Architecture Review Full

---
name: architecture-review-full
version: 2.1.0
description: '[Architecture] Use when auditing the ENTIRE project architecture and production readiness in one pass; bundles architecture-review + scalability + production-readiness into one health report.'
---

<!-- 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 -->

## Quick Summary

**Goal:** Audit the WHOLE project's architecture, scalability, and production readiness in ONE pass: orchestrate three deliberately non-overlapping sibling reviewers, dedup intentional cross-references, and synthesize ONE consolidated Architecture Health Report with one combined verdict — this is a THIN orchestrator; NEVER re-implement child reviews.

**Summary:**
- **Testability contract:** resolve Unit/Integration/System/E2E applicability from runner/config evidence; record owner/root/data, copy-ready full + focused commands, zero-match behavior, CI/simple-Windows entry, unique run/data identity, and repeat proof; unresolved applicable fields block handoff, while non-applicable tiers require evidence-backed `N/A`.

- **Purpose:** resolve scope once, fan three reviewers out as parallel read-only sub-agents behind an all-return barrier, PROGRESSIVELY synthesize + dedup each child's findings into ONE report file (status `IN PROGRESS` → `FINISHED`), run a `/why-review` fix gate that walks each review face, then finalize the combined verdict. Read-only until findings are validated — fixes route to a downstream `/plan` or feature flow.
- **The three children — deliberately non-overlapping siblings that cross-reference each other, so their findings MUST be deduped:**
  - `architecture-scalability-review` (subagent `architect`) — project-grading scorecard `/20` + pass/fail gates. ALWAYS grades the project, even under diff scope (project-grader by design, "not the every-change diff reviewer").
  - `architecture-review` (subagent `architect`) — diff/scope-scoped 13-category PASS/WARN/BLOCKED compliance. Its Category 11 delegates full scalability/coupling grading to `architecture-scalability-review`.
  - `production-readiness-review` (subagent `code-reviewer`) — service/API SRE `/24` + 8-item Extended SRE Readiness gate. `architecture-scalability-review` routes runtime readiness here.
- **This skill runs INLINE** in the main session because it spawns sub-agents; the three children are each 25k–34k tokens and CANNOT run inline together — they MUST be sub-agents.
- **Dedup is the core value.** Because the three siblings intentionally cross-reference each other, the same underlying issue surfaces from multiple angles; record it ONCE citing every source, preserve each child's route-to-sibling pointers. — why: undeduped, three intentionally-cross-referencing reviewers inflate severity counts and bury distinct issues.
- **Coverage sweep + self-audit are orchestrator-only duties (Step 4).** After `Faces merged: 3/3`, sweep the merged report against the design-review script (`architecture-knowledge.md` §20.2) and record every unanswered question as an INFO `Coverage gap` line; frame remaining risk against the five judgments (§20.4); then run the 11 thinking red flags (§20.3) across the merged findings before Step 5. — why: three correctly-in-lane reviewers cannot see a question that belongs to no lane, and synthesis is where their confirmation biases compound.

**Workflow:**

1. **Step 1: Resolve Scope** — `$ARGUMENTS` or `AskUserQuestion`; map the chosen scope to each child's args.
2. **Step 2: Load Project Reference Docs Once** — warm shared context before fan-out.
3. **Step 3: Parallel Fan-Out (all-return barrier)** — spawn all three read-only sub-agents in ONE message; advance only after ALL three return.
4. **Step 4: Progressive Synthesis (IN PROGRESS)** — open the ONE consolidated report at status `🚧 IN PROGRESS` when fan-out starts; merge + dedup each child's findings into it AS that child returns — never held in memory to the end; then run the §20.2 coverage sweep and the §20.3 self-audit over the merged set.
5. **Step 5: Fix-Report-Per-Review `/why-review` Gate** — ONE merged `/why-review` pass that walks each of the three review faces + the dedup and fixes the report in place (severities, false positives, dedup-dropped issues).
6. **Step 6: Finalize (FINISHED)** — lock the combined verdict (worst-case rollup) and flip the report status to `✅ FINISHED`.
7. **Next Steps** — `AskUserQuestion`: `/plan` (fix validated findings) / `/code-simplifier` / skip.

**Key Rules (top 3 critical first):**

- MUST ATTENTION this is a THIN orchestrator — NEVER re-implement any of the three reviews inline; fan them out as sub-agents and synthesize.
- MUST ATTENTION dedup the intentional overlaps — one underlying issue = one finding citing every reporting child; NEVER let cross-referencing siblings triple-count it.
- MUST ATTENTION read-only until validated — run the Step 5 `/why-review` gate before handoff; fixes route to a downstream `/plan`/feature flow, NEVER applied here.
- Spawn all three sub-agents in ONE message and honor the all-return barrier — advance only after every child returns (`SYNC:parallel-phase-advancement` discipline).
- Write the consolidated report to `plans/reports/architecture-full-review-{YYMMDD}-{HHmm}-{slug}.md`.

## Your Mission

<task>
$ARGUMENTS
</task>

## Review Mindset (NON-NEGOTIABLE)

Skeptical synthesizer. Judge the three children's reports; do not re-derive them.

- Trust each child's `file:line` evidence, but NEVER inflate severity by counting the same underlying issue three times — dedup first, then rank.
- A finding survives to the report only after the Step 5 `/why-review` gate; an unvalidated sub-agent claim is a hypothesis, not a finding.
- Preserve every route-to-sibling pointer a child emits — the combined report is the union of owned findings, not a re-review.

## Step 1: Resolve Scope (ASK EACH RUN)

Decide audit scope, then map to each child's arguments.

- If `$ARGUMENTS` names files/dirs, or contains `full` / `whole` / `diff` / `changes`, use that directly.
- Else `AskUserQuestion`:
  - **"Whole project (Recommended)"** — audit the entire repository.
  - **"Current changes (diff)"** — audit the uncommitted diff only.
  - **"Specific path"** — audit a named service/module/directory.
  - **"New / greenfield foundation"** — grade a foundation being STOOD UP rather than one already running.

**Scope → child args mapping:**

| Chosen scope             | `architecture-scalability-review`                             | `architecture-review`          | `production-readiness-review`                                               |
| ------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Whole project            | `mode=audit` over the whole repo                              | scope override `full codebase` | args = all backend service/API roots (per `project-structure-reference.md`) |
| Current changes (diff)   | `mode=audit` focused on the services/modules the diff touches | default uncommitted diff       | default uncommitted service/API diff                                        |
| Specific path            | `mode=audit` scoped to that path's services/modules           | scope override = that path     | that path's service/API files                                               |
| New / greenfield foundation | **`mode=init`** over the planned/scaffolded structure      | scope override = the scaffold  | the scaffolded service/API entry points (record `N/A — <evidence>` for anything not yet built) |

> **[GREENFIELD SCOPE]** `mode=init` was previously unreachable through this orchestrator even though the child supports it, so a foundation being created could only be graded with the brownfield rubric. It also flips this skill's `SYNC:engineering-foundation-gate` authority from **advisory** to **BLOCKING** — you are choosing the foundation now, so a `MISSING-WARRANTED` dimension must be an explicit decision, not a silent default.

> **MUST ATTENTION — `architecture-scalability-review` always grades the PROJECT, even under diff scope.** A project-grader by design ("do not use as the every-change diff reviewer"). Under diff scope it still emits the `/20` scorecard, focused on the services/modules the diff touches — it never degrades into a pure per-line diff reviewer. Document this nuance in the consolidated report so its scorecard is read as a project posture, not a diff verdict.

## Step 2: Load Project Reference Docs Once

Warm shared context BEFORE fan-out so synthesis reasons from the same ground truth the children use. Read once here (each child re-reads what it needs via its own tool calls):

- `docs/project-config.json`
- `docs/project-reference/project-structure-reference.md`
- `docs/project-reference/backend-patterns-reference.md`
- `docs/project-reference/frontend-patterns-reference.md`
- `docs/project-reference/code-review-rules.md`
- Accepted ADRs under `docs/adr/**`, when present

## Step 3: Parallel Fan-Out (ALL-RETURN BARRIER)

Spawn ALL THREE sub-agents in ONE message. Read-only and independent — no shared mutable state, no ordering dependency. Advance ONLY after EVERY member returns (`SYNC:parallel-phase-advancement`).

Each sub-agent writes its FULL report to `plans/reports/` and returns ONLY the `SYNC:subagent-return-contract` summary (≤10 finding bullets + report path) — NEVER its full report inline.

| #   | Child skill                       | `subagent_type` | Whole-project args                                                   | Diff-scope args                                                                | Emits                             |
| --- | --------------------------------- | --------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------- |
| 1   | `architecture-scalability-review` | `architect`     | `mode=audit` over whole repo                                         | `mode=audit` focused on the diff's services/modules (still grades the project) | Scorecard `/20` + pass/fail gates |
| 2   | `architecture-review`             | `architect`     | scope override `full codebase`                                       | default uncommitted diff                                                       | 13-category PASS/WARN/BLOCKED     |
| 3   | `production-readiness-review`     | `code-reviewer` | all backend service/API roots (per `project-structure-reference.md`) | default uncommitted service/API diff                                           | SRE `/24` + 8-item gate           |

Each sub-agent prompt states: READ-ONLY findings/score mode (no fixes); re-read all target files from scratch via its own tool calls; write full report incrementally to `plans/reports/`; return only the return-contract summary.

**Each of the three faces feeds TWO validation gates downstream — state this in each sub-agent's prompt so it knows its findings will be adversarially validated, not trusted as-is:** (1) the Step 5 fix-report-per-review `/why-review` gate that walks its face and fixes its findings in the consolidated report; (2) inside `workflow-architecture-audit`, the workflow-level FINAL `/why-review` gate that re-reviews the whole finalized report. A face's findings are hypotheses until they survive both — so every finding it emits MUST carry `file:line` proof + confidence that can withstand validation.

## Step 4: Progressive Synthesis → One Report (status `IN PROGRESS`)

Exactly ONE report file for the whole audit — created ONCE, grown across Steps 4→6, never re-created per review. Open it when fan-out starts and evolve its status through its lifecycle: `🚧 IN PROGRESS` (Step 4) → `🔍 VALIDATING` (Step 5) → `✅ FINISHED` (Step 6).

Write to `plans/reports/architecture-full-review-{YYMMDD}-{HHmm}-{slug}.md`.

**On fan-out start — create the file with status `🚧 IN PROGRESS`** and a status line naming which of the three review faces have returned so far (e.g. `Faces merged: 0/3`). The single source of truth the whole audit synthesizes into — do NOT hold findings in memory until the end.

**Header — all three sub-scores + ONE combined verdict** (each sub-score is `⏳ pending` until its face returns):

- Scalability Scorecard: `X/20` + verdict (STRONG / NEEDS WORK / HIGH RISK)
- Architecture Compliance: PASS / WARN / BLOCKED
- SRE Readiness: `X/24` + verdict (PASS / NEEDS WORK / NOT READY)
- Testability & Verification Contract: `TVC: PASS | PARTIAL | BLOCKED` or `N/A — evidence`, copied from the child contract result; this is non-scoring and not a fourth review face.
- **Combined Verdict:** `⏳ pending until FINISHED` — computed in Step 6 as the worst-case rollup across the three (any BLOCKED / NOT READY / HIGH RISK dominates). Do NOT assert a combined verdict while status is `IN PROGRESS`.

**Merge each face AS it returns.** All three run behind the Step 3 all-return barrier, so all three summaries are in hand before synthesis — but merge them into the file one face at a time (updating `Faces merged: N/3` each time) so a mid-synthesis context loss leaves the partial report on disk, not in memory. When ≥2 children report the same underlying issue, record it ONCE, citing every source. Dedup on these KNOWN overlap axes (the siblings cross-reference each other here by design):

| Overlap axis                                                            | `architecture-review` face                            | Sibling face(s)                                                                               |
| ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Module isolation / loose coupling / horizontal scaling / DRY regression | Category 11 (scalability & coupling regression)       | `architecture-scalability-review` {module isolation, loose coupling, horizontal scaling, DRY} |
| Quality tooling / CI / observability                                    | Category 0 (quality-tooling baseline)                 | `architecture-scalability-review` {Build & CI, Observability}                                 |
| Recorded-decision / clean-architecture conformance                      | Category 9 (ADR conformance)                          | `architecture-scalability-review` {clean architecture}                                        |
| DB performance / capacity ceilings                                      | `production-readiness-review` DB-perf + capacity gate | `architecture-scalability-review` {horizontal scaling}                                        |
| Technique applicability (advisory) — scale-tier technique matrix         | Category 11 INFO advisory matrix                      | `architecture-scalability-review` + `production-readiness-review` advisory matrices           |
| Scenario stress (advisory) — big-traffic/big-data/failure/self-heal      | Category 11 INFO scenario-stress matrix               | `architecture-scalability-review` + `production-readiness-review` scenario-stress matrices     |
| Data / consistency / tenancy — dual write, idempotency, breaking migration, tenant isolation | Category 12 (data, consistency & tenancy boundaries) | `production-readiness-review` {migration safety, rollback}; `security-review` owns authz depth; `performance-review` owns query-plan depth |

**Merged Testability & Verification Contract (non-scoring):** Copy the `TVC` status and evidence from the `architecture-scalability-review` child into the consolidated report, then retain the architecture-design/scaffold/harness owner links rather than re-deriving the contract. Use `UNVERIFIED — child result absent` when the child did not emit it; never infer PASS, especially for E2E.

| Tier | Applicability + evidence | Owner | Runner/config/root | Data + run identity | Full command | Focused/partial command | Zero-match behavior | CI / simple-Windows entry point | Repeat proof |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Unit | `APPLICABLE` / `N/A — {evidence}` | {owner} | {runner/config/root} | {identity + fixture policy} | `{command}` | `{filter}` | `{non-zero behavior}` | {CI / command} | `{result or planned owner}` |
| Integration/System | `APPLICABLE` / `N/A — {evidence}` | {owner} | {runner/config/root} | {identity + additive/public-path policy} | `{command}` | `{filter}` | `{non-zero behavior}` | {CI / command} | `{two no-reset runs}` |
| E2E | `APPLICABLE` / `N/A — {evidence}` | {owner} | {runner/config/root} | {identity + reachable-data policy} | `{command}` | `{filter}` | `{non-zero behavior}` | {CI / command} | `{result or evidence-backed N/A}` |

This roll-up is a status/evidence section only: it is not a fourth sub-score and never changes the three child scores or the combined-verdict calculation. A blocked contract remains an explicit setup follow-up.

For each merged finding: assign ONE severity per `SYNC:severity-rubric` (do not sum severities across duplicate reports), cite each reporting child's `file:line`, and PRESERVE each child's route-to-sibling pointers. — why: undeduped, three intentionally-cross-referencing reviewers inflate severity counts and bury distinct issues.

**Merged advisory Technique Applicability Matrix (does NOT change the combined verdict):** all three children emit a scale-tier Technique Applicability Matrix from `SYNC:scale-technique-gate`; dedup the three views of the same technique onto ONE advisory matrix in the consolidated report. **Pin ONE authoritative scale tier for the merged matrix — `architecture-scalability-review`'s derived tier is canonical (owns scalability grading); if another child's derived tier DIVERGES, record the divergence as a one-line note and key the merged matrix's `tier-warranted?` column to the pinned tier, rather than merging contradictory warranted-sets.** This only SELECTS which already-derived tier the matrix is keyed to — it does NOT re-derive any child's findings (respecting "you do not re-derive them" above). It is **advisory/INFO only** — a `MISSING-WARRANTED` technique is guidance, never a severity, and NEVER feeds the worst-case combined-verdict rollup. This orchestrator adds no own gate marker; the matrix is inherited from the children.

**Merged advisory Scenario Stress Matrix (does NOT change the combined verdict):** the same three children each emit a Scenario Stress Matrix from `SYNC:scenario-stress-eval` (top-down: big-traffic / big-data / dependency-failure / node-loss / data-corruption / self-heal survival vs. business need). Dedup the three views of the same scenario onto ONE advisory matrix in the consolidated report, exactly as for the technique matrix. **Pin ONE authoritative scale tier AND business-criticality read — `architecture-scalability-review`'s derived `T`-tier + `B`-tier is canonical (owns scalability grading); if another child's derived tier/criticality DIVERGES, record it as a one-line note and key the merged matrix to the pinned values, rather than merging contradictory in-scope sets.** This only SELECTS which already-derived tier/criticality the matrix is keyed to — it does NOT re-derive any child's scenario findings. It is **advisory/INFO only** — a `FAILS-HARD` or `OVER-HARDENED` scenario is guidance, never a severity, and NEVER feeds the worst-case combined-verdict rollup. The criticality-signal floor and anti-over-engineering guard live in the children's matrices; this orchestrator adds no own gate marker and inherits the matrix from the children.

**Completeness lens over the merged set (orchestrator-only — the children cannot see across faces).** Once `Faces merged: 3/3`, sweep the merged report against the design-review script in `.claude/docs/architecture-knowledge.md` §20.2 and record any question NO face answered as an explicit `Coverage gap: {question} — not covered by any face` line. Frame each remaining risk against the five judgments in §20.4 — *when to add complexity · when to split · when consistency can be relaxed · when to buy vs build · when GOOD ENOUGH is correct* — so the consolidated report tells the reader which JUDGMENT is at stake, not only which rule was broken. A coverage gap is an INFO note, never a severity, and NEVER feeds the combined-verdict rollup. — why: three scoped reviewers each correctly stay in lane, so a question that belongs to no lane is invisible to every one of them and only this orchestrator can see it.

**Self-audit the merged report (MANDATORY before Step 5):** run the 11 thinking red flags in §20.3 across the merged findings — especially **a recommendation whose SACRIFICE is unnamed**, **"best practice" with no named forces**, and **a scale claim with no evidence**. Any hit is demoted or removed here, not passed to `/why-review` as ground truth. — why: the orchestrator's synthesis is where three children's confirmation biases compound into one authoritative-sounding report.

Step 4 ends only when `Faces merged: 3/3` — all three sub-scores are populated, the non-scoring TVC status is copied (or explicitly marked `UNVERIFIED`), the §20.2 coverage sweep is recorded, and every finding is on disk.

## Step 5: Fix-Report-Per-Review `/why-review` Gate (status `VALIDATING`) — MANDATORY when findings exist

Flip the report status to `🔍 VALIDATING`, then run ONE merged `/why-review` pass that WALKS EACH of the three review faces (one merged pass, NOT three per-face passes — a single invocation is strictly more thorough because it also validates the cross-face dedup separate per-face passes cannot see). The "fix report after each review" gate: every face's findings are validated, the report fixed IN PLACE.

1. Read the consolidated report from `plans/reports/architecture-full-review-{date}-{slug}.md`.
2. Invoke `/why-review` with: `validate findings in {report-path} — WALK EACH review face (architecture-scalability-review, architecture-review, production-readiness-review) in turn: for each face verify every finding it contributed has file:line proof and a correctly-classified severity, steel-man each rejected interpretation; THEN validate the cross-face dedup did not drop or merge-away a distinct issue`.
3. `/why-review` demotes/removes any finding → FIX the report in place: revise severities, remove false positives, restore any distinct issue the dedup wrongly collapsed, and add a `## Why-Review Fix Notes` section listing per-face what changed + why.
4. `/why-review` confirms all findings → append `## Why-Review Validation` stating "All N merged findings re-validated across 3 faces; no severity changes."

Skip ONLY on an unconditional zero-finding PASS across all three children (log the skip reason, then proceed to Step 6 to finalize the clean PASS).

## Step 6: Finalize (status `FINISHED`)

The report is now validated — lock it and hand off a stable artifact.

1. Compute the **Combined Verdict** as the worst-case rollup across the three now-validated sub-scores (any BLOCKED / NOT READY / HIGH RISK dominates); write it into the header, replacing the `⏳ pending` placeholder.
2. Flip the report status from `🔍 VALIDATING` to `✅ FINISHED` and append a `## Finalization` block: the three sub-scores, the non-scoring TVC status/source, the combined verdict, the total validated finding count by severity, and the `Faces merged: 3/3` confirmation.
3. This finalized report is the single deliverable the downstream workflow-level `/why-review` step and `docs-update` consume. Do NOT emit a second report file or re-synthesize — one file, finalized once.

> **Two-tier validation (why this skill runs `/why-review` AND the workflow adds a `why-review` step):** Step 5 here is the FINDING-level, per-face fix that also protects standalone use of this skill. The workflow-level `why-review` step that follows is the REPORT-level final gate over the finalized artifact (verdict-rollup correctness, dedup completeness, cross-review severity consistency) and the machine-visible guarantee in the rendered sequence. Distinct altitudes; do not collapse one into the other.

## Next Steps

**MANDATORY — NO EXCEPTIONS:** After completing, use `AskUserQuestion` to present:

- **"/plan (fix validated findings)" (Recommended)** — plan the fixes for the validated findings (fixes happen in the downstream plan/feature flow, NOT here).
- **"/linter-setup → /harness-setup"** — stand up (or complete) the mechanical quality harness. **Offer this FIRST whenever the `SYNC:engineering-foundation-gate` matrix marks F7 (mechanical harness) or F4 (test-strength proof) `MISSING-WARRANTED` or `PARTIAL-WITH-PATH`.**
- **"/code-simplifier"** — simplify and refine implicated code.
- **"Skip, continue manually"** — user decides.

> **[BROWNFIELD HARNESS ROUTE — the gap this closes]** `linter-setup` and `harness-setup` both handle an EXISTING project (they inventory what is already there before proposing anything), yet the workflow catalog wired them into greenfield init ALONE — so an audit of a grown codebase could report "no quality harness" with no route to fix it. This skill is the brownfield entry point, so the route belongs here. Apply the gate's **ratchet** rule when recommending: on an existing codebase, fail-on-NEW while tolerating the current baseline is `PRESENT`, not a half-measure — it stops regression from day one without demanding a cleanup nobody has budget for.

> **Read-only until validated.** This skill produces findings and a verdict only. Applies NO fixes — every validated finding routes to a downstream `/plan` or feature-implementation flow that owns the change.

> **[IMPORTANT]** Use `TaskCreate` to break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting. For simple tasks, ask the user whether to skip.

> **External Memory:** Complex/lengthy work → write intermediate findings + final results to `plans/reports/` — prevents context loss, serves as deliverable.

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

<!-- 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 | `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.

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

<!-- SYNC:subagent-return-contract -->

> **Sub-Agent Return Contract** — When this skill spawns a sub-agent, the sub-agent MUST return ONLY the structured envelope below. Main agent reads the envelope first, then opens the referenced report for synthesis, acceptance, deduplication, or repair planning; a full report is never pasted inline.
>
> ```markdown
> ## Sub-Agent Result: [skill-name]
>
> Status: ✅ PASS | ⚠️ PARTIAL | ❌ FAIL
> Confidence: [0-100]%
> Run ID: [stable run identifier]
> Task ID: [parent task or phase identifier]
> Attempt ID: [monotonic attempt/revision identifier]
> Target: [exact files/paths or scope] @ [target fingerprint/commit]
> Changed paths: [none | exact paths]
> Finding totals: Critical=[n] | High=[n] | Medium=[n] | Low=[n]
> Acceptance: PENDING | ACCEPTED | REJECTED — parent records the decision
>
> ### Findings (Critical/High surfaced — max 10 bullets)
>
> - [severity] [file:line] [finding]
>
> ### Gaps / Unverified
>
> - [missing host, runtime, coverage, or evidence limitation]
>
> ### Actions Taken
>
> - [file changed] [what changed]
>
> ### Blockers (if any)
>
> - [blocker description, or `none`]
>
> Full report: plans/reports/[skill-name]-[date]-[slug].md
> ```
>
> The ten-bullet limit is a transport limit, not a visibility limit: the full report may contain more than ten Medium/Low findings when no named blocker exists, and the parent MUST read it when synthesizing or deduplicating. The parent MUST reject a stale, duplicate, or superseded `Attempt ID` and MUST accept the current attempt before advancing a dependent step. Read-only leaves write repair proposals/reports only; they do not edit source, generated carriers, or user files.
>
> **Context budget** — the return payload is a SUMMARY, not a transcript: no raw file contents / full diffs / verbatim logs inline, no re-pasted source. Everything beyond the envelope lives in the incrementally-written report. A sub-agent that would exceed the summary shape MUST persist the detail and return only the pointer; bounded transport must never become bounded visibility.

<!-- /SYNC:subagent-return-contract -->

<!-- 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 (static JIT)** — Run after task-tracking bootstrap and immediately before target/source file reads, grep, edits, tests, or analysis. Project docs override generic framework assumptions; hooks may remind or accelerate this gate, but never prove that it ran.
>
> 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: ...`. After compaction, resume, delegation, or a material context change, repeat the route and restate the set; prior conversation and hook output are not proof of current loading.
>
> **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: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:evidence-based-reasoning -->

> **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`) `- [ ]` 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: [...]."`

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

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

> **Validated-Finding Fix + Full Re-Review Loop** — Re-review is triggered by a validated finding fix cycle or an explicitly declared independent-pass minimum, not by a round number alone. Review purpose: `review → validate findings → fix validated findings that block the current round → full re-review` until a complete review pass clears the round's exit bar (see **Severity floor** below). **A clean review ENDS the loop once the persisted `minRounds` is met (default 1); an explicitly declared minimum such as 2 still requires that independent pass.**
>
> _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 the current round's exit bar is clear (round 1: zero findings; round 2+: zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, LOW deferred), bounded by the **3-round ceiling** below.
>
> **Round cap — 3 rounds MAX (a ceiling, NEVER a target).** A clean pass ENDS the loop at ANY round once `round >= minRounds` — round 1 included with the default minimum; the cap never obliges extra rounds. 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 2, LOW stops blocking.** The exit bar tightens after the first review pass, so the loop converges on consequence instead of spinning on polish:

> Define one predicate everywhere: `blocking_findings(round, findings)` returns all validated findings in round 1 and only validated CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM findings in rounds 2–3. A binary gate (test-green, security must-fix, required artifact) is exempt only when its owning invariant explicitly says so; in practice binary gates always remain blocking when they fail.
>
> | Round | Exit bar — loop ENDS when the fresh full review has… | Must be fixed to continue |
> | --- | --- | --- |
> | 1 | zero validated findings at ANY severity | CRITICAL · HIGH · MEDIUM · LOW |
> | 2–3 | zero validated CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM findings — **LOW-only clears the severity bar** | CRITICAL · HIGH · MEDIUM only |
>
> From round 2 onward LOW findings are **NOT required to be fixed**: a round whose validated findings are ALL LOW **ENDS the loop once the persisted minimum is met** — do not open another fix/re-review round for them. Severity tiers are `SYNC:severity-rubric` (CRITICAL block-merge · HIGH must-fix · MEDIUM must clear the current round · LOW record/defer); round 1 remains strict, so a LOW found initially is still validated and fixed when warranted before the floor can apply.
>
> **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 ≥2)` 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 if `round >= minRounds`; otherwise perform the explicitly required independent pass. Do NOT invent a confirmation pass.
> - **`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 that block the current round, 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 and persisted minimum met → END; blocking findings remain → validate findings → fix → restart from the first review phase. Round 1 clears only on zero findings at any severity; **from round 2 the bar is zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, so a LOW-only round ENDS the loop once the persisted minimum is met** (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 when `minRounds=1`; an explicitly declared `minRounds=2` requires the independent second pass
> - From round 2 on, a round whose validated findings are ALL LOW ENDS the loop once the persisted minimum is met — 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-2 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 once the persisted minimum is met, 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
> - Persist completed rounds, repeated blockers, findings and the explicit minimum in the owning run's `review-policy.cjs` record. Resume that record after interruption; target changes invalidate evidence and acceptance but preserve the bounded round budget. In-flight attempt IDs may be session-local; they do not replace or reset completed-round state
> - 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 ≥2)` whenever the loop ended on the round-2+ 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. A report-only/read-only reviewer never edits source, generated output, or user data: it validates and records the finding/repair handoff, then returns to the caller, which owns the fix and any re-review.
>
> **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:** After a validated-finding fix cycle, or to satisfy an explicitly declared independent-pass `minRounds`. A review round that finds zero issues ENDS the loop once that persisted minimum is met — do NOT invent 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 AND the persisted `minRounds` is met (no fixes or required independent pass = 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`: **round 1** → zero findings at any severity; **round 2+** → zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, so a round whose validated findings are ALL LOW ENDS the loop once the persisted minimum is met (list those LOWs as deferred instead of spawning another round). If the same validated blocker repeats across 2 full invocations with no progress, escalate via `AskUserQuestion`. **Read-only/report-only role boundary:** when this block is carried by a security auditor or another report-only role, “fix” means return the validated repair proposal to the parent; do not modify source, generated carriers, or user data and do not restart the review locally.
> - Persist completed rounds, repeated blockers, findings and the explicit minimum in the owning run's `review-policy.cjs` record. Resume that record after interruption; target changes invalidate evidence and acceptance but preserve the bounded round budget. In-flight attempt IDs may be session-local; they do not replace or reset completed-round state

<!-- /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 every finding by consequence using `SYNC:severity-rubric` (never by effort): CRITICAL = immediate material security/safety/data-loss risk or failed binary gate → block; HIGH = material correctness, contract, privacy, or authority risk → must fix; MEDIUM = bounded consequential edge/resilience/maintainability gap → must clear the current round, or escalate with an explicit residual-risk follow-up that does not create a clean pass; LOW = non-blocking polish with no credible present impact → record/defer from round 2; `NOT VERIFIABLE` is unresolved evidence, not LOW.

### 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: Recommend extraction when 3+ similar patterns exist OR an evidenced consumer boundary/substitution need justifies it; do not create patterns for hypothetical future use.
6. Purpose-oriented naming: Name public or cross-layer abstractions by the capability, domain purpose, or contract consumers rely on—not the current provider, SDK, framework, database, or transport. `IStorage`/`Storage` → `AzureBlobStorage`; use `IAzureStorage` only when Azure-specific semantics are intentionally part of the contract.
7. Contract-fit check: Read callers and every implementation before judging a name; narrow an over-broad abstraction (`IObjectStore`, `DocumentStore`) instead of rewarding a generic name that lies about behavior.
8. Mechanism/generic-name smell: Treat `Manager`, `Helper`, `Utils`, `Data`, `Thing`, `Service`, `Interface`, type decorations, and unexplained abbreviations as review signals—not automatic defects; flag them only when they hide purpose, scope, or responsibility.
9. Concrete implementation names: Provider, strategy, transport, or test-double names are valid on concrete types when they distinguish real behavior (`AzureBlobStorage`, `InMemoryStorage`, `RetryingStorage`); keep those details out of the caller-facing contract unless the contract promises them.
10. Language convention: Preserve local interface syntax and naming style; `.NET` `I` prefixes and Google TypeScript's unmarked interfaces are both valid local conventions.
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: 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: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: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:severity-rubric -->

> **Severity Rubric** — Classify every finding by consequence, not by effort, reviewer preference, or how annoying the fix is. One scale applies to every review, skill, agent, workflow, and host so a tier has the same meaning everywhere. Choose the highest credible consequence supported by evidence; do not lower a tier to make a round pass.
>
> **Finding vs observation (required):** An observation becomes a finding only when it names the affected user/system/data/contract, the shipped consequence, the evidence location, and the normalized tier. `INFO`, advice, preference, duplicate wording, or an unsubstantiated concern is not a finding and must not reopen a loop. If the concern might affect a required behavior or gate but evidence is incomplete, emit `NOT VERIFIABLE` with the missing evidence and keep it unresolved; never silently convert uncertainty into LOW.
>
> | Severity | Action | Definition and examples |
> | --- | --- | --- |
> | CRITICAL | Block immediately; escalate | Immediate material risk if shipped: authentication/authorization or safety bypass; secrets/PII exposure; irreversible destructive action; data loss/corruption; or a silent failure on a critical path. A failed binary gate that makes the result untrustworthy is represented as a separate synthetic blocker by the executable policy (not as an ordinary severity judgment). |
> | HIGH | Must fix before PASS/merge | Material correctness or contract risk: wrong behavior on a supported path; violated business/data invariant; meaningful privacy or authority gap; breaking API/schema/compatibility change; likely harm to users/downstream systems; or a missing proof for a behavior-changing fix. |
> | MEDIUM | Must clear the current round; escalate if the fix needs an owner decision | Bounded but consequential risk: an edge case, resilience/observability/testability/maintainability gap, credible future defect, or local architectural drift whose impact is real but not immediate material loss. An explicit follow-up records the escalation/residual risk; it does not make an open MEDIUM a clean pass. |
> | LOW | Record and defer; never open another fix/re-review round from round 2 onward | Non-blocking polish with no credible present correctness, security, privacy, authority, availability, or data-integrity impact: wording/formatting, minor documentation or convention drift, optional defensive cleanup, or a cosmetic/refinement suggestion. |
>
> **Consequence decision tree (apply in order):** (1) Is a binary gate failed? Keep it as a separate hard blocker (the executable helper represents it as synthetic CRITICAL); do not use the ordinary severity label to hide what failed. Otherwise, would shipping permit immediate material security/safety/authority harm, irreversible destruction, data loss/corruption, or a critical-path silent failure? → **CRITICAL**. (2) Otherwise, does a supported path, invariant, public contract, privacy/authority boundary, compatibility promise, or behavior-changing proof fail with material user/downstream impact? → **HIGH**. (3) Otherwise, is there a bounded but consequential edge, resilience, observability, testability, maintainability, or architectural gap with a credible impact? → **MEDIUM**. (4) Otherwise, is the evidence sufficient to show only non-blocking polish with no credible present material impact? → **LOW**. (5) If the evidence needed to choose between steps 1–4 is missing, → **NOT VERIFIABLE**, not LOW. When multiple tiers fit, select the highest credible consequence; effort, implementation cost, reviewer discomfort, frequency alone, and proximity to the round cap never decide the tier.
>
> **Boundary examples (normalize before applying the round predicate):** an auth bypass, exposed secret/PII, destructive command without an authority gate, or failed required test/generation/parity gate is **CRITICAL**; a wrong supported response, broken invariant/API/schema, meaningful privacy/authority defect, or unproven behavior-changing fix is **HIGH**; a bounded retry/timeout/alert/testability gap or credible maintainability drift is **MEDIUM**; a typo, formatting inconsistency, optional cleanup, or cosmetic suggestion proven not to affect present behavior is **LOW**. A missing fact about any of those boundaries is **NOT VERIFIABLE** until evidence or an explicitly documented residual-risk decision exists.
>
> **Classification procedure (required for every finding):** (1) state the affected user, system, data, contract, or gate; (2) assess consequence if the issue ships; (3) assess exposure/likelihood and reversibility/detectability; (4) select the highest tier justified by those facts; (5) cite `file:line` or equivalent evidence and a confidence percentage. Effort, implementation cost, reviewer discomfort, and proximity to the round cap are never severity inputs. `NOT VERIFIABLE` is a pending evidence state, not one of the four tiers and never a LOW escape hatch: if the unresolved claim could affect required behavior, security, privacy, authority, availability, data integrity, or a binary gate, it remains an open evidence blocker until resolved or explicitly owner-accepted with documented residual risk. Classify an item LOW only when evidence supports the absence of credible present material impact.
>
> **Hard-gate rule:** Binary gates (tests, required artifacts, security must-fix checks, generated parity, policy compliance) are not ordinary severity-rated findings. The executable helper records a failed gate as a synthetic CRITICAL blocker solely so one predicate can carry it; the report must still name the gate and failure evidence. A failed gate blocks at every round, including when all ordinary findings are LOW; never disguise a failed gate as LOW.
>
> **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 readiness), `1` = MEDIUM (partial, consequential gap), `2` = pass (no finding). If the criterion is only polish, use LOW rather than forcing a `0`.
> - **Two-axis scoring** (e.g. performance-review, impact × likelihood): high impact + high exposure → CRITICAL/HIGH; material impact with bounded exposure → HIGH/MEDIUM; low impact and low exposure → LOW. Record the axes and why the selected tier is the highest credible consequence.
> - **Scorecards / `/20` grades** (e.g. architecture-scalability-review): the aggregate score and verdict band are separate from finding severity. A sub-80 area is evidence to investigate, not an automatic CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW label; classify each underlying gap by the consequence decision tree and keep advisory score deductions separate from blocking findings.
>
> **Domain-vocabulary normalization (mandatory):** Specialized skills may keep a local reporting vocabulary, but it MUST feed this same four-tier round predicate — never a second severity system:
>
> - `BLOCKED`, `HARD FAIL`, or `FAIL` is a blocking local verdict, not an automatic CRITICAL label. Classify the underlying consequence as CRITICAL when it is an immediate material risk or failed binary gate; otherwise classify it as HIGH or MEDIUM with evidence, while preserving the local block until the owning gate is satisfied.
> - `WARN` is not permission to ignore a finding. Map it to MEDIUM when the gap is consequential, to LOW only when evidence supports no credible present material impact, or upward to HIGH/CRITICAL when the consequence warrants it. `PASS`/compliant is not a finding.
> - UI `P0`/`P1`/`P2`/`P3`/`P4` map to CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/LOW respectively as a starting point; override upward only when the evidence shows a higher shipped consequence. A P0/P1 accessibility or task-completion floor remains a blocking gate even when a local UI report calls it a priority rather than a severity.
> - Numeric SRE/readiness or impact/likelihood scores are evidence inputs, not replacement tiers. Emit the score, the consequence, and the normalized CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW tier together. `INFO`/advisory observations are not findings unless the evidence shows a material consequence.
>
> A finding's tier drives the gate: CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM remain actionable and blocking under the round policy; LOW may be tracked as a follow-up and, from round 2, does not by itself justify another fix/re-review. An owner decision may explain or schedule an open MEDIUM but does not turn it into a clean pass; owner acceptance never makes a failed binary gate pass and must record scope, rationale, and residual risk.

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


<!-- 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?
> - **Boundary naming:** When the category exposes public or cross-layer types, APIs, events, or modules, verify that names describe the capability, domain purpose, or contract rather than the current provider/framework/transport; concrete adapters may carry those details. Check callers and implementations before flagging a name, and treat generic names (`Manager`, `Helper`, `Utils`, `Data`) as signals rather than automatic violations.
> - **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: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:test-architecture-execution-contract -->

> **Test Architecture & Execution Contract** — Treat testability as a setup/architecture acceptance condition. For every potentially applicable tier — Unit, Integration/System, E2E, and Performance/Scale (warranted at `T1+`/`B2+`) — record `APPLICABLE` only with evidence of its runner/framework/configuration; otherwise record `N/A — <evidence>` and never fabricate coverage.
>
> 1. **Matrix before implementation:** Record applicability, owner, runner/framework, test root, fixture/data strategy, full command, focused/partial command, zero-match behavior, CI gate, a simple/Windows entry point (a `.cmd` when the project needs one), the **host-mode AND container-mode commands** where the project supports both, and the **environment reach** (which of local / CI / production-shaped this tier can target).
> 2. **Runnable scopes:** Full and focused commands must be copy-ready, fail on invalid or zero-match selections, report exact counts and exit status, and be safe to repeat. E2E uses only configured browser/service commands.
> 3. **Fresh valid state:** Each run/test owns a unique run identity and business-data suffix, arranges through supported public paths, and uses realistic valid data. Reference setup is count-before-create, idempotent, and restart-safe. Intentional accumulation is additive, keyed, and integrity-checked; never hide contamination with destructive reset.
>    Run-scoped cleanup, when supported, is opt-in and idempotent: after evidence capture it may remove only ephemeral resources owned by the current run; it must never delete persistent/additive data or another run's data, reset shared state, or replace no-reset proof.
> 4. **Isolation and fidelity:** Isolate mutable roots and parallel workers; share only immutable/reference data. Preserve real actor pacing and observable arrange barriers. Do not widen retries or weaken assertions to make a scenario pass.
> 5. **Evidence gate:** Report command, scope, identity, seed/accumulation mode, exact result, and repeat proof. For each applicable persistent-state suite, require two consecutive no-reset full runs. Treat line coverage as diagnostic only; use meaningful property/invariant, mutation, change, and behavior coverage signals.
> 6. **Execution modes and environment reach:** A tier claiming two run modes must have **BOTH exercised** — the bare-host command and the fully-containerized command, driven from ONE source of truth for config and topology; record which mode CI exercises, because an unexercised mode rots silently and a claimed-but-rotten mode is worse than one never claimed. The SAME suite must reach local, CI and (where warranted) a production-shaped target, **parameterized by configuration, never by forked test code** — only one fork ever stays maintained, so forking guarantees divergence. A target lacking a required capability reports `ENVIRONMENT-BLOCKED`, never a silent pass. Tests unsafe against production are excluded by an **ENFORCED** mechanism whose absence fails loudly, not by a convention someone must remember; *"runs in prod"* means a safe, declared, **NON-MUTATING** subset. Reproducibility underwrites all of it — pinned toolchain, locked dependencies, declared external prerequisites — which is the difference between a suite that passes anywhere and one that passes on its author's machine. Depth → `SYNC:engineering-foundation-gate` **F1/F2/F3**.
>
> **Ownership:** Architecture/harness defines the matrix; scaffold/workflow makes it runnable; test writers implement tier-specific cases; reviewers verify the contract; the runner reports; seed-data owners preserve uniqueness, idempotency, realism, and accumulation integrity. Missing required evidence blocks setup completion.

<!-- /SYNC:test-architecture-execution-contract -->

<!-- SYNC:engineering-foundation-gate -->

> **Engineering Foundation Gate** — CONDITIONAL, evidence-gated, profile-tiered. Judges the PROJECT'S ENGINEERING FOUNDATION: _can this team build, run, test and change the system safely — anywhere, repeatably, as it grows?_ Its companions judge the running system's DESIGN (`scale-technique-gate`: is technique X present? · `scenario-stress-eval`: does it survive scenario Y?) — a system can score perfectly on both while nobody but its author can build it. **State OUTCOMES, never tools:** detect the stack, research the current ecosystem, present 2–3 options, the user decides, record the decision — best practice turns over, the outcome does not.
>
> 1. **Derive the project profile FIRST — from evidence, never assumed.** `Lifecycle` **G** greenfield (foundation being created) / **B** brownfield (foundation exists, under audit) · scale `T0`–`T3` (**reuse** `scale-technique-catalog.md`, never re-derive) · criticality `B0`–`B3` with its criticality-signal floor (**reuse** `scenario-stress-catalog.md`) · repo shape `R0` single module / `R1` few (2–5) / `R2` many modules, multi-team / `R3` monorepo estate · runtime surface. Cite `file:line`/config/CI + confidence. Unknown axis → state the assumption and take the **LOWER** tier; NEVER default to `T3`/`B3`/`R3` — an over-stated profile turns this gate into busywork a small team correctly ignores.
> 2. **Judge all 7 dimensions — always all 7, never a filtered subset** (an omitted row is indistinguishable from an overlooked one). Depth belongs to the named owner; this gate decides only present/absent:
>    - **F1 Reproducible environment** (ALL profiles — the floor) — one documented path takes a clean machine to a running system; toolchain versions pinned; dependencies locked to exact versions; every external prerequisite declared with a way to obtain or fake it; config environment-injected, never machine-implicit; build deterministic. This is what kills _"works on my machine"_ — not carelessness, but a build depending on ambient state nobody declared. → `scaffold` · `architecture-scalability-review`
>    - **F2 Dual execution modes** (`T1+`, multi-contributor, or containerized target; `B2+` regardless of scale) — the system runs on the **bare host** AND **fully containerized** from ONE source of truth for config and topology, and the suites run in BOTH directions (host-run against a containerized system, and wholly inside a container). Both modes **exercised**, so neither rots. Host mode buys a fast inner loop and a debugger; container mode buys CI/production parity and a trustworthy day one — a project with only one teaches people to work around it undocumented. A mode honestly dropped with a stated reason is `N/A`; the defect is the **claimed-but-rotten** mode. → `scaffold` · `devops` · `production-readiness-review`
>    - **F3 Environment-portable tests** (local+CI all profiles; production-shaped `T1+`/`B2+`) — the SAME suites run against local, CI and production-like targets, **parameterized by configuration, never by forked test code** (only one fork ever stays maintained, so forking guarantees divergence). Missing capability reports `ENVIRONMENT-BLOCKED` rather than silently passing; unsafe-in-production tests are excluded by an **enforced** mechanism whose absence fails loudly, not by a convention someone must remember. _"Runs in prod"_ means a safe, declared, **NON-MUTATING** subset. → `test-architecture-execution-contract` · `integration-test-review`
>    - **F4 Test-strength proof** (wherever tests exist) — evidence the suite **actually fails when the code is wrong**; a passing suite means nothing until it is known to be capable of failing for the right reason. Strongest available first: (a) **automated fault injection** scoped to CHANGED code — a surviving defect is a missing or vacuous assertion; gate on it where the ecosystem offers a workable tool. (b) **Deliberate defect-seeding drill — the universal fallback, needing no tooling and available in every ecosystem:** break the production code behind a top invariant, run the suite, record **WHICH NAMED TEST went red**, restore. Nothing went red ⇒ that behavior has no protection — write the killing test. (c) **Assertion-intent audit:** flag assertions that would still hold under an inverted implementation, that assert only non-nullness or a type, that re-assert the input, or that assert infrastructure bookkeeping instead of the outcome the system owns. **Line coverage is a DIAGNOSTIC, never a gate** — low coverage is a useful negative signal; high coverage is not evidence of quality, and gating on the percentage reliably produces tests written to touch lines rather than protect behavior. **Scope boundary — do NOT re-litigate a solved question:** this gate asks only whether the PROJECT HAS a test-strength mechanism wired into its harness at all; PER-CHANGE enforcement is already owned by `integration-test-review` Gate 1's Mutation Probe Ledger (tool path + manual fallback, ledger required either way). Report the setup gap here, the assertion gap there, never both. → `harness-setup` (sensor design) · `integration-test-review` (per-change enforcement)
>    - **F5 Performance & scale-under-data** (`T1+`/`B2+` for a real tier; `T0`/`B0` = one documented largest-expected-volume check) — performance **MEASURED by something that RUNS and CAN FAIL**, not reasoned about. The companion gates can be fully satisfied by a system that has never once been run against a large dataset; this is the executable counterpart. Requires: a runnable perf tier with a documented command (it belongs in the tier matrix); on-demand **realistic volume AND realistic shape** — distribution, cardinality, skew, not a million identical rows; **named latency/throughput/memory budgets the run ASSERTS** (a perf test that only reports numbers is a dashboard, and eventually nobody reads it); growth compared across **≥2 volumes ~10× apart**, because one data point cannot distinguish O(n) from O(n²); and resource exhaustion as a **tested, bounded** outcome — backpressure, paging or a clean error rather than an OOM kill, with unbounded result-sets, unbounded in-memory accumulation and unbounded concurrency provably absent or bounded on the paths that matter. State whether a number is a regression signal or a capacity statement. → `performance-review` · `seed-test-data`
>    - **F6 Build & change scalability** (`R1+` declared style + boundaries; `R2+` computable affected set, enforced checks, measured incrementality) — build/test cost and blast radius **do NOT grow with the codebase**. Every project is fast on day one; the foundation question is whether the tenth module costs what the second did. Requires: the affected module/sub-domain set is **COMPUTABLE** because inter-module dependencies are explicit and declared; incrementality and caching are real and **measured** (claimed caching that never hits is an invisible failure); boundaries enforced **MECHANICALLY**, since unenforced boundaries decay silently until the affected set is "everything"; a **declared** architecture style (modular monolith / clean / hexagonal / layered — which one matters far less than that one is declared, written down and enforced, because an undeclared style is indistinguishable from none after two years); implementation hidden behind abstraction so a technology swaps without touching business code (depth → `complexity-prevention`); and a fast scoped inner-loop check — if the only available check is the slow exhaustive one, that is the finding. **Scope boundary:** `architecture-scalability-review` **G2 Build & CI Scalability** already SCORES incremental/affected-only/caching/monorepo posture and **G4** scores boundary enforcement — where that review has run, cite its verdict rather than re-scoring; this gate only confirms the dimension was examined and is not silently absent. → `architecture-scalability-review` (G2/G4 depth) · `architecture-review` (diff-level boundary drift) · `complexity-prevention` (cost of change in the code itself)
>    - **F7 Mechanical quality harness** (format + lint + type/static analysis + build/test at ALL profiles; architecture-fitness `R1+`; dependency health + secret scanning wherever real data ships, unconditional at `B2+`; complexity/duplication + drift `R1+`/`T1+`) — no human reviewer spends attention on a defect class a machine could have caught; reviewer attention is the scarcest resource in the project. **Account for EVERY class or record it `N/A` with a reason** — an unlisted class is an unexamined one: formatting · lint/correctness · type & static analysis · complexity & duplication · **executable architecture-fitness** · dependency vulnerability & license · secret scanning · build/test gates plus the **F4** signal · documentation/config drift. Local and CI must run the **SAME** command, configuration and version (divergence means CI failures nobody can reproduce); checks must **ENFORCE**, not warn (an unread warning stream is not a harness); strictest reasonable defaults, loosened only with a recorded reason, since a large silent suppression list is itself a finding; cheap checks first, expensive last. Brownfield adoption uses a **ratchet** — fail on NEW violations, tolerate the existing baseline — which counts as `PRESENT`, not partial, because it stops regression from day one. → `linter-setup` · `harness-setup` · `security-review`
> 3. **Assign one verdict per dimension:** `PRESENT` (achieved and proven by cited evidence) · `MISSING-WARRANTED` · `PARTIAL-WITH-PATH` (gap named + concrete incremental step) · `N/A-by-profile` (below the warranting profile — **a correctly-lean project is a PASS here, never a gap; never report it as a deficiency**) · `OVER-ENGINEERED` (present but unwarranted → advise AGAINST, name the carrying cost) · `UNVERIFIED` (could not be checked — say so honestly; **NEVER score an unverified dimension `PRESENT`**).
> 4. **Authority is context-split — the one place this gate differs from its two companions.** **CREATING** a foundation (greenfield init, scaffold, a plan standing up build/test/CI) → a `MISSING-WARRANTED` dimension is **BLOCKING**: you are choosing the foundation right now, so omitting a warranted one must be an explicit decision, not a silent default. **AUDITING** an existing foundation (brownfield review, architecture audit, changes review) → **ADVISORY ONLY**: emit the matrix plus a prioritized adoption path and **NEVER mutate any score, `/20`, `/24`, verdict band, or gate PASS/FAIL**. — why the split: the cost of adding a foundation is near zero at creation and high afterwards, so strictness should track that cost; blocking a review of a ten-year-old codebase on foundations it never had produces a useless report, not a better project.
> 5. **Anti-over-engineering guard (first-class, and symmetric).** Do NOT demand a container mode of a single-author local utility, a distributed load-generation platform for a small internal service, affected-set computation or boundary enforcement for a single module, or four overlapping analyzers reporting one defect class (the carrying cost is noise and slow builds, and people learn to ignore the output). Splitting a small system into many modules to _look_ modular buys a distributed monolith — the coupling survives the split while the build cost doubles; the trigger is real module and team count, never aesthetics. Symmetric with the criticality floor: never UNDER-harden a `B2+` system merely because its traffic is low.
> 6. **Every brownfield finding names the smallest next step that is valuable on its own.** Seven `MISSING-WARRANTED` verdicts with no first step is a demoralizing document nobody acts on. Default ladder, each rung independently valuable and making the next cheaper: pin the toolchain & commit the lockfile → make one local command that CI also runs → ratchet the harness on (fail-on-new) → run the defect-seeding drill on the top invariants → repair the missing execution mode → seed a realistic volume and assert ONE budget → declare the style, then enforce dependency direction. Deviate on evidence, and say why; what is not acceptable is a gap list with no first step.
> 7. **Output — Foundation Readiness Matrix:** `dimension | warranted at this profile? | present? | verdict | evidence (file:line/config/CI) | smallest next step`, preceded by the derived profile with per-axis evidence and confidence, followed by the ordered adoption path (brownfield) or the blocking list (greenfield). Full catalog — per-dimension proof lists, warranting matrix, adoption ladder → `.claude/docs/engineering-foundation-catalog.md`. **Drift-guard: profile axes, dimensions, verdicts and warranting tiers are AUTHORITATIVE in that catalog — update it FIRST, then re-run `.claude/scripts/inject_engineering_foundation_gate.py` to re-propagate. Scale tier stays single-sourced in `scale-technique-catalog.md`; business criticality in `scenario-stress-catalog.md`.**
>
> **BLOCKED until:** `- [ ]` profile derived from evidence (lifecycle + `T` + `B` + `R`, lower tier when unknown) `- [ ]` all 7 dimensions judged, none omitted `- [ ]` matrix emitted with `file:line`/config/CI evidence `- [ ]` anti-over-engineering guard applied `- [ ]` authority confirmed — creating ⇒ blocking, auditing ⇒ advisory-only with no score mutation `- [ ]` every brownfield gap carries a smallest-next-step

<!-- /SYNC:engineering-foundation-gate -->

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

- **MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** execute the review loop (aka **Self-Review Convergence Loop**): review → validate findings → fix validated blocking findings → full re-review. Round 1 ends only with zero findings and the persisted `minRounds` met; from round 2 onward, zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM ends the loop once the persisted minimum is met and LOW findings are recorded as deferred. 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**: round 1 exits on zero findings at any severity; **from round 2 the bar is zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM — LOW findings are no longer required to be fixed, so a LOW-only round ENDS the loop once the persisted minimum is met.** 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 once the persisted `minRounds` is met (default 1; explicit 2 requires an independent pass), 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:graph-assisted-investigation:reminder -->

**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** run at least ONE graph command on key files before concluding (when graph.db exists).

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

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

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

<!-- /SYNC:evidence-based-reasoning: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: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** Load detail just in time immediately before the first target read/grep/edit/test; hooks may provide a pointer, but a hook event or prior turn is never evidence that the current files were 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. On compaction, resume, delegation, or a context change, re-read the required docs and restate the route before continuing.

<!-- /SYNC:project-reference-docs-guide: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: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 every finding Critical/High/Medium/Low by consequence using the affected asset, shipped impact, exposure, reversibility, evidence location, and confidence; Critical/High/MEDIUM remain actionable under the round bar, while LOW is recorded/deferred from round 2 onward.
- **MANDATORY** Keep binary gates separate from severity: a failed test, security must-fix, required artifact, or parity check blocks at every round and is never relabeled LOW.
- **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 -->

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

## Prompt-Enhance Closing Anchors

**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** follow declared step order for this skill; NEVER skip, reorder, or merge steps without explicit user approval
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** for every step/sub-skill call: set `in_progress` before execution, set `completed` after execution
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** every skipped step MUST include explicit reason; every completed step MUST include concise evidence
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** if Task tools unavailable, maintain an equivalent step-by-step plan tracker with synchronized statuses

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

<!-- 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: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 -->

<!-- SYNC:test-architecture-execution-contract:reminder -->

**MUST ATTENTION** Before implementation, record evidence-backed Unit/Integration/System/E2E **and Performance/Scale** (`T1+`/`B2+`) applicability (or explicit N/A), copy-ready full + focused commands, zero-match behavior, a simple/Windows entry point, **the host-mode AND container-mode commands where both are supported, plus each tier's environment reach (local / CI / production-shaped)**, unique run identity, realistic valid data, idempotent/restart-safe reference setup, intentional additive accumulation, parallel isolation, exact results, and two no-reset full runs for each applicable persistent-state suite. **Both claimed run modes must be EXERCISED** (an unexercised mode rots; a claimed-but-rotten mode is worse than one never claimed), the same suite reaches every target **parameterized by config, never by forked test code**, a missing capability reports `ENVIRONMENT-BLOCKED` rather than passing silently, and *"runs in prod"* means a safe, declared, **NON-MUTATING** subset excluded by an enforced mechanism, not by convention.

<!-- /SYNC:test-architecture-execution-contract:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:engineering-foundation-gate:reminder -->

**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** engineering-foundation gate — judges whether the team can **build, run, test and change** the system safely, anywhere, as it grows (its companions judge the running system's design; a system can pass both while nobody but its author can build it). Derive the profile from evidence FIRST: lifecycle **G**reenfield/**B**rownfield · scale `T0`–`T3` (reuse `scale-technique-catalog.md`) · criticality `B0`–`B3` with its signal floor (reuse `scenario-stress-catalog.md`) · repo shape `R0`–`R3` — take the **LOWER** tier when unknown, NEVER default to `T3`/`B3`/`R3`. Judge **ALL 7** dimensions, never a subset: **F1** reproducible environment (pinned toolchain, locked deps, declared prerequisites, deterministic build — kills _"works on my machine"_) · **F2** dual execution modes (bare host AND fully containerized from one source of truth, suites runnable BOTH directions, both exercised so neither rots — the defect is the claimed-but-rotten mode) · **F3** environment-portable tests (same suites local/CI/production-shaped, parameterized by CONFIG not forked code; missing capability ⇒ `ENVIRONMENT-BLOCKED` not silent pass; _"runs in prod"_ = a safe NON-MUTATING subset) · **F4** test-strength proof (automated fault injection on changed code where a tool exists, else the universal **defect-seeding drill** — break the code behind a top invariant, record WHICH NAMED TEST went red, restore; nothing red ⇒ no protection. **Line coverage is a DIAGNOSTIC, never a gate**) · **F5** performance measured by something that **RUNS and CAN FAIL** (realistic volume AND shape, **asserted** budgets not a dashboard, ≥2 volumes ~10× apart to expose super-linear growth, resource exhaustion bounded rather than an OOM kill) · **F6** build & change scalability (computable affected set, measured incrementality, **mechanically** enforced boundaries, a **declared** architecture style, implementation hidden behind abstraction) · **F7** mechanical harness completeness (every machine-catchable class accounted for or `N/A`; local and CI run the SAME command; checks **ENFORCE**, not warn; brownfield uses a fail-on-new **ratchet**). Verdicts: `PRESENT`/`MISSING-WARRANTED`/`PARTIAL-WITH-PATH`/`N/A-by-profile`/`OVER-ENGINEERED`/`UNVERIFIED`. **Authority splits — CREATING a foundation ⇒ `MISSING-WARRANTED` is BLOCKING; AUDITING one ⇒ ADVISORY ONLY, never mutating any score, verdict band or PASS/FAIL.** Anti-over-engineering is first-class and symmetric (a correctly-lean project is a PASS; never under-harden a `B2+` system for low traffic). Every brownfield gap names the smallest next step. **State OUTCOMES, never tools.** Full catalog → `.claude/docs/engineering-foundation-catalog.md` (authoritative — update it FIRST, then re-run `inject_engineering_foundation_gate.py`).

<!-- /SYNC:engineering-foundation-gate:reminder -->

## Closing Reminders

**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** Testability contract: resolve evidence-backed Unit/Integration/System/E2E rows, copy-ready full/focused commands, zero-match failures, owner/root/data, CI/simple-Windows entry, unique run identity, and repeat proof before claiming setup, review, or test completion.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Goal:** Audit the WHOLE project's architecture, scalability, and production readiness in ONE pass: orchestrate three deliberately non-overlapping sibling reviewers, dedup intentional cross-references, and synthesize ONE consolidated Architecture Health Report with one combined verdict — this is a THIN orchestrator; NEVER re-implement child reviews.

**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — Main steps (execute in order, NEVER skip/merge):** (1) Resolve scope (args else `AskUserQuestion`; map to each child's args) → (2) Load project reference docs once → (3) Parallel fan-out of all three read-only sub-agents in ONE message behind an all-return barrier → (4) Progressive synthesis into ONE report at status `IN PROGRESS` — merge + dedup each face AS it returns, never held in memory, then run the §20.2 coverage sweep + §20.3 self-audit over the merged set → (5) Fix-report-per-review `/why-review` gate (one merged pass walking each of the three faces + the dedup, status `VALIDATING`) → (6) Finalize — lock the combined verdict + flip status to `FINISHED` → Next Steps `AskUserQuestion`. The report lifecycle is `IN PROGRESS → VALIDATING → FINISHED` on ONE file, never re-created.

**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — Protocols in force (concise digest of the SYNC/shared blocks this skill carries; each is a signpost — the canonical body above governs, NEVER skip one):**

- **Graph-Assisted Investigation:** Run one graph command on key files before concluding.
- **Sub-Agent Return Contract:** The three children return only the summary; full reports on disk.
- **Nested Task Creation:** Pre-expand each child's phase list and link the workflow row before spawning.
- **Project Reference Docs Guide:** Read required project docs first; `lessons.md` always.
- **Task Tracking & External Report:** Bootstrap tasks; persist the consolidated report to `plans/reports/`.
- **Critical Thinking Mindset:** Apply critical + sequential thinking; no guess as fact.
- **Evidence-Based Reasoning:** Cite `file:line` for every claim; confidence >80% to act.
- **Double Round-Trip Review:** Validate → fix downstream only for current-round blocking findings → full re-review; Round 1 requires zero findings, while Round 2+ requires zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM with LOW deferred and binary gates still blocking.
- **Fresh Context Review:** Spawn fresh zero-memory sub-agents; never reuse across rounds.
- **Review Protocol Injection:** Embed all protocol bodies verbatim in sub-agent prompts.
- **AI Mistake Prevention:** verify generated content against evidence, verify all affected outputs, re-read after context loss, surface ambiguity.
- **Systematic Batching:** each child owns its own map-reduce for a large scope.
- **Severity Rubric:** Classify Critical/High/Medium/Low by consequence; map sub-scores onto it.
- **Category Review Thinking:** each child derives its concerns from first principles, not a checklist.
- **Parallel Sub-Agent Dispatch:** Tag tasks PAR/SEQ, group PAR into disjoint-write-set waves, spawn each wave in ONE message, barrier before advancing.

**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** this is a THIN orchestrator — NEVER re-implement any of the three reviews inline; the children are 25k–34k tokens each and MUST run as sub-agents while this skill runs INLINE and spawns them — why: running them inline blows the main context and defeats the map-reduce this skill exists to perform.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** spawn all three sub-agents in ONE message and honor the all-return barrier — advance only after EVERY child returns — why: starting synthesis before all three return produces a report missing a whole dimension.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** dedup the intentional overlaps — one underlying issue = ONE finding citing every reporting child, ONE severity per `SYNC:severity-rubric`, never summed across duplicate reports; preserve every route-to-sibling pointer — why: three intentionally-cross-referencing reviewers inflate severity counts and bury distinct issues.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** `architecture-scalability-review` ALWAYS grades the PROJECT even under diff scope — read its `/20` scorecard as project posture, not a diff verdict.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** read-only until validated — run the Step 5 `/why-review` gate before handoff; every validated finding routes to a downstream `/plan`/feature flow, fixes are NEVER applied here.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** two orchestrator-only duties in Step 4 that NO child can perform: (a) sweep the merged report against the design-review script (`.claude/docs/architecture-knowledge.md` §20.2) and record every unanswered question as an INFO `Coverage gap` line, framing remaining risk against the five judgments (§20.4); (b) run the 11 thinking red flags (§20.3) across the merged findings and demote/remove any hit BEFORE `/why-review` sees it — why: three correctly-in-lane reviewers are all blind to a question belonging to no lane, and synthesis is exactly where three children's confirmation biases compound into one authoritative-sounding report. A coverage gap is INFO only and NEVER feeds the combined-verdict rollup.

The following are all MANDATORY:

- **MANDATORY** break work into small todo tasks via `TaskCreate` BEFORE starting; mark one `in_progress`, complete it immediately after evidence.
- **MANDATORY** read required project-reference docs first (`project-structure-reference.md`, `backend-patterns-reference.md`, `code-review-rules.md`, always `lessons.md`) and cite `Reference docs read: ...` — why: project conventions override generic assumptions.
- **MANDATORY** every merged finding carries `file:line` proof + confidence (>80% to act, <80% verify first) — NEVER synthesize a finding from inference.
- **MANDATORY** run at least ONE graph command on key files before concluding when `.code-graph/graph.db` exists.
- **MANDATORY** validate decisions with the user via `AskUserQuestion` for scope resolution and next-step routing — never auto-decide the scope.

**Anti-Rationalization:**

| Evasion                                         | Rebuttal                                                                                             |
| ----------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| "I'll just run the three checks inline myself"  | NEVER — each child is 25k–34k tokens; fan out as sub-agents, this skill stays inline and synthesizes |
| "Same issue from 3 reviewers = 3 High findings" | Dedup first — one underlying issue = one finding, one severity, citing every source                  |
| "asr scorecard is low, so the diff is bad"      | asr grades the PROJECT even under diff scope — read it as project posture, not a diff verdict        |
| "Findings look right, ship the report"          | Run the Step 5 `/why-review` gate first — an unvalidated sub-agent claim is a hypothesis             |
| "I'll fix the findings while I'm here"          | Read-only until validated — fixes route to a downstream `/plan`/feature flow                         |
| "Two children returned, start synthesizing"     | Honor the all-return barrier — advance only after ALL three return                                   |

**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** THIN orchestrator — fan out three read-only sub-agents in ONE message, run INLINE yourself, NEVER re-implement the reviews.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** dedup the intentional cross-references into ONE report with three sub-scores + one combined verdict, one severity per issue.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** read-only until validated — run the `/why-review` gate, then route fixes to a downstream `/plan`/feature flow.