the same thing.
14. Owner owns the rule — extract on first write — if a caller inlines logic that derives, normalizes, validates, or computes from another type's data, MOVE it to the owning type. Single use is sufficient — the trigger is wrong responsibility, not duplication. Sibling callers always arrive; inline copies drift silently with no compile error and no name to grep. Common offenders: Backend — inlined rules in application-layer handlers / commands / queries / services / controllers that belong on the domain entity / value object / domain service. Frontend — inlined derivations / formatting / validation in components that belong on the model / store / view-model / API service. Fix: name the rule once as a method (static or instance) on the owning type; callers invoke by name. Future variant → SECOND named method on the owner, never an inline near-duplicate. Right responsibility first; reuse is the consequence.

Extraction target — where the named rule lives:

| Shape of the rule | Goes to |
| --------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------- |
| Pure function over an entity's own data | static method on the entity |
| Behavior that mutates / guards entity state | instance method on the entity |
| Always-true invariant on a primitive value | value object constructor |
| Needs DI (repo / settings / clock) | helper class registered in DI |
| Domain-agnostic algorithm reused across types | util / extension method |
| Pure shape / projection conversion | DTO mapping |

Pre-commit edit-site test (reject if answer is "many"):

| Change Scenario | Should touch |
| ----------------------------------------------- | ------------------------- |
| Add new variant (customer type, payment method) | 1 new file |
| Change HTTP error response format | 1 middleware/filter |
| Add timestamp field to every persisted entity | 1 base entity/interceptor |
| Add authorization to a new endpoint | 1 declarative marker |
| Swap database/ORM | Data layer only |
| Change business calculation rule | 1 method on owning entity |
| Add loading indicator pattern to forms | 1 base component/hook |
| Add validation rule to a domain primitive | 1 value-object ctor |
| Change paging/retry/datetime algorithm | 1 helper/util function |
| Change a derivation of entity data | 1 method on the entity |

Operating heuristics:

- Write the call site first.
- Count edit sites for plausible future change.
- Prefer removing code over adding it.
- Surface assumptions at boundaries, hide details inside.
- Pre-reuse scan — before writing a non-trivial block, grep for similar algorithms (while.skip, DateTime.Add, split/join chains, paging loops, retry loops). Match existing helper → call it. None exists but pattern is stack-generic → extract to util before second caller appears.
- Layer placement test — ask "if a sibling caller needed this tomorrow, would they re-derive it?" If yes, the logic is in the wrong layer. Move it down.
- Open-case-for-future-reuse — if reviewer spots a block that is likely to appear in another feature (domain-agnostic algorithm, shared lifecycle, recurring derivation), do NOT rationalize with pure YAGNI. Either extract now (if cheap) or create a tracked TODO with the exact extraction target so the second caller does not duplicate silently. Silent duplication is the default failure mode.
- When in doubt ask: "What would need to change if the requirement shifts?"

The measure of good code is the cost of change. Not shortest. Not cleverest. Not most abstracted. Cheapest to safely modify having read a small local portion.

<!-- /SYNC:complexity-prevention -->

<!-- SYNC:double-round-trip-review -->

Validated-Finding Fix + Full Re-Review Loop — Re-review is triggered by a validated finding fix cycle, not by a round number. Review purpose: review → validate findings → fix validated findings → full re-review until a complete review pass clears the round's exit bar (see Severity floor below). A clean review ENDS the loop — no further rounds required.

aka Self-Review Convergence Loop. The name is historical — there is NO 2-round cap; "double-round-trip" only means a validated-finding fix cycle forces at least one fresh re-review. It runs until a clean pass, bounded by the 3-round ceiling below.

Round cap — 3 rounds MAX (a ceiling, NEVER a target). A clean pass ENDS the loop immediately at ANY round — round 1 included; the cap never obliges you to keep spinning. Hitting round 3 with blocking findings still open (severity floor applied) → STOP and escalate via AskUserQuestion with the still-open findings listed; NEVER emit a silent "good enough" PASS on cap exhaustion, and NEVER let the cap substitute for the clean-review requirement. The 2-repeated-no-progress blocker rule stays an EARLIER exit — escalate at whichever trips first.

Severity floor — from round 3, LOW stops blocking. The exit bar tightens by round, so the loop converges on consequence instead of spinning on polish:

Define one predicate everywhere: blocking_findings(round, findings) returns all validated findings in rounds 1–2 and only validated CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM findings in round 3+. A binary gate (test-green, security must-fix, required artifact) is exempt only when its owning invariant explicitly says so.

| Round | Exit bar — loop ENDS when the fresh full review has… | Must be fixed to continue |
| ----- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------ |
| 1-2 | zero validated findings at ANY severity | CRITICAL · HIGH · MEDIUM · LOW |
| 3+ | zero validated CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM findings — LOW-only is a PASS | CRITICAL · HIGH · MEDIUM only |

From round 3 onward LOW findings are NOT required to be fixed: a round whose validated findings are ALL LOW ENDS the loop immediately — do not open another round for them. Severity tiers are SYNC:severity-rubric (CRITICAL block-merge · HIGH must-fix · MEDIUM should-fix · LOW nice-to-fix); rounds 1-2 are unchanged, so an easy LOW still gets fixed early when it is cheap.

Severity-floor rules:

- Never silently drop a deferred LOW. Every unfixed LOW is listed in the final report under ## Deferred LOW Findings (severity floor, round ≥3) with file, line, and description, so the owner can schedule it. Dropping it from the report is a protocol violation, not a clean pass.
- Never re-tier a finding to trigger the exit. Downgrading a real CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM to LOW so the loop can end is a FALSE PASS. Severity is set by consequence per SYNC:severity-rubric before the round bar is applied — never after, and never with the exit in view. — why: a floor that can be reached by relabeling is not a floor.
- The floor bounds the loop, not the standard. It ends iteration; it never authorizes shipping a known CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, and it never lowers the finding-survival bar that admits a finding in the first place.
- The floor never applies to a hard gate. Test-green gates (a suite must actually pass), security must-fix gates, and any gate whose criterion is binary rather than severity-rated are unaffected — a failing test is a failure, not a LOW finding.

Universal scope (any new output/judgment): any newly produced output or judgment gets ≥1 self-review; any new judgment gets ≥1 /why-review --validate-findings pass; anything flagged to re-check is re-checked ≥1 time — before that output is treated as final. This loop is the default convergence contract for ANY work-producing skill, not review skills only.

Routing invariant (author-facing): a skill that validates findings MUST route them through /why-review --validate-findings (the terminal validator) — NEVER fork an inline finding-validation. Routing through why-review is what makes the finding-survival bar and this loop apply; the verify-review-validate-coverage sensor enforces this exact route mechanically.

Round 1: Main-session review. Read target files, build understanding, note issues. Output findings + verdict (PASS / FAIL).

Decision after Round 1:

- No issues found (PASS, zero findings) → review ENDS. Do NOT spawn a fresh sub-agent for confirmation.
- blocking_findings(round, findings) is non-empty → run the active review skill's findings-validation gate first; for review skills the default gate is /why-review --validate-findings <report-path>. Fix only validated findings, then restart the full review protocol from the beginning with a fresh task breakdown.

Fresh full re-review after every fix cycle: Re-run the whole review protocol over the current full target. When sub-agents are part of that protocol, spawn NEW Agent calls — never reuse prior agents. Reviewers re-read ALL files from scratch with ZERO memory of prior rounds. See SYNC:fresh-context-review for the spawn mechanism and SYNC:review-protocol-injection for the canonical Agent prompt template. Each fresh full review must catch:

- Cross-cutting concerns missed in the prior round
- Interaction bugs between changed files
- Convention drift (new code vs existing patterns)
- Missing pieces that should exist but don't
- Subtle edge cases the prior round rationalized away
- Regressions introduced by the fixes themselves

Loop termination: After each full re-review, repeat the same decision against that round's exit bar: bar cleared → END; blocking findings remain → validate findings → fix → restart from the first review phase. Rounds 1-2 clear on zero findings at any severity; from round 3 the bar is zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, so a LOW-only round ENDS the loop (deferred LOWs go in the report). Capped at 3 rounds. Escalate via AskUserQuestion at whichever comes first: the same validated finding repeats for 2 full invocations with no progress · a fix requires product/owner input · round 3 completes with CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM still open. NEVER loop past 3 rounds, and NEVER convert cap exhaustion into a PASS.

Rules:

- A clean Round 1 ENDS the review — no mandatory Round 2
- From round 3 on, a round whose validated findings are ALL LOW ENDS the loop — never open round N+1 to fix LOW alone; list those LOWs as deferred instead
- NEVER re-tier a CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM down to LOW to reach the round-3 exit — severity is assigned by consequence before the bar is applied
- NEVER fix unvalidated findings; validate first using the caller's validation gate
- Every surviving finding must additionally clear the finding-survival bar defined in why-review's Findings Validation Routine (a deliberately higher bar than the generic act-gate — "keep this finding?" is a stricter question than "act on this evidence?"); a finding below the bar is demoted or dropped, not kept
- NEVER skip the full re-review after a fix cycle (every fix invalidates the prior verdict)
- NEVER reuse a sub-agent across rounds — every iteration that uses sub-agents spawns NEW Agent calls
- Main agent READS sub-agent reports but MUST NOT filter, reinterpret, or override findings
- The 3-round cap NEVER replaces the clean-review requirement — it bounds runaway looping, it does not authorize shipping an un-clean review; a clean pass ends the loop early at any round, and cap exhaustion escalates rather than passes
- Enforce the round cap of 3 alongside the 2 repeated-no-progress blocker rule; both are escalation triggers, neither is a completion criterion
- Track recursive invocation count and repeated blockers in conversation context (session-scoped)
- Final verdict must incorporate ALL rounds executed

Report must include ## Round N Findings (Fresh Sub-Agent) for every round N≥2 that was executed, plus ## Deferred LOW Findings (severity floor, round ≥3) whenever the loop ended on the round-3+ bar with LOWs still open.

<!-- /SYNC:double-round-trip-review -->

<!-- SYNC:fresh-context-review -->

Fresh Context Re-Review — Eliminate orchestrator confirmation bias after fixes by restarting the full review with isolated sub-agents where applicable.

Why: The main agent knows what it (or /feature-implement) just fixed and rationalizes findings accordingly. A fresh sub-agent has ZERO memory, re-reads from scratch, and catches what the main agent dismissed. Sub-agent bias is mitigated by (1) fresh context, (2) verbatim protocol injection, (3) main agent not filtering the report.

When: ONLY after a validated-finding fix cycle. A review round that finds zero issues ENDS the loop — do NOT spawn a confirmation sub-agent. A review round that finds issues triggers: validate findings → fix → full review restart from the first phase.

How:

1. Start a NEW full review invocation/task breakdown; when that protocol calls for agents, spawn NEW Agent tool calls — use code-reviewer subagent_type for code reviews, general-purpose for plan/doc/artifact reviews
2. Inject ALL required review protocols VERBATIM into the prompt — see SYNC:review-protocol-injection for the full list and template. Never reference protocols by file path; AI compliance drops behind file-read indirection (see SYNC:shared-protocol-duplication-policy)
3. Sub-agent re-reads ALL target files from scratch via its own tool calls — never pass file contents inline in the prompt
4. Sub-agent writes structured report to plans/reports/{review-type}-round{N}-{date}.md
5. Main agent reads the report, integrates findings into its own report, DOES NOT override or filter

Rules:

- SKIP fresh sub-agent when the prior full review found zero issues (no fixes = nothing new to verify)
- NEVER skip the full review restart after a fix cycle — every fix invalidates the prior verdict
- NEVER reuse a sub-agent across rounds — every fresh round spawns a NEW Agent call
- Continue until a complete full review pass clears that round's exit bar per SYNC:double-round-trip-review: rounds 1-2 → zero findings at any severity; round 3+ → zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, so a round whose validated findings are ALL LOW ENDS the loop (list those LOWs as deferred instead of spawning another round). If the same blocker repeats 3 times with no progress, escalate via AskUserQuestion
- Track iteration count and repeated blockers in conversation context (session-scoped, no persistent files)

<!-- /SYNC:fresh-context-review -->

<!-- SYNC:review-protocol-injection -->

Review Protocol Injection — Every fresh sub-agent review prompt MUST embed 11 protocol blocks VERBATIM. The template below has ALL 11 bodies already expanded inline. Copy the template wholesale into the Agent call's prompt field at runtime, replacing only the {placeholders} in Task / Round / Reference Docs / Target Files / Output sections with context-specific values. Do NOT touch the embedded protocol sections.

Why inline expansion: Placeholder markers would force file-read indirection at runtime. AI compliance drops significantly behind indirection (see SYNC:shared-protocol-duplication-policy). Therefore the template carries all 11 protocol bodies pre-embedded.

Subagent Type Selection

• code-reviewer — for code reviews (reviewing source files, git diffs, implementation)
• general-purpose — for plan / doc / artifact reviews (reviewing markdown plans, docs, specs)

Canonical Agent Call Template (Copy Verbatim)

Agent({
  description: "Fresh Round {N} review",
  subagent_type: "code-reviewer",
  prompt: `
## Task
{review-specific task — e.g., "Review all uncommitted changes for code quality" | "Review plan files under {plan-dir}" | "Review integration tests in {path}"}

## Round
Round {N}. You have ZERO memory of prior rounds. Re-read all target files from scratch via your own tool calls. Do NOT trust anything from the main agent beyond this prompt.

## Protocols (follow VERBATIM — these are non-negotiable)

### Spec ↔ Tests ↔ Code Triangulation
DO THIS FIRST — before any per-protocol check below. The review target is the WHOLE PACKAGE, not the diff alone: load the behavior's spec (§3 ACs / §4 BRs / §8 TCs), its tests, and the changed code TOGETHER, and reason about their mutual consistency BEFORE judging any one in isolation.
1. Locate all three faces: the Feature Spec section(s) governing the changed behavior, the tests that guard it, and the production code that implements it. A missing face is itself a finding (SPEC-GAP / TEST-GAP / DEAD-SPEC).
2. Triangulate pairwise — every disagreement is a finding; classify which face is wrong:
   - code vs spec: behavior the code does that no §3/§4/§8 rule describes → CODE-EXTRA or SPEC-STALE; a [HARD] §4 rule or §5 invariant with no enforcing code path → CODE-WRONG.
   - tests vs spec: a §8 TC with no test, or a test asserting behavior no TC/rule names → TEST-GAP or SPEC-SILENT.
   - tests vs code: a changed code path with no covering test → TEST-GAP; a test that still passes against a deliberately broken invariant → WEAK-TEST (apply the mutation thinking in Bug Detection).
3. Hidden-rule capture: any invariant the code enforces but the spec never states (SPEC-SILENT) MUST be surfaced as a finding to add into §3/§4/§8 AND guarded with a test — the enrichment loop, never a silent pass.
4. Only after the three faces agree — or every disagreement is logged as a finding — proceed to the per-protocol checks below; when enrichment adds spec/test content, re-review the package against the enriched spec.
NEVER mark review PASS while any spec/test/code face disagrees without a logged finding. The diff is the entry point; the package is the unit of judgment.

### Evidence-Based Reasoning
Speculation is FORBIDDEN. Every claim needs proof.
1. Cite file:line, grep results, or framework docs for EVERY claim
2. Declare confidence: >80% act freely, 60-80% verify first, <60% DO NOT recommend
3. Cross-service validation required for architectural changes
4. "I don't have enough evidence" is valid and expected output
BLOCKED until: Evidence file path (file:line) provided; Grep search performed; 3+ similar patterns found; Confidence level stated.
Forbidden without proof: "obviously", "I think", "should be", "probably", "this is because".
If incomplete → output: "Insufficient evidence. Verified: [...]. Not verified: [...]."

### Bug Detection
MUST check categories 1-4 for EVERY review. Never skip.
1. Null Safety: Can params/returns be null? Are they guarded? Optional chaining gaps? .find() returns checked?
2. Boundary Conditions: Off-by-one (< vs <=)? Empty collections handled? Zero/negative values? Max limits?
3. Error Handling: Try-catch scope correct? Silent swallowed exceptions? Error types specific? Cleanup in finally?
4. Resource Management: Connections/streams closed? Subscriptions unsubscribed on destroy? Timers cleared? Memory bounded?
5. Concurrency (if async): Missing await? Race conditions on shared state? Stale closures? Retry storms?
6. Stack-Specific: Check the configured language/runtime pitfalls and framework-specific failure modes discovered from local code.
Classify: CRITICAL (crash/corrupt) → FAIL | HIGH (incorrect behavior) → FAIL | MEDIUM (edge case) → WARN | LOW (defensive) → INFO.

### Design Patterns Quality
Priority checks for every code change:
1. DRY via OOP: Same-suffix classes (*Entity, *Dto, *Service) MUST share base class. 3+ similar patterns → extract to shared abstraction.
2. Right Responsibility: Logic in LOWEST layer (Entity > Domain Service > Application Service > Controller). Never business logic in controllers.
3. SOLID: Single responsibility (one reason to change). Open-closed (extend, don't modify). Liskov (subtypes substitutable). Interface segregation (small interfaces). Dependency inversion (depend on abstractions).
4. After extraction/move/rename: Grep ENTIRE scope for dangling references. Zero tolerance.
5. YAGNI gate: NEVER recommend patterns unless 3+ occurrences exist. Don't extract for hypothetical future use.
Anti-patterns to flag: God Object, Copy-Paste inheritance, Circular Dependency, Leaky Abstraction.

### Logic & Intention Review
Verify WHAT code does matches WHY it was changed.
1. Change Intention Check: Every changed file MUST serve the stated purpose. Flag unrelated changes as scope creep.
2. Happy Path Trace: Walk through one complete success scenario through changed code.
3. Error Path Trace: Walk through one failure/edge case scenario through changed code.
4. Acceptance Mapping: If plan context available, map every acceptance criterion to a code change.
5. Tests Verify Intent: For test/spec changes, verify tests name the protected business rule or invariant and would fail if that intent breaks.
6. Migration Test Exclusion: Do not write tests for migration code. Schema/data migrations are one-time execution paths, not core application logic.
NEVER mark review PASS without completing both traces (happy + error path).

### Test Spec Verification
Map changed code to test specifications.
1. Identify the project's test/spec format from existing docs, test-case files, BDD feature files, or spec folders.
2. Every changed code path MUST map to a corresponding test case/spec (or flag as "needs test case").
3. New functions/endpoints/handlers → flag for test spec creation.
4. Migration files are excluded from test/spec creation; schema/data migrations are one-time execution paths, not core application logic.
5. If spec evidence fields exist, verify they point to actual code (file:line, not stale references).
6. Verify each meaningful test case names the business intent/invariant; flag behavior-only cases that only mirror implementation details.
7. Auth/data changes → verify corresponding authorization and data-state test cases exist.
8. If no specs exist for a changed path → log the gap and recommend the project's test-spec workflow.
NEVER skip test mapping. Untested code paths are the #1 source of production bugs.

### Behavioral Delta Matrix
MANDATORY for any bugfix review. Produce input-state × pre-fix × post-fix × delta table BEFORE writing verdict.
- Minimum 3 rows; include at least one row OUTSIDE the original bug report.
- Any "REGRESSION" delta → review returns FAIL until a preservation test is added.
- Narrative descriptions do NOT substitute for the matrix.
Example rows (external-record sync fix):
| Input                 | Pre-fix | Post-fix                  | Delta      |
| --------------------- | ------- | ------------------------- | ---------- |
| Record exists (valid) | Reused  | Always recreated → orphan | REGRESSION |
| Record missing (404)  | Error   | Recreated                 | Fixed      |

### Fix-Layer Accountability
NEVER fix at the crash site. Trace the full flow, fix at the owning layer. The crash site is a SYMPTOM, not the cause.
MANDATORY before ANY fix:
1. Trace full data flow — Map the complete path from data origin to crash site across ALL layers (storage → backend → API → frontend → UI). Identify where bad state ENTERS, not where it CRASHES.
2. Identify the invariant owner — Which layer's contract guarantees this value is valid? Fix at the LOWEST layer that owns the invariant, not the highest layer that consumes it.
3. One fix, maximum protection — If fix requires touching 3+ files with defensive checks, you are at the wrong layer — go lower.
4. Verify no bypass paths — Confirm all data flows through the fix point. Check for direct construction skipping factories, clone/spread without re-validation, raw data not wrapped in domain models, mutations outside the model layer.
BLOCKED until: Full data flow traced (origin → crash); Invariant owner identified with file:line evidence; All access sites audited (grep count); Fix layer justified (lowest layer that protects most consumers).
Anti-patterns (REJECT): "Fix it where it crashes" (crash site ≠ cause site, trace upstream); "Add defensive checks at every consumer" (scattered defense = wrong layer); "Both fix is safer" (pick ONE authoritative layer).

### Rationalization Prevention
AI skips steps via these evasions. Recognize and reject:
- "Too simple for a plan" → Simple + wrong assumptions = wasted time. Plan anyway.
- "I'll test after" → RED before GREEN. Write/verify test first.
- "Already searched" → Show grep evidence with file:line. No proof = no search.
- "Just do it" → Still need TaskCreate. Skip depth, never skip tracking.
- "Just a small fix" → Small fix in wrong location cascades. Verify file:line first.
- "Code is self-explanatory" → Future readers need evidence trail. Document anyway.
- "Combine steps to save time" → Combined steps dilute focus. Each step has distinct purpose.

### Graph-Assisted Investigation
MANDATORY when .code-graph/graph.db exists.
HARD-GATE: MUST run at least ONE graph command on key files before concluding any investigation.
Pattern: Grep finds files → trace --direction both reveals full system flow → Grep verifies details.
- Investigation/Scout: trace --direction both on 2-3 entry files
- Fix/Debug: callers_of on buggy function + tests_for
- Feature/Enhancement: connections on files to be modified
- Code Review: tests_for on changed functions
- Blast Radius: trace --direction downstream
CLI: python .claude/scripts/code_graph {command} --json. Use --node-mode file first (10-30x less noise), then --node-mode function for detail.

### Understand Code First
HARD-GATE: Do NOT write, plan, or fix until you READ existing code.
1. Search 3+ similar patterns (grep/glob) — cite file:line evidence.
2. Read existing files in target area — understand structure, base classes, conventions.
3. Run python .claude/scripts/code_graph trace <file> --direction both --json when .code-graph/graph.db exists.
4. Map dependencies via connections or callers_of — know what depends on your target.
5. Write investigation to .ai/workspace/analysis/ for non-trivial tasks (3+ files).
6. Re-read analysis file before implementing — never work from memory alone.
7. NEVER invent new patterns when existing ones work — match exactly or document deviation.
BLOCKED until: Read target files; Grep 3+ patterns; Graph trace (if graph.db exists); Assumptions verified with evidence.

## Reference Docs (READ before reviewing)
- `.claude/docs/development-rules.md` — canonical development rules, code-quality guidelines, and pre-commit checklist
- docs/project-reference/code-review-rules.md
- {skill-specific reference docs — e.g., integration-test-reference.md for integration-test-review; backend-patterns-reference.md for backend reviews; frontend-patterns-reference.md for frontend reviews}

## Target Files
{explicit file list OR "run git diff to see uncommitted changes" OR "read all files under {plan-dir}"}

## Output
Write a structured report to plans/reports/{review-type}-round{N}-{date}.md with sections:
- Status: PASS | FAIL
- Issue Count: {number}
- Critical Issues (with file:line evidence)
- High Priority Issues (with file:line evidence)
- Medium / Low Issues
- Cross-cutting findings

Return the report path and status to the main agent.
Every finding MUST have file:line evidence. Speculation is forbidden.
`
})

Rules

• DO copy the template wholesale — including all 11 embedded protocol sections
• DO replace only the {placeholders} in Task / Round / Reference Docs / Target Files / Output sections with context-specific content
• DO choose code-reviewer subagent_type for code reviews and general-purpose for plan / doc / artifact reviews
• DO NOT paraphrase, summarize, or skip any protocol section
• DO NOT pass file contents inline — the sub-agent reads via its own tool calls so it has a fresh context
• DO NOT reference protocols by file path or tag name — the bodies are already embedded above
• DO NOT introduce placeholder markers for the protocols — they must stay literally expanded

<!-- /SYNC:review-protocol-injection -->

<!-- SYNC:logic-and-intention-review -->

Logic & Intention Review — Verify WHAT code does matches WHY it was changed.

1. Change Intention Check: Every changed file MUST ATTENTION serve the stated purpose. Flag unrelated changes as scope creep.
2. Happy Path Trace: Walk through one complete success scenario through changed code
3. Error Path Trace: Walk through one failure/edge case scenario through changed code
4. Acceptance Mapping: If plan context available, map every acceptance criterion to a code change
5. Tests Verify Intent: For test/spec changes, verify tests name the protected business rule or invariant and would fail if that intent breaks.
6. Migration Test Exclusion: Do not write tests for migration code. Schema/data migrations are one-time execution paths, not core application logic.

NEVER mark review PASS without completing both traces (happy + error path).

<!-- /SYNC:logic-and-intention-review -->

<!-- SYNC:bug-detection -->

Bug Detection — MUST ATTENTION check categories 1-4 for EVERY review. Never skip.

1. Null Safety: Can params/returns be null? Are they guarded? Optional chaining gaps? .find() returns checked?
2. Boundary Conditions: Off-by-one (< vs <=)? Empty collections handled? Zero/negative values? Max limits?
3. Error Handling: Try-catch scope correct? Silent swallowed exceptions? Error types specific? Cleanup in finally?
4. Resource Management: Connections/streams closed? Subscriptions unsubscribed on destroy? Timers cleared? Memory bounded?
5. Concurrency (if async): Missing await? Race conditions on shared state? Stale closures? Retry storms?
6. Stack-Specific: Check the configured language/runtime pitfalls and framework-specific failure modes discovered from local code.

Classify: CRITICAL (crash/corrupt) → FAIL | HIGH (incorrect behavior) → FAIL | MEDIUM (edge case) → WARN | LOW (defensive) → INFO

<!-- /SYNC:bug-detection -->

<!-- SYNC:test-spec-verification -->

Test Spec Verification — Map changed code to test specifications.

1. Identify the project's test/spec format from existing docs, test-case files, BDD feature files, or spec folders.
2. Every changed code path MUST ATTENTION map to a corresponding test case/spec (or flag as "needs test case")
3. New functions/endpoints/handlers → flag for test spec creation
4. Migration files are excluded from TC/test creation; schema/data migrations are one-time execution paths, not core application logic.
5. If spec evidence fields exist, verify they point to actual code (file:line, not stale references)
6. Verify each meaningful test case names the business intent/invariant; flag behavior-only cases that only mirror implementation details.
7. Auth/data changes → verify corresponding authorization and data-state test cases exist.
8. If no specs exist for a changed path → log the gap and recommend the project's test-spec workflow.

NEVER skip test mapping. Untested code paths are the #1 source of production bugs.

<!-- /SYNC:test-spec-verification -->

<!-- SYNC:integration-test-sync-check -->

Integration Test Sync Check — Verify changed business logic files have corresponding tests.

1. From changed files → identify business logic files: handlers, commands, queries, services, controllers, resolvers, event processors. Naming varies by stack — infer from project conventions (e.g., Service., Handler., Controller., Command., Query., Resolver.). Exclude migration files: schema/data migrations are one-time execution paths, not core application logic.
2. For each identified file → search for a corresponding test file. Infer test naming from existing tests in the project (e.g., .test.ts, Tests.java, _test.py, .spec.js, *Tests.cs). Check standard test directories (tests/, spec/, tests/, or adjacent test projects/packages).
3. If test EXISTS → check if test methods cover changed behavior (new methods/parameters/logic paths)
4. If test MISSING → MANDATORY: use AskUserQuestion: "Business logic file {file} has no integration tests — run /integration-test before proceeding, or confirm tests already written?" Options: "Run /integration-test first" (Recommended) | "Tests already written/updated — proceed"
5. Severity: HIGH — missing tests for changed business logic MUST be surfaced to the user; do NOT silently flag and continue

Surface every business-logic change that lacks test coverage for an explicit AskUserQuestion decision — never silently skip. — why: a silent skip ships untested business logic to production.

<!-- /SYNC:integration-test-sync-check -->

<!-- SYNC:translation-sync-check -->

Translation Sync Check — Verify multilingual UI changes include translation updates.

1. Determine multilingual mode from project config: localization.enabled === true and supportedLocales.length > 1
2. Detect UI-facing file changes via extensions/path patterns (.ts, .tsx, .html, .css, .scss plus localization.uiPathPatterns when configured)
3. For multilingual UI changes, verify translation resource diffs exist (localization.translationFilePatterns when configured)
4. If translation updates are missing → MANDATORY: use AskUserQuestion: "UI text changed in a multilingual project, but translation updates were not detected. Run translation sync now or proceed with explicit risk acceptance?" Options: "Run translation sync first" (Recommended) | "Proceed with explicit risk acceptance"
5. Severity: HIGH — no silent pass for multilingual UI text changes without explicit translation-sync decision

Do NOT silently skip. Multilingual UI text changes require explicit translation-sync confirmation.

<!-- /SYNC:translation-sync-check -->

<!-- SYNC:category-review-thinking -->

Category Review Thinking — A thinking framework for reviewing any category of changed files. NOT a fixed checklist — derive concerns from domain knowledge; the examples are starting points only. Your knowledge of the category exceeds any list here — trust it.

Step 1 — Understand the category's role. What is this category responsible for in the overall system? What invariants must it uphold? What are its consumer contracts (who depends on it, what do they expect)?

Step 2 — Read project conventions for this category. Search for reference docs, style guides, ADRs, or READMEs specific to this area. Grep 3+ existing similar files — extract naming conventions, structural patterns, shared base classes. If no docs exist, derive conventions empirically from existing code.

Step 3 — Derive concerns from first principles. Apply all that are relevant; expand beyond this list based on the actual category:

- Correctness: Does the logic match the intent? Trace happy path AND error path.
- Boundary contracts: Are interfaces/APIs/events/protocols honored? No implicit coupling introduced?
- Project conventions: Does new code follow the patterns found in Step 2? Evidence-confirmed, not assumed.
- Security: Auth enforced at every entry point? Input validated at boundaries? No secrets in the diff?
- Performance: Unbounded operations? N+1 patterns? Blocking calls in async context? Unindexed queries?
- Maintainability: DRY? Single responsibility? Complexity within reason? Names reveal intent?
- Test coverage: Are the changed paths covered by tests? Are existing tests still valid after the change?
- Documentation: Do related docs, specs, or READMEs reflect the changes?

Step 4 — Create sub-tasks and execute. For each identified concern: create a TaskCreate sub-task, work through it with file:line evidence, mark done. No findings without proof.

Illustrative concern examples by category type (not exhaustive — trust your knowledge beyond this):

- Server-side logic: handler/service structure conventions, validation layer placement, side-effect isolation, cross-service boundary enforcement, data-access layer separation, error propagation strategy
- Client-side logic: component lifecycle management, resource cleanup (subscriptions, listeners, timers), state management patterns, API integration layer separation, reactive stream composition
- Data/Schema: migration reversibility (rollback script), lock impact on table volume, backfill idempotency, index coverage for query patterns, deployment ordering
- Configuration: present in ALL environments? No secrets in diff? App fails fast if config missing (not silently null)? Documented in setup guide?
- Infrastructure: dev/prod parity? No hardcoded dev values (localhost, debug flags)? Pinned image/dependency versions? CI/CD secret requirements documented?
- Styles/Assets: follows project naming conventions? Uses design variables/tokens (no hardcoded magic values)? Correct scope (no global side effects from component styles)?
- Documentation: accurate? Links valid? Examples still match current code/behavior? Covers new scenarios?
- Tests: assertions verify specific outcomes (not just "no exception")? Idempotent (repeatable N times)? Covers edge cases, not just happy path?
- Security artifacts: all code paths reach the gate? Negative tests exist (unauthorized denied)? Both enforcement AND display control updated?
- Build/Tooling: rule changes apply consistently? No exceptions that silently swallow violations? Impact on CI runtime documented?

<!-- /SYNC:category-review-thinking -->

<!-- SYNC:graph-assisted-investigation -->

Graph-Assisted Investigation — MANDATORY when .code-graph/graph.db exists.

HARD-GATE: MUST ATTENTION run at least ONE graph command on key files before concluding any investigation.

Pattern: Grep finds files → trace --direction both reveals full system flow → Grep verifies details

| Task | Minimum Graph Action |
| ------------------- | -------------------------------------------- |
| Investigation/Scout | trace --direction both on 2-3 entry files |
| Fix/Debug | callersof on buggy function + testsfor |
| Feature/Enhancement | connections on files to be modified |
| Code Review | tests_for on changed functions |
| Blast Radius | trace --direction downstream |

CLI: python .claude/scripts/code_graph {command} --json. Use --node-mode file first (10-30x less noise), then --node-mode function for detail.

<!-- /SYNC:graph-assisted-investigation -->

<!-- SYNC:nested-task-creation -->

Nested Task Expansion Contract — For workflow-step invocation, the [Workflow] ... row is only a parent container; the child skill still creates visible phase tasks.

1. Call TaskList first. If a matching active parent workflow row exists, set nested=true and record parentTaskId; otherwise run standalone.
2. Create one task per declared phase before phase work. When nested, prefix subjects [N.M] $skill-name — phase.
3. When nested, link the parent with TaskUpdate(parentTaskId, addBlockedBy: [childIds]).
4. Orchestrators must pre-expand a child skill's phase list and link the workflow row before invoking that child skill or sub-agent.
5. Mark exactly one child in_progress before work and completed immediately after evidence is written.
6. Complete the parent only after all child tasks are completed or explicitly cancelled with reason.

Blocked until: TaskList done, child phases created, parent linked when nested, first child marked in_progress.

<!-- /SYNC:nested-task-creation -->

<!-- SYNC:project-reference-docs-guide -->

Project Reference Docs Gate — Run after task-tracking bootstrap and before target/source file reads, grep, edits, or analysis. Project docs override generic framework assumptions.

1. Identify scope: file types, domain area, and operation.
2. Read docs/project-config.json first — the project's machine-readable map. It is the single source of truth for THIS repo (modules/paths, framework + search keywords, test/E2E/integration run-commands, design system, architecture rules, workflow patterns); ground exact paths, run-commands, and conventions on it before investigating, planning, or coding — never assume framework defaults (CLAUDE.md + reference docs are derived from it). If it — or the docs index, lessons.md, CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, or any required reference doc — is missing or stale, auto-run /project-init or the narrow route (/project-config, /docs-init, /scan-all, /scan --target=<key>, /claude-md-init) first; if Codex mirrors or AGENTS.md are stale, ask the user to run /sync-codex (never auto-run it).
3. Required docs by trigger: always docs/project-reference/lessons.md; doc lookup docs-index-reference.md; review code-review-rules.md; backend/CQRS/API backend-patterns-reference.md; domain/entity domain-entities-reference.md; frontend/UI frontend-patterns-reference.md; styles/design scss-styling-guide.md + design-system/design-system-canonical.md; integration tests integration-test-reference.md; E2E e2e-test-reference.md; feature docs/specs feature-spec-reference.md + spec-system-reference.md + spec-principles.md; behavior/public-contract/spec-test-code sync workflow-spec-test-code-cycle-reference.md; derived spec index/ERD/reimplementation guides spec-system-reference.md + source Feature Specs under docs/specs/; architecture/new area project-structure-reference.md.
4. Read every required doc, then before target work state: Reference docs read: ... | Not applicable: ....

Ready when: scope evaluated, docs/project-config.json consulted, required docs checked/read or setup route completed, lessons.md confirmed, citation emitted.

<!-- /SYNC:project-reference-docs-guide -->

<!-- SYNC:task-tracking-external-report -->

Task Tracking & External Report Persistence — Bootstrap this before execution; then run project-reference doc prefetch before target/source work.

1. Create a small task breakdown before target file reads, grep, edits, or analysis. On context loss, inspect the current task list first.
2. Mark one task in_progress before work and completed immediately after evidence; never batch transitions.
3. For plan/review work, create plans/reports/{skill}-{YYMMDD}-{HHmm}-{slug}.md before first finding.
4. Append findings after each file/section/decision and synthesize from the report file at the end.
5. Final output cites Full report: plans/reports/{filename}.

Blocked until: task breakdown exists, report path declared for plan/review work, first finding persisted before the next finding.

<!-- /SYNC:task-tracking-external-report -->

<!-- SYNC:source-test-drift-check -->

Source/test drift check. For coding, fix, debug, investigation, test, or review work: when source behavior changes, inspect affected unit/integration/E2E tests and decide from evidence whether tests should change to match intended behavior or the source change is an unintended bug to fix. Do not write tests for migration code; schema/data migrations are one-time execution paths, not core application logic.

<!-- /SYNC:source-test-drift-check -->

<!-- SYNC:spec-drift-adjudication -->

Spec drift adjudication (code-wrong vs spec-stale). Whenever changed behavior diverges from a canonical Feature Spec (business rule, acceptance criterion, flow, state transition, or §8 TC under docs/specs/), you MUST NOT silently pick a side. Adjudicate per shared/sdd-artifact-contract.md → Drift Gates:

1. Detect — compare the change against the spec's documented intent. No divergence → record Spec in sync and move on.
2. Classify the divergence:
- CODE-WRONG — the spec correctly states intended behavior and the change violates it → BLOCKING finding; fix the code/test against intended behavior (write/adjust a regression TC first).
- SPEC-STALE — the change is the new intended behavior and the spec now documents the old/wrong behavior → update the spec FIRST via /spec [mode=update], then sync /spec [mode=tests] + /spec [mode=sync].
- AMBIGUOUS — intended behavior is unclear → AskUserQuestion (or the canonical spec owner) before editing either side.
- SPEC-SILENT — the code correctly enforces an invariant/behavior that NO canonical spec artifact (§3 AC, §4 BR, §5 invariant, §8 TC) states → not drift but an UNWRITTEN rule discovered by review. ENRICH the spec via the Invariant Harvest pass (/spec [mode=sync] direction=harvest → spec/references/sync.md): prove it is always-true (≥2 enforcement points or a rejecting guard), express it as a universally-quantified property, then add the rule to §4 (or §3/§5) AND a §8 TC via /spec [update] + /spec [mode=tests] and add the guarding test. A discovered invariant left only in code (or only in tests) is INCOMPLETE — this is the highest-value capture (the rule nobody wrote down).
3. Never normalize drift just because code/tests are green — green can encode the drift itself. Reconcile to canonical intent, never to whichever side currently passes.

A behavior-changing review/implementation that leaves a spec divergence unadjudicated is INCOMPLETE; an unwritten-but-enforced invariant left uncaptured (no §4/§8 entry) is equally INCOMPLETE.

<!-- /SYNC:spec-drift-adjudication -->

<!-- SYNC:ai-mistake-prevention -->

AI Mistake Prevention — Failure modes to avoid on every task:

Re-read files after context changes. Context compaction, resume, or long-running work can make memory stale; verify current files before acting.
Verify generated content against source evidence. AI hallucinates APIs, names, claims, and document facts. Check the relevant source before documenting or referencing.
Check downstream references before deleting or renaming. Removing an artifact can stale docs, generated mirrors, configs, and callers; map references first.
Trace the full impact chain after edits. Changing a definition can miss derived outputs and consumers. Follow the affected chain before declaring done.
Verify ALL affected outputs, not just the first. One green check is not all green checks; validate every output surface the change can affect.
Assume existing values are intentional — ask WHY before changing OR flagging one as a defect. Before changing or reporting a constant, limit, flag, cutoff, wording, or pattern, read nearby context and history, the CALLER's ordering, and 2+ sibling call sites of the same convention. A doc stating WHAT without WHY is missing rationale, not proof of a missing guard.
Surface ambiguity before acting — don't pick silently. Multiple valid interpretations require an explicit question or stated assumption with risk.
Assert the outcome your system owns, not the intermediate state your infrastructure owns. When verifying async work, assert the final business state — never the delivery/retry bookkeeping held in shared infrastructure that any co-running process can write. Such a check passes when run alone and flakes the moment anything else shares that infrastructure.
Keep shared guidance role-relevant. Universal guidance must help every receiving skill or agent; code-specific obligations belong only in code-specific protocols.

<!-- /SYNC:ai-mistake-prevention -->

<!-- SYNC:severity-rubric -->

Severity Rubric — Classify every finding by consequence, not by how easy it is to fix. One scale across all reviews so a "High" means the same thing everywhere.

| Severity | Action | Definition |
| -------- | ----------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| CRITICAL | Block merge | Silent runtime failure, data corruption, validation bypass, security hole |
| HIGH | Must fix | Incorrect behavior, invariant gap, architectural violation |
| MEDIUM | Should fix | Design debt, maintainability, likely future bug |
| LOW | Nice to fix | Convention, documentation, minor clarity |

Score-based skills map their numeric scale onto these tiers — do not invent a parallel vocabulary:

- 0-2 criterion scoring (e.g. production-readiness-review): 0 = CRITICAL/HIGH (criterion unmet, blocks production readiness), 1 = MEDIUM (partial, should fix), 2 = pass (no finding).
- Two-axis scoring (e.g. performance-review, impact × likelihood): map the resulting cell to the nearest tier — high-impact + high-likelihood → CRITICAL/HIGH; low-impact OR low-likelihood → MEDIUM/LOW.

A finding's tier drives the gate: CRITICAL/HIGH must be resolved or explicitly accepted by the owner before PASS; MEDIUM/LOW may ship with a tracked follow-up.

<!-- /SYNC:severity-rubric -->

<!-- SYNC:goal-contract-satisfaction-loop -->

Goal Contract Satisfaction Loop — Persist the user goal in an external file, execute against it, and loop review/fix until every saved required criterion passes or a blocker escalates. Bounded closed loop — NEVER open-ended autonomous exploration.

1. Resolve the active goal (in order): active plan goal.md → plans/goals/{YYMMDD-HHmm}-{slug}/goal.md → create a new Goal Contract from the current user request (template: .claude/templates/goal-contract-template.md).
2. Required sections: Original Request, Purpose, Success Criteria (checkboxes; mark required vs optional), Constraints, Evidence Required, Iteration Log, Goal Satisfaction matrix.
3. Before work: read the active goal and map planned work to saved success criteria — execution serves the saved criteria, never chat memory alone.
4. After execution/verification: append an Iteration Log entry — result, evidence references (file:line, command output, report path), remaining gaps.
5. Review gate: emit a Goal Satisfaction matrix — | Success Criterion | Evidence | Status | with PASS/FAIL/BLOCKED. Overall PASS requires every required criterion PASS.
6. Loop rule (retry): required criterion FAIL → validate the gap is real → fix → re-review only the affected criteria. Stop cleanly when all required criteria PASS.
7. Escalation rule (stop): two consecutive iterations with no criterion progressing, or a blocker needing user input → mark the criterion BLOCKED with a user-facing reason and escalate. NEVER loop indefinitely.
8. Skip rule: tiny conversational tasks may skip the goal file ONLY with a recorded one-line reason. User-accepted gate skips are recorded in the goal file with reason and scope.
9. Security: NEVER store secrets, tokens, credentials, or private customer data in goal files — store evidence references and redact sensitive values.

Blocked until: active goal resolved (or skip reason recorded) · saved success criteria read before edits · iteration evidence appended after execution · Goal Satisfaction matrix emitted before any PASS verdict.

<!-- /SYNC:goal-contract-satisfaction-loop -->

<!-- SYNC:trade-off-interrogation-gate -->

Trade-Off Interrogation Gate — ALWAYS ask these THREE questions before ANY verdict, score, finding, or recommendation — about the thing under review AND about every recommendation YOU make. — why: naming a benefit without its price is an endorsement, not a review; the costliest trade-offs are the ones nobody wrote down.

1. Is there any trade-off? Name what it SACRIFICES. "None" / "pure win" is an unfinished analysis, NOT an answer — to claim none, state which dimensions you checked and why each is unaffected: future change cost · complexity · performance/latency · memory/cost · coupling · reversibility · migration burden · operational load · blast radius · security posture · testability · team skill/ramp · delivery time · UX.
2. Is it worth it? Weigh gain against sacrifice EXPLICITLY — what is gained (with a metric) · what it costs · WHO pays · WHEN it comes due — then emit WORTH IT / NOT WORTH IT / UNCLEAR. "Better" with no metric and no cost FAILS this question. NOT WORTH IT → withdraw or replace the recommendation, never keep it as-is.
3. Is the trade-off material enough to CONFIRM WITH THE USER? A material trade-off is the user's call, never yours. MATERIAL when ANY holds: irreversible / one-way door (data migration, public contract, storage format, vendor lock-in) · cost shifted onto someone else (another team, ops/on-call, future maintainer, end user) · one quality attribute traded for another (correctness↔speed, security↔convenience, latency↔cost, simplicity↔flexibility) · a boundary crossed (client↔server tier, service contract, event contract, shared library) · a high-consequence path (auth, money, data integrity, breaking change, High/Medium residual risk) · the worth-it verdict is UNCLEAR.

MATERIAL → STOP and confirm via AskUserQuestion BEFORE the verdict stands — state the trade-off, both options, what each sacrifices, and your recommendation. NOT material → record it inline with a one-line justification and proceed.

Non-asking execution contexts — ESCALATE BY HANDOFF, never by silence. AskUserQuestion reaches only the main interactive agent: a sub-agent cannot ask the user, and a terminal/verdict-only mode asks nothing by design. When you are running in such a context, the obligation is redirected, never waived — do ALL of: (a) complete questions 1 and 2 normally; (b) decide materiality and record it in the Trade-Off Assessment row with confirmed? = NO — cannot ask from this context; (c) name the unconfirmed MATERIAL trade-off explicitly in your returned summary/verdict so the CALLER (or parent orchestrator) escalates it via AskUserQuestion on your behalf — a material trade-off mentioned only inside a report file on disk is NOT a handoff; (d) do not emit an unqualified PASS — mark the verdict as carrying an unconfirmed material trade-off, so the caller's gate stays closed until the user answers. The caller inherits the escalation duty the moment it reads your return.

This carve-out is about reachability, not convenience: it applies ONLY where the tool genuinely cannot reach the user (spawned sub-agent, terminal validate/verdict-only mode, non-interactive/headless run). It is NEVER a licence to skip the question, to self-approve a one-way door, or to downgrade materiality because asking is inconvenient — if you CAN ask, you MUST ask.

Emit a Trade-Off Assessment row per reviewed decision and per recommendation: | decision | sacrifices | gain (metric) | who pays, when | WORTH IT/NOT/UNCLEAR | material? | confirmed? |.

BLOCKED until: trade-off named (or dimensions-checked justification given) · worth-it verdict emitted · materiality decided · every MATERIAL trade-off either confirmed with the user OR — in a non-asking context — handed off in the returned verdict for the caller to confirm. A MATERIAL trade-off that is neither confirmed nor handed off can NEVER be PASS, and NEVER gets buried as a Low-severity note.

NEVER answer "no trade-off" without checking · decide a material trade-off silently on the user's behalf · let convergence/delivery pressure authorize walking through a one-way door · bundle several material trade-offs into one vague "proceed?".

<!-- /SYNC:trade-off-interrogation-gate -->

<!-- SYNC:domain-entity-change-gate -->

Domain Entity Change Gate — ONE protocol binding every skill or agent that PLANS, IMPLEMENTS, or REVIEWS a change touching a domain entity, value object, or aggregate, so a planner, an implementer, and a reviewer apply the SAME rules to the SAME change. /domain-entities-review is the canonical owner of the full A–P checklist; this gate is the shared trigger plus the decision set that must be answered. NEVER re-derive a weaker local copy — why: when planning and review disagree on entity rules, the plan ships a design that review then rejects, and the rework is paid twice.

Trigger — fires when ANY holds: a new entity / value object / aggregate root is introduced · an existing one gains or loses a field, invariant, relationship, or state transition · an aggregate boundary, repository, or cross-aggregate reference changes · a domain event is added, renamed, or re-payloaded · a concurrency or reconstitution concern on a root changes. State No domain-entity surface — gate N/A when none holds.

Step 1 — Detect BEFORE deciding. Both answers change which rules even apply:

- Paradigm (per aggregate, from the code — NEVER assumed): OO-mutable · type-driven/immutable · event-sourced. Setter, mutability, and reconstitution rules are written for OO-mutable; applying them to the other two manufactures false findings and false plan tasks.
- Subdomain fit: core (rich model owed) · supporting (Active Record or light model) · generic (buy, do not model) · CRUD (Transaction Script — a rich entity here is ceremony). NEVER plan or flag a rich model where the subdomain has no invariant beyond required-field.

Step 2 — Answer all 6 decision points. Each is a decision the change MUST make explicitly:

| # | Decision point | Answered when |
| --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 1 | Classification — entity vs value object vs aggregate root | The swap test is applied ("would an identical copy be interchangeable?"); a VO is immutable with structural equality and has no repository |
| 2 | Invariant ownership — entity owns "can this state exist?", the boundary owns "is this input acceptable?" | Each rule is placed on one side and named; failure signalling (throw vs Result) matches the project convention consistently; a DB constraint is a backstop, NEVER the rule |
| 3 | Aggregate boundary + concurrency | Only true always-consistent invariants share an aggregate; cross-aggregate references are by ID; one aggregate mutates per transaction; the ROOT carries the concurrency token; set-based invariants (uniqueness across instances) name a real enforcing mechanism, never an in-memory check |
| 4 | Construction vs reconstitution | Creation and load are separate paths; the load path raises NO domain events and re-runs NO creation rules; required data sits in the constructor/factory |
| 5 | Events | Raised inside the aggregate; dispatched AFTER commit (outbox when crossing a process); internal domain events kept distinct from published integration contracts; handlers idempotent |
| 6 | Test obligation | Every invariant maps to a universally-quantified property TC PLUS a boundary counter-case — the spec NAMES it and a test GUARDS it (Dual-Feedback); a single happy-path example is NOT coverage |

Step 3 — Apply by context. Same decisions, different obligation:

| Calling context | Obligation |
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Planning (/plan) | The plan MUST name the decision and the owning file for every triggered row. An unanswered row is a plan that is not executable — surface it, do NOT let implementation discover it. |
| Plan review (/plan-review) | An unanswered, hand-waved, or deferred-to-implementation row is a FINDING with file:line into the plan. Presence of the word "entity" is NEVER an answer. |
| Implementation (/plan-execute, /fix, and any implementing agent — e.g. backend-developer) | The decisions are INPUTS, not questions to reopen: implement each triggered row as the plan/spec decided it, at the owning file it named. A row that arrives UNANSWERED is a blocker — surface it and get it decided; NEVER settle it silently at the keyboard, and NEVER pick an aggregate boundary from a DB table or UI screen because the plan left it open. Paradigm and subdomain fit still gate which rules apply. |
| Change review (/changes-review) | Route to the owner — Mode A (default): read /domain-entities-review's Phase 2 A–P checklist and apply it as review lenses. Mode B (escalation): delegate to /domain-entities-review when standalone AND the diff carries 3+ entity files. Findings enter the normal finding set with file:line + severity. |

Duplication guard — SKIP the gate entirely when ANY row holds. Record the deferral line, then proceed:

| Suppressing context | Deferral line |
| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------- |
| The running skill IS /domain-entities-review | Gate is this skill's own body — A–P checklist owns it. |
| Invoked inside $workflow-review-changes (its step 5 runs /domain-entities-review as a dedicated conditional parallel member) | Gate deferred to workflow step 5 /domain-entities-review. |
| /why-review running in --validate-findings terminal mode | Gate N/A — validate-findings is terminal, no sub-skill calls. |

— why: unguarded, this edge duplicates a review the parent workflow already runs and closes a changes-review → domain-entities-review → why-review → changes-review cycle.

BLOCKED until: trigger evaluated (or gate N/A recorded) · paradigm + subdomain fit stated · all 6 triggered decision points answered or raised as findings · guard row checked before any delegation.

<!-- /SYNC:domain-entity-change-gate -->

<!-- SYNC:domain-entity-change-gate:reminder -->

MUST ATTENTION when the change PLANS or REVIEWS a new/updated domain entity, value object, or aggregate, apply the Domain Entity Change Gate — /domain-entities-review owns the full A–P checklist; detect paradigm + subdomain fit FIRST, then answer all 6 decision points (classification · invariant ownership + failure signalling · aggregate boundary + concurrency · construction vs reconstitution · events · property-TC test obligation). Planning must NAME each decision; plan review treats an unanswered row as a FINDING; change review routes to the owner (Mode A read / Mode B delegate). SKIP under the 3-row duplication guard and record the deferral line. — why: one protocol shared by planner and reviewer is what stops a plan shipping an entity design that review then rejects.

<!-- /SYNC:domain-entity-change-gate:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:understand-code-first:reminder -->

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION search 3+ existing patterns and read code BEFORE any modification. Run graph trace when graph.db exists.

<!-- /SYNC:understand-code-first:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:evidence-based-reasoning:reminder -->

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION cite file:line evidence for every claim. Confidence >80% to act, <60% = do NOT recommend.

<!-- /SYNC:evidence-based-reasoning:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:design-patterns-quality:reminder -->

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION check DRY via OOP, right responsibility layer, SOLID. Grep for dangling refs after moves.

<!-- /SYNC:design-patterns-quality:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:complexity-prevention:reminder -->

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION apply complexity prevention — one business change = one code change. Flag change amplification (>3 edit sites for future change), scattered type-switches, anemic models, primitive obsession, leaked technology through abstractions, shallow modules, un-extracted utility logic (paging/datetime/string/retry → helpers), and logic in the wrong higher layer (downshift to callee/entity/VM). Don't rationalize silent duplication with pure YAGNI.

<!-- /SYNC:complexity-prevention:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:graph-assisted-investigation:reminder -->

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION run at least ONE graph command on key files when graph.db exists. Pattern: grep → trace → verify.

<!-- /SYNC:graph-assisted-investigation:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:logic-and-intention-review:reminder -->

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION verify WHAT code does matches WHY it changed. Trace happy + error paths.

<!-- /SYNC:logic-and-intention-review:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:bug-detection:reminder -->

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION check null safety, boundaries, error handling, resource management for every review.

<!-- /SYNC:bug-detection:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:test-spec-verification:reminder -->

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION map changed code paths to test cases. Flag untested paths.

<!-- /SYNC:test-spec-verification:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:integration-test-sync-check:reminder -->

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION check changed logic files for matching tests. Surface missing tests via AskUserQuestion — mandatory, not advisory.

<!-- /SYNC:integration-test-sync-check:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:translation-sync-check:reminder -->

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION for multilingual UI text changes, verify translation updates. If missing, require explicit user decision via AskUserQuestion.

<!-- /SYNC:translation-sync-check:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:cross-stack-impact-trace:reminder -->

MUST ATTENTION FIRST review action — note change context + holistically trace full pipeline of main affected area across client↔server seam (BE→FE forward, FE→BE backward). Verify both tiers still agree on route/DTO/field/type/nullability/auth; any mismatch = BREAKING finding. Skip only for single-tier / docs-only changes (state so).

<!-- /SYNC:cross-stack-impact-trace:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:cross-service-check:reminder -->

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION microservices/event-driven: scan producers, consumers, sagas, contracts in task scope. Per touchpoint: owner · message · consumers · risk (NONE/ADDITIVE/BREAKING). Missing consumer = silent regression.

<!-- /SYNC:cross-service-check:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:critical-thinking-mindset:reminder -->

MUST ATTENTION apply critical + sequential thinking — every claim needs appropriate traced evidence (file:line for repo/code claims; source URL or artifact section for research, product, content, and docs claims); confidence >80% to act, <60% DO NOT recommend. Anti-hallucination: never present guess as fact, admit uncertainty freely, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence.

<!-- /SYNC:critical-thinking-mindset:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:sequential-thinking-protocol:reminder -->

MUST ATTENTION apply sequential-thinking — multi-step Thought N/M, REVISION/BRANCH/HYPOTHESIS markers, confidence % closer; see /sequential-thinking skill.

<!-- /SYNC:sequential-thinking-protocol:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:ai-mistake-prevention:reminder -->

MUST ATTENTION apply AI mistake prevention — verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references before deleting or renaming, verify all affected outputs, re-read files after context loss, and surface ambiguity before acting.

<!-- /SYNC:ai-mistake-prevention:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:task-tracking-external-report:reminder -->

• MANDATORY Bootstrap task tracking before target work; transition one task at a time.
• MANDATORY Persist plan/review findings to plans/reports/ incrementally and synthesize from disk.

<!-- /SYNC:task-tracking-external-report:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:project-reference-docs-guide:reminder -->

• MANDATORY Before investigating, planning, or coding, read docs/project-config.json (the project map: modules/paths, run-commands, conventions, architecture/workflow rules) + the required project-reference docs, and cite Reference docs read: ....
• MANDATORY Always include lessons.md; project config + conventions override generic framework defaults.
• MANDATORY If project config, root instruction files, or any required reference doc is missing or stale, auto-run /project-init or the narrow lower-level route before ordinary project-specific work.

<!-- /SYNC:project-reference-docs-guide:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:end-to-start-debugger-trace:reminder -->

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION debugger trace gate: for non-trivial bug/fix/investigation/review work, start at the observed final output and trace backward through reader -> storage/projection -> writer -> consumer/job -> producer/trigger. Enumerate all feeder paths and hypotheses before fixing. BLOCKED until trace, hypothesis matrix, owning fix layer, and forward convergence proof exist.

<!-- /SYNC:end-to-start-debugger-trace:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:nested-task-creation:reminder -->

• MANDATORY Parent workflow rows do not replace child phase tracking; expand phases and link the parent when nested.
• MANDATORY Orchestrators pre-expand child skill phases before invocation; use [N.M] $skill-name — phase prefixes and one-in_progress discipline.

<!-- /SYNC:nested-task-creation:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:goal-contract-satisfaction-loop:reminder -->

• MANDATORY Resolve the active Goal Contract BEFORE work (active plan goal.md → plans/goals/{YYMMDD-HHmm}-{slug}/goal.md → create from current request) and read saved success criteria before editing.
• MANDATORY Append iteration evidence after execution; emit a Goal Satisfaction matrix (PASS/FAIL/BLOCKED) before reporting PASS; loop on validated FAIL; escalate repeated no-progress or blockers. NEVER store secrets in goal files.

<!-- /SYNC:goal-contract-satisfaction-loop:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:systematic-review-batching:reminder -->

• MANDATORY Large changeset → batch by size cap (≤8 files OR ≤2000 diff-lines), one parallel sub-agent per batch; never review many files one-by-one.
• MANDATORY > 6 categories OR > 40 files → add the hierarchical synthesis tier; each concern-synthesizer emits cross-concern interaction candidates and the orchestrator runs the cross-concern pass before concluding.

<!-- /SYNC:systematic-review-batching:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:severity-rubric:reminder -->

• MANDATORY Classify findings Critical/High/Medium/Low by consequence; Critical/High block PASS until fixed or owner-accepted.
• MANDATORY Score-based skills (sre 0-2, perf two-axis) map onto the same four tiers — no parallel severity vocabulary.

<!-- /SYNC:severity-rubric:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:category-review-thinking:reminder -->

• MANDATORY Derive review categories from file language + directory semantics + change nature; create a sub-task per category.
• MANDATORY Derive each category's concerns from first principles with file:line evidence — never a fixed checklist.

<!-- /SYNC:category-review-thinking:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:double-round-trip-review:reminder -->

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION execute the review loop (aka Self-Review Convergence Loop): review → validate findings → fix validated findings → full re-review. A complete review pass with zero findings ENDS the review. Any newly produced output/judgment gets ≥1 self-review; any new judgment gets ≥1 /why-review --validate-findings pass before it is treated as final.
• MANDATORY apply the severity floor: rounds 1-2 exit on zero findings at any severity; from round 3 the bar is zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM — LOW findings are no longer required to be fixed, so a LOW-only round ENDS the loop. List every deferred LOW in the report; NEVER re-tier a real CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM down to LOW to reach the exit, and NEVER apply the floor to a binary gate (test-green, security must-fix).
• MANDATORY enforce the round cap of 3 — a ceiling, NEVER a target: a clean pass ends the loop immediately at any round (round 1 included), and round 3 completing with CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM still open → STOP & escalate via AskUserQuestion, never a silent PASS. The 2-repeated-no-progress blocker rule is an earlier exit — escalate at whichever trips first. NEVER loop open-ended.

<!-- /SYNC:double-round-trip-review:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:trade-off-interrogation-gate:reminder -->

• MANDATORY MUST ATTENTION ALWAYS ASK THE 3 TRADE-OFF QUESTIONS — on the thing under review AND on every recommendation you make: (1) is there any trade-off? name what it SACRIFICES (change cost · complexity · perf · coupling · reversibility · migration · ops load · blast radius · security · testability · delivery time · UX) — "none"/"pure win" is an unfinished analysis, so state the dimensions checked; (2) is it worth it? gain (with a metric) vs cost, WHO pays, WHEN → emit WORTH IT / NOT WORTH IT / UNCLEAR; NOT WORTH IT → withdraw or replace it; (3) is it material enough to confirm with the user? irreversible/one-way door · cost shifted onto another team/ops/maintainer/user · one quality attribute traded for another · a tier/service/event/library boundary crossed · auth/money/data-integrity/breaking-change/High-or-Medium-risk path · verdict UNCLEAR → STOP and confirm via AskUserQuestion BEFORE the verdict.
• MANDATORY A MATERIAL trade-off with no user confirmation can NEVER be PASS; NEVER bury one as a Low-severity note, NEVER decide it silently, and NEVER let delivery or convergence pressure authorize a one-way door. — why: an un-walked-back one-way door is the user's call to make, not the reviewer's.
• MANDATORY — non-asking contexts escalate BY HANDOFF, never by silence. AskUserQuestion reaches only the main interactive agent: a sub-agent cannot ask the user, and a terminal/verdict-only mode asks nothing by design. There the duty is REDIRECTED, not waived — still name the trade-off, still decide materiality, record confirmed? = NO — cannot ask from this context, state the unconfirmed MATERIAL trade-off in your RETURNED verdict/summary so the CALLER escalates it (a note only in an on-disk report is not a handoff), and never emit an unqualified PASS. Applies ONLY where the user is genuinely unreachable (spawned sub-agent, terminal validate mode, headless run) — if you CAN ask, you MUST ask.

<!-- /SYNC:trade-off-interrogation-gate:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:parallel-subagent-dispatch -->

Parallel Sub-Agent Dispatch — Plan parallelism the moment a task breakdown exists, BEFORE executing it — running provably independent tasks sequentially wastes wall-clock. Applies to every multi-step job: workflow steps, planning, batch updates, investigation, research, scans, reviews, doc sync. Plan execution is metadata-gated, NEVER default-parallel — fan-out follows ONLY what the plan declares (PAR/SEQ tags + per-phase write set); an untagged plan runs sequentially — why: a derived write set cannot see cascade or generated writes.

1. Tag every task PAR or SEQ. PAR = inputs exclude every pending task's output AND write set disjoint from every other PAR. Else SEQ — MUST ATTENTION name the dependency forcing it.
2. Group PAR into waves. No edge between members. Two writers of one file NEVER share a wave. Read-only work (search, investigation, review, research) parallelizes freely.
3. Declare before dispatch: Parallel plan: wave 1 = [...] · wave 2 = [...] · SEQ = [...] (reason).
4. Spawn each wave in ONE message — every Agent call in one response, NEVER dripped per turn. Route each task to its specialist (.claude/skills/shared/sub-agent-selection-guide.md); NEVER code-reviewer as catch-all.
5. Brief each sub-agent self-contained: goal · scope + owned files · reference docs · return contract (summary + Full report: path, per SYNC:subagent-return-contract) · incremental persistence to plans/reports/ (per SYNC:incremental-persistence).
6. Barrier per wave. Advance ONLY after EVERY member returns (a skipped conditional counts as returned). Merge, mark each task completed/skipped, THEN dispatch the next wave. Mutating steps wait for the barrier.
7. One level deep. A dispatched sub-agent executes its own brief; further fan-out stays the orchestrator's job unless that agent's .claude/agents/*.md definition authorizes it.

NEVER parallelize: tasks sharing a write target · a task consuming a pending task's output · trivial single-file work (dispatch overhead > gain) · an order a skill or workflow explicitly fixes · gates awaiting user approval.

Blocked until: MUST ATTENTION every task tagged PAR/SEQ with a named reason per SEQ · waves declared + write-set disjointness checked · each wave spawned in ONE message · barrier honored before the next wave.

<!-- /SYNC:parallel-subagent-dispatch -->

<!-- SYNC:parallel-subagent-dispatch:reminder -->

• MANDATORY After planning tasks, tag each PAR/SEQ and spawn every PAR wave as parallel sub-agents in ONE message — default parallel for workflows, batch updates, investigation, research, reviews; plan execution fans out ONLY on what the plan declares.
• MANDATORY Disjoint write sets per wave · all-return barrier before the next wave · specialist routing · sub-agents NEVER fan out further unless their own agent definition authorizes it.

<!-- /SYNC:parallel-subagent-dispatch:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:project-protocol-overlay -->

Project Protocol Overlay — Before executing this skill, resolve any PROJECT overlay rules layered onto it: match this skill's name against the Target column of the project's skill-protocol index (docs/project-reference/skill-protocols-reference.md by default; a referenceDocs entry in docs/project-config.json overrides the path), taking the most specific matching tier ONLY — exact name > glob > *. That precedence orders overlays against EACH OTHER, never against this skill. Read ONLY the matched bodies, resolved as <protocols-dir>/<Name>.md; a row's Body link is display text, never a read path. A matched body that is missing or malformed is REPORTED and skipped — never reconstructed from the index Description. No index, or no match -> proceed with no overlay, silently. Full contract: .claude/skills/project-skill-protocol/references/registry.md.

Overlays are ADDITIVE ONLY: they ADD rules on top of this skill's own protocol and NEVER replace, override, disable, or reinterpret a rule it already states — removing every overlay must return this skill to exactly its documented behavior. An overlay is a BRIEF, not an authority escalation: it can NEVER waive a workflow gate, git discipline, a review gate, or a user-confirmation gate. A genuine overlay-vs-skill conflict, or two equally-specific overlays that directly contradict -> surface both to the user; NEVER resolve silently.

<!-- /SYNC:project-protocol-overlay -->

<!-- SYNC:project-protocol-overlay:reminder -->

MUST ATTENTION resolve project protocol overlays for this skill BEFORE executing — most specific matching tier only (exact > glob > *, which ranks overlays against each other, NEVER against this skill), read only matched bodies at <protocols-dir>/<Name>.md; a missing or malformed body is reported, never reconstructed. Overlays are ADDITIVE ONLY (they never replace this skill's own rules) and are a brief, NEVER an authority escalation; an equal-specificity contradiction goes to the user.

<!-- /SYNC:project-protocol-overlay:reminder -->

Closing Reminders

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Goal: Ensure every reviewed change is defect-free, evidence-backed, convention-aligned, and synchronized with required tests/docs before handoff; when code files changed, also prove the code stays easy to change.

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — Protocols in force (concise digest of the SYNC/shared blocks this skill carries; each line is a signpost to its canonical body above — MUST ATTENTION honor the full block, NEVER act on the digest alone):

• Systematic Batching: ≥10 files → size-capped parallel batches.
• Debugger Trace: bug/fix → End→Start backward trace gate.
• Critical Thinking: every claim traced; confidence >80% to act.
• Sequential Thinking: multi-step Thought N/M with markers.
• Understand Code First: grep 3+, read code before changes.
• Design Patterns Quality: DRY/SOLID, right responsibility layer.
• Complexity Prevention: one business change = one code change.
• Double Round-Trip Review: validate → fix → full re-review until clean.
• Fresh Context Review: fresh zero-memory sub-agent after fixes.
• Review Protocol Injection: embed 11 protocols verbatim into sub-agent prompts.
• Logic And Intention Review: WHAT code does matches WHY changed.
• Bug Detection: null, boundaries, error handling, resource cleanup.
• Test Spec Verification: map changed paths to test cases.
• Integration Test Sync: missing tests surface via AskUserQuestion.
• Translation Sync: multilingual UI text changes need translation updates.
• Category Review Thinking: derive categories from file + change nature.
• Graph-Assisted Investigation: run graph trace on key files.
• Nested Task Creation: expand child phases, link parent.
• Project Reference Docs: read required docs including lessons.md.
• Task Tracking + Report: bootstrap tasks, persist findings incrementally.
• Source/Test Drift: behavior change → reconcile affected tests.
• Spec Drift: classify CODE-WRONG/SPEC-STALE/AMBIGUOUS/SPEC-SILENT, route fix.
• AI Mistake Prevention: verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references, verify all affected outputs, re-read after context loss, surface ambiguity.
• Severity Rubric: classify Critical/High/Medium/Low by consequence.
• Parallel Sub-Agent Dispatch: Tag tasks PAR/SEQ, group PAR into disjoint-write-set waves, spawn each wave in ONE message, barrier before advancing.

[CRITICAL — TOP 3 RULES REPEATED]

1. MUST ATTENTION Phase -1 self-recursive review-loop binding is the FIRST ACTION (standalone) — bind it (protocol loop primary, host-independent; optional /goal gate WHEN available) before Phase 0 so stopping is blocked until a whole-diff review pass is clean; Phase 0 graph blast-radius is the first review step. Skip Phase -1 only inside $workflow-review-changes (parent owns the goal).
2. MUST ATTENTION findings follow the active ownership boundary, and validated findings are SELF-FIXED, not handed back. Standalone mode runs Phase 6 validate → Phase 7 self-fix → full whole-diff /changes-review restart (combined with prior fixes, not just the last fix), looping until zero findings; inside $workflow-review-changes, stop after the report and hand findings to parent step 2, then parent steps 10-15 own plan/feature-implement/restart.
3. MUST ATTENTION TaskCreate ALL phases before starting; missing tests MUST surface via AskUserQuestion

• MANDATORY Nested Task Expansion Contract — when invoked inside a workflow, STILL expand internal phases via TaskCreate with [N.M] $changes-review — phase prefix and TaskUpdate(parentTaskId, addBlockedBy: [childIds]) linkage. Workflow row is container, not substitute.
• MANDATORY break work into small todo tasks using TaskCreate BEFORE starting
• MANDATORY validate decisions with user via AskUserQuestion — NEVER auto-decide
• MANDATORY add final review todo task to verify work quality
• MANDATORY discover and READ project-specific reference docs before starting
• MANDATORY Phase 0 graph blast-radius is FIRST step — NEVER skip it
• MANDATORY any finding must be validated before fix; standalone mode invokes /why-review --validate-findings, while $workflow-review-changes parent mode stops after the report and delegates validation to parent step 2
• MANDATORY after fixing validated findings in standalone mode, recursively invoke /changes-review again from Phase 0 with a brand-new task breakdown and review the full current diff, not only the fixed files; in parent mode, parent steps 10-15 own the fix plan, feature-implement, and full restart
• MANDATORY continue validate → fix → full restart until one complete review invocation has zero findings; standalone mode executes that loop locally, parent mode reports findings to $workflow-review-changes for the loop
• MANDATORY documentation staleness check is REQUIRED in every review — flag stale docs even if not auto-fixing
• MANDATORY run the Phase 0.8 Parallel Why-Review Rationale Dimension at the START of every standalone review — spawn ONE general-purpose sub-agent in the SAME parallel batch as the Phase 0.7 dimensional agents (one message, all agents together; NEVER a blocking pre-step) that invokes /why-review in FULL mode over the diff as authored, under all four report-only constraints (NEVER bind /goal — a sub-agent cannot own the session Stop hook · NEVER fix · SKIP the Integration-Test-Review Linkage, Phase 3.7 owns it · NEVER call back into /changes-review). Merge its findings into the Phase 4 final evaluation, where they become ordinary findings for Phase 6 validation and Phase 7 fixes. Deferred inside $workflow-review-changes to the parent's /why-review steps (2-3). A clean Phase 0.8 NEVER exempts Phase 7.5 — 0.8 reviews the PRE-fix diff, 7.5 reviews the POST-fix package — why: every dimensional reviewer is scoped to a category and none asks whether the change was the right call at all; surfacing a wrong premise only at Phase 7.5 means the entire fix loop was spent building on it.
• MANDATORY run the Phase 7.5 Holistic Standalone Full-Mode Why-Review gate once the dimensional review/fix loop converges to zero findings, in standalone mode — invoke the /why-review skill in FULL mode (an ACTUAL Skill call, NOT --validate-findings, NOT inline self-review) ONCE over the WHOLE review target combined with the current changes as a single artifact, exactly as a user running /why-review against the target directly; fix any findings and re-run until a full-mode pass is clean; deferred only inside $workflow-review-changes to the parent's dedicated /why-review step (13) — why: the per-file/per-dimension reviewers and the Phase 6 --validate-findings gate are scoped and routinely miss whole-package design-rationale/holistic issues that a standalone full-mode /why-review of the target catches; a clean dimensional review with a skipped holistic pass is INCOMPLETE
• MANDATORY run the Phase 8 final /docs-update gate once the review/fix loop converges to zero findings — ALWAYS, unconditional, never skipped on a clean verdict (deferred only inside $workflow-review-changes to the parent's docs-update step) — why: a passing code review still leaves docs stale until docs-update reconciles every impacted doc against the actual changes; a clean review with skipped docs-update is INCOMPLETE
• MANDATORY run the Phase 3.5 Code-Simplifier Optimization gate whenever the diff includes code files — invoke /code-simplifier (report mode) over the changed code files, record its clarity/consistency/maintainability findings in the report, and route them through Phase 6 validation → Phase 7 fix; skip ONLY for docs-only diffs (record the skip reason) — why: correctness review proves it works, the simplifier gate proves it stays cheap to change, and the step is silently dropped without an anchored reminder
• MANDATORY run the Phase 3.7 Integration-Test-Review Coverage Gate whenever the diff includes behavior-bearing code — invoke /integration-test-review over the FULL change set (production code AND tests); its Gate 7 must map every behavior change to a covering test (integration-first; unit fallback justified) and a spec TC, and every GAP/SPEC-GAP becomes a finding for Phase 6 validation → Phase 7 fix (GAP fix = write the missing test); skip ONLY for docs-only diffs with recorded reason, and defer to the parent's dedicated /integration-test-review step inside $workflow-review-changes — why: a correct-looking change with no covering test or stale spec ships unprotected behavior; the pairing check alone proves file names, not coverage
• MANDATORY missing tests for changed business logic MUST surface to user via AskUserQuestion — NOT silently logged
• MANDATORY run the Phase 6 Why-Review Findings Validation Gate whenever ANY finding exists in standalone mode — invoke the /why-review skill through the Skill tool with --validate-findings (terminal mode, same session; an ACTUAL skill call — re-reading the cited lines yourself or any inline/manual self-validation does NOT satisfy this gate). The moment the first finding is recorded, register [Review Phase 6] Why-review findings validation gate — invoke /why-review via TaskCreate so it is never forgotten. Verify every finding is correct, proof-backed, reasonable, and best-practice; RE-DO it ONLY if it surfaces finding issues or enhancement opportunities (max 2 re-dos, then escalate via AskUserQuestion); then Phase 7 fixes validated findings and restarts this skill. Inside $workflow-review-changes, do not run Phase 6/7 locally; parent step 2 and steps 10-15 own those gates.
• MANDATORY follow declared step order; NEVER skip, reorder, or merge steps without explicit user approval
• MANDATORY every skipped step includes explicit reason; every completed step includes concise evidence
• MANDATORY Report-driven — write every finding to plans/reports/code-review-{date}-{slug}.md incrementally as each file/dimension is reviewed, NOT in one final batch — why: the report is external memory AND the deliverable; findings held only in context are lost on compaction
• MANDATORY Evidence Gate — back every claim, finding, and recommendation with file:line proof or a traced call chain plus a confidence read (>80% act, 60-80% verify first, <60% DO NOT recommend); speculation is FORBIDDEN output and "insufficient evidence" is a valid verdict — why: an unproven finding wastes the author's time and erodes trust in the whole report
• MANDATORY Convention-before-flag — grep 3+ existing examples before flagging ANY pattern, naming, or style violation; codebase convention wins over textbook rules — why: flagging against a rule the project never adopted manufactures false positives
• MANDATORY Enforce YAGNI / KISS / DRY / Clean Code on changed code — flag speculative generality, needless complexity, and duplicated knowledge; 3+ similar patterns = MANDATORY extraction, 2+ same-kind violations = a structural finding (not individual nits) — why: these are the day-to-day forms of the Easy-to-Change success metric
• MANDATORY Spec Drift Adjudication runs for EVERY behavior-changing review (not only post-bugfix) — classify each divergence CODE-WRONG / SPEC-STALE / AMBIGUOUS / SPEC-SILENT and route the owed fix (CODE-WRONG → fix code + regression TC; SPEC-STALE/SPEC-SILENT → /spec [update] + /spec [mode=tests]; AMBIGUOUS → AskUserQuestion); record Spec in sync when none — why: passing code and tests can still silently normalize a spec violation
• MANDATORY Dual-Feedback Ledger — every behavior-changing finding must feed BOTH the spec AND the tests; a blank or bare-"N/A" cell on either axis = FAIL (each N/A carries its reason inline) — why: fixing only the code leaves the spec or its TC stale and the gap reopens next change
• MANDATORY Bugfix Debugger Trace Gate (§6.5) — for bugfix / regression / failed-verification / stale-output / behavior-changing fixes, FAIL the review unless an End→Start debugger trace, enumerated feeder paths, hypothesis matrix, lowest-owning-fix-layer justification, and forward-convergence + regression-test proof are all present — why: a fix without a trace patches the symptom site and the bug recurs
• MANDATORY Fresh-Context Gate (Phase 3) is review-ONLY — it may ADD findings but NEVER fixes or validates them, NEVER re-reviews known findings, and does NOT run merely because Phase 7 restarted; any non-zero finding set flows straight to Phase 6 — why: re-reviewing known findings burns context without adding signal
• MANDATORY Integrate sub-agent and synthesis findings RAW into the main report — read them, NEVER filter, soften, or override them — why: the main agent rationalizes away its own mistakes; the zero-memory sub-agent exists to catch exactly those
• MANDATORY When the diff includes frontend/UI files, /changes-review OWNS the UI dimension — run /ui-review (prefer a ui-ux-designer sub-agent in the same parallel batch): long-content overflow, responsive flex sizing, z-index discipline, SCSS/BEM quality; skip only when no frontend files changed — why: /ui-review is never a separate workflow step, so a skipped UI pass ships UI defects unreviewed
• MANDATORY M1-M7 Code-to-Spec Drift Gate (§8, BLOCKING) for any spec/feature-doc/PBI/story/test-spec the change touches or should sync — FAIL on introduced tech leakage (M1) / source-code-as-prose (M2) / broken logical-ID mapping (M3) / AC ambiguity (M4) / spec no longer rebuildable from artifact alone (M5) / a NON-DEMOABLE case added to a business spec (M7); a FAIL must name the violated mandate ID + changed file:line; carriers ([Source:], Evidence, frontmatter, mermaid) are EXEMPT — why: passing an introduced M1-M5/M7 violation makes the review itself defective
• MANDATORY M7 gates the bugfix→spec pump — for EVERY case the diff ADDS to a business spec, apply the demo test to its BODY (what would a stakeholder SEE change?); an invocation-shaped When or a schema/type/call-count Then FAILS even in flawless tech-free prose. If a technical fix changed no business behavior, the business spec should usually gain NOTHING — a no-op is a correct outcome; the regression test belongs in the technical tree — why: M1 governs vocabulary and M7 governs subject matter, so an M1-only reviewer waves through a non-demoable case on every bugfix and the business tree rots one defensible case at a time
• MANDATORY Architecture Boundary Check — for each changed file, read architectureRules.layerBoundaries from docs/project-config.json, match the file's layer, grep its imports, and BLOCK as Critical on any import from a cannotImportFrom layer; skip silently when architectureRules is absent — why: a layer-boundary breach compiles and ships silently while rotting the architecture
• MANDATORY AI Agent Integrity Gate before reporting ANY work done — grep every removed name (0 dangling refs across ALL file types), ask WHY before changing an existing value, verify ALL affected outputs (one green ≠ all green), evaluate pattern fit before copying nearby code (same scope/lifetime/base class/constraints), and prove every new artifact is wired (registered, imported, reachable) — why: completion ≠ correctness, and an unverified "done" is an untested hypothesis
• MANDATORY Large changeset (≥10 changed files) → Systematic Review Batching — categorize, size-cap batches (≤8 files OR ≤2000 diff-lines), fire one parallel sub-agent per batch, then reduce; >6 categories OR >40 files adds the hierarchical synthesis tier with the cross-concern interaction pass; ANNOUNCE any dropped/sampled scope — never review many files one-by-one and never let bounded coverage read as complete — why: a single agent's context silently truncates on big diffs, leaving files unreviewed

[BOTTOM REMINDER — WHY-REVIEW FINDINGS-VALIDATION GATE IS NON-NEGOTIABLE]

Same rule as the Top Reminder, repeated so it survives long contexts: ANY finding in standalone mode → you MUST invoke the /why-review skill (Skill tool, --validate-findings <report-path>) before any fix, docs-update, commit, or handoff. No inline/manual self-validation substitutes for the actual skill call. TaskCreate the [Review Phase 6] gate the moment the first finding lands so it can never be forgotten. Inside $workflow-review-changes, defer to parent step 2.

Anti-Rationalization:

[TASK-PLANNING] Break scope into small todo tasks before acting; maintain one in_progress; add final review todo.

---

Closing reminder — Easy to Change is the success metric. Every finding,
test, refactor, and abstraction must answer one question: _does this make
the next change cheaper or more expensive?_ If it doesn't reduce future
change cost, reject it. Coupling, hidden state, duplicated knowledge, and
unclear intent are the real enemies — call them out by name.

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION graph blast-radius runs first when .code-graph/graph.db exists. IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION every claim needs file:line proof; every stale docs/tests decision needs evidence. IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION ANY finding in standalone mode (Critical / High / Medium / OR Low) → you MUST invoke the /why-review skill via the Skill tool with --validate-findings <report-path> BEFORE any fix, docs-update, commit, or handoff; an actual skill call is the ONLY way to pass — inline self-validation, re-reading the cited lines, or declaring findings "already validated" do NOT count; TaskCreate the [Review Phase 6] gate the moment the first finding lands. Inside $workflow-review-changes, defer to parent step 2. — why: an unvalidated finding inherits the reviewer's confirmation bias and severity inflation, so fixing it before validation ships the wrong change. IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Goal: Ensure every reviewed change is defect-free, evidence-backed, convention-aligned, and synchronized with required tests/docs before handoff; when code files changed, also prove the code stays easy to change.