Artifact Review

---
name: artifact-review
description: '[Code Quality] Use when reviewing artifact quality before handoff. Flag: --type={pbi|story|spec-tests|design}.'
---

> Codex compatibility note:
> - Invoke repository skills with `$skill-name` in Codex; this mirrored copy rewrites legacy Claude `/skill-name` references.
> - Task tracker mandate: BEFORE executing any workflow or skill step, create/update task tracking for all steps and keep it synchronized as progress changes.
> - User-question prompts mean to ask the user directly in Codex.
> - Ignore Claude-specific mode-switch instructions when they appear.
> - Strict execution contract: when a user explicitly invokes a skill, execute that skill protocol as written.
> - Subagent authorization: when a skill is user-invoked or AI-detected and its protocol requires subagents, that skill activation authorizes use of the required `spawn_agent` subagent(s) for that task.
> - Do not skip, reorder, or merge protocol steps unless the user explicitly approves the deviation first.
> - For workflow skills, execute each listed child-skill step explicitly and report step-by-step evidence.
> - If a required step/tool cannot run in this environment, stop and ask the user before adapting.
<!-- CODEX:PROJECT-REFERENCE-LOADING:START -->
## Codex Project-Reference Loading (Hook-Independent)

Claude and Codex use static project-reference loading as the authority; hooks may accelerate discovery but never replace the explicit read.
When coding, planning, debugging, testing, or reviewing, open project docs explicitly using this routing.

**Always read:**
- `docs/project-config.json` (project-specific paths, commands, modules, and workflow/test settings)
- `docs/project-reference/docs-index-reference.md` (routes to the full `docs/project-reference/*` catalog)
- `docs/project-reference/lessons.md` (always-on guardrails and anti-patterns)

**Missing/stale context route:** If `docs/project-config.json`, the docs index, `lessons.md`, `CLAUDE.md`, `AGENTS.md`, or any task-required reference doc is missing or stale, auto-run `$project-init` or the narrow setup route (`$project-config`, `$docs-init`, `$scan-all`, `$scan --target=<key>`, `$claude-md-init`) before ordinary project-specific work. If Codex mirrors or `AGENTS.md` are missing/stale, ask the user to run `$sync-codex`; do not auto-run it.

**Situation-based docs:**
- Project structure/architecture/tech-stack/deployment/setup (any layer — backend, frontend, or infra): `project-structure-reference.md`
- Backend/CQRS/API/domain/entity changes: `backend-patterns-reference.md`, `domain-entities-reference.md`
- Frontend/UI/styling/design-system: `frontend-patterns-reference.md`, `scss-styling-guide.md`, `design-system/README.md`
- Spec authoring, `docs/specs/` pathing, or TC format: `feature-spec-reference.md`, `spec-system-reference.md`, `spec-principles.md`
- Behavior/public-contract changes or spec-test-code sync: `workflow-spec-test-code-cycle-reference.md` plus the spec docs above
- Derived spec indexes/ERDs/reimplementation guides: `spec-system-reference.md` and source Feature Specs under `docs/specs/`
- Integration test implementation/review: `integration-test-reference.md`
- E2E test implementation/review: `e2e-test-reference.md`
- Code review/audit work: `code-review-rules.md` plus domain docs above based on changed files

Do not read all docs blindly. Start from `docs-index-reference.md`, then open only relevant files for the task.
<!-- CODEX:PROJECT-REFERENCE-LOADING:END -->

<!-- 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:** Review one artifact (PBI, design spec, story, or test spec) for completeness and quality so it is evidence-backed, handoff-ready, and free of missing assumptions or acceptance gaps. For generated PBIs, prove one independently releasable actor-facing outcome with a complete full-flow surface when UI is involved.

**Summary:**

- **Purpose:** review ONE artifact (PBI · user story set · test spec · design spec) for completeness + quality so it ships evidence-backed and handoff-ready — no missing assumptions, no acceptance gaps. Default stance = SKEPTIC, not presence-checker: sections that exist but hold weak/untestable content are worse than missing ones — they breed false confidence.
- **Main steps (in order):** (1) **Identify** type — dispatch on `--type={pbi|story|spec-tests|design}`, infer if omitted; (2) **Adversarial Mindset** — run ALL 6 techniques (steel-man rejected alternatives · stress-test 3 assumptions · AC-testability · pre-mortem · unseen alternatives · contrarian pass) + clear the Anti-Bias Gate before any verdict; (3) **Type checklist** — score Required + Recommended; (4) **M1-M7 gate** (BLOCKING, ALL types); (5) **Readability checklist**; (6) **Output** per-type template (verdict + Required/Recommended tallies + coverage/AC matrix); (7) **Validated-fix + full re-review loop** — validate findings → fix only current-round blocking findings → restart until the round bar is clear (Round 1: zero findings; Round 2+: zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, LOW deferred; binary gates always block).
- **Type dispatch + verdict:** each `--type` has its own Required/Recommended checklist and output template — verdict = PASS (all Required + ≥50% Recommended) | WARN (all Required, <50% Recommended) | FAIL (any Required fails).
- **M1-M7 gate (ALL types, BLOCKING):** any **M1-M5 or M7** violation forces NEEDS WORK citing the mandate ID + exact section/line; exempt source identifiers inside evidence carriers (`[Source:]`, `**Evidence**`, `CoveredBy`, legacy `IntegrationTest`, frontmatter, mermaid) — flag tech leakage only in narrative/AC/scenario prose. — why: carriers are the correct home for class/path/test names; flagging them is a false finding. **M7 (business-visibility) is judged on each case's BODY via the demo test, NOT its prose** — a tech-free-sounding case about a consumer/sync/handler passes M1 and STILL fails M7. — why: M1 governs vocabulary, M7 governs subject matter; the gap between them is how business specs rot.
- **Validated-fix loop:** before fixing, invoke `$why-review --validate-findings <report-path>` on the review report FIRST (validate-before-fix discipline, at parity with `$plan-review`) — NEVER edit the artifact to resolve findings before this gate returns CLEAN. Then fix only validated blocking findings, do not confirm-in-place, restart the FULL review (fresh `general-purpose` sub-agent — artifacts are NOT code), and loop until the current exit bar is clear (round 1: zero findings; round 2+: zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, LOW deferred).
- **PBI releaseability is a Required check:** every generated PBI MUST be one independently releasable actor-facing outcome with a complete entry-to-result journey. For UI PBIs, the review MUST also verify the page/view inventory, navigation, component inventory, applicable states, and full-flow demo surface; a technical-only PBI or single static screen FAILS.

**Workflow:**

1. **Identify** — What artifact type is being reviewed
2. **Checklist** — Apply type-specific quality criteria
3. **Verdict** — READY or NEEDS WORK with specific items

**Key Rules:**

- Use type-specific checklists
- Every NEEDS WORK item must be actionable
- Focus on completeness — never block on stylistic preferences
- PBI reviews MUST apply `.claude/skills/shared/releasable-pbi-contract.md`: a technical-only PBI, incomplete journey, or UI PBI without the required page/view, navigation, component, state, and demo surface is a Required-check failure.

**Be skeptical. Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence percentages (Idea should be more than 80%).**

## First Principle — Easy to Change

> **The success metric of every coding decision is _future change cost_.**
> DRY, SRP, abstraction, design patterns, naming, layering, tests — every
> technique exists to serve one goal: **making the next change cheaper**.

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

- Reject "best practices" raising change cost (premature abstraction,
  speculative generality, leaky indirection, ceremony without payoff).
- Name real enemies in findings: **coupling, hidden state, duplicated
  knowledge, unclear intent, irreversible decisions exposed too early**.
- Simpler design easy to change beats sophisticated design that isn't.

Apply this lens **before** invoking any specific rule, pattern, or checklist
below — if downstream rule would raise change cost, this principle wins.

---

## Adversarial Review Mindset (NON-NEGOTIABLE)

**Default stance: SKEPTIC challenging artifact quality and completeness, not confirming presence of sections.**

> **Presence-quality confusion trap:** Artifact with all required sections LOOKS complete. But sections that exist yet contain weak, ambiguous, or untestable content are worse than missing sections — they create false confidence. This section forces quality challenge beyond existence checks.

### Adversarial Techniques (apply ALL before concluding)

**1. Steel-Man the Alternatives**
Before accepting chosen approach in any design artifact: argue FOR strongest rejected alternative as vigorously as possible. Would a senior domain expert seriously consider it? If yes — artifact's dismissal needs stronger justification.

**2. Assumption Stress Test**
List the 3 biggest assumptions embedded in artifact. For each: "What if this is wrong?" An artifact that breaks when 2 of its 3 core assumptions fail is fragile. Flag unaddressed failure modes.

**3. Acceptance Criteria Testability**
For each acceptance criterion: "Can a QA engineer write a specific automated test for this — without asking clarifying questions?" If not — AC is ambiguous. Flag it. Vague ACs ("feature works correctly") are NOT acceptance criteria.

**4. Pre-Mortem**
Assume artifact is implemented exactly as written and feature fails in production within 3 months. Write the most plausible failure scenario. If you can't find one, look harder — every implementation has a failure mode.

**5. Unseen Alternatives**
Identify 1-2 approaches NOT mentioned in artifact. Genuinely not considered, or considered and excluded without documented reasoning? Missing alternatives without exclusion reasoning = incomplete analysis.

**6. Contrarian Pass**
Before writing any verdict, generate at least 2 sentences arguing the OPPOSITE conclusion. Then decide which argument is stronger based on evidence.

### Forbidden Patterns

- **"Required sections present"** → Presence ≠ quality. What's IN them?
- **"Acceptance criteria are defined"** → Are they TESTABLE? Name the automated test for each.
- **"Scope is well-defined"** → What is explicitly OUT of scope? If nothing is out of scope, the scope is undefined.
- **"Alternatives were considered"** → Were they real alternatives, or strawmen set up to lose?
- **"Looks complete"** → What specific failure mode is NOT addressed?

### Anti-Bias Gate (MANDATORY before finalizing verdict)

- [ ] Steel-manned at least one rejected alternative
- [ ] Identified 3 hidden assumptions and stress-tested them
- [ ] Verified each AC is unambiguously testable (can write automated test without clarification)
- [ ] Ran pre-mortem (one concrete production failure scenario)
- [ ] Identified at least 1 unexamined alternative (not in artifact)
- [ ] Generated at least 2 sentences arguing the opposite verdict

If any box is unchecked → adversarial review incomplete. Go back.

## Type-Specific Checklists (`--type` dispatch)

Select the checklist + output template by artifact type. Pass `--type={pbi|story|spec-tests|design}` to force a type; if omitted, infer from the artifact (Phase 1 "Identify"). Each type scores **Required (all must pass)** + **Recommended (≥50% should pass)** → verdict **PASS** (all Required + ≥50% Recommended) | **WARN** (all Required, <50% Recommended) | **FAIL** (any Required fails).

| `--type`    | Artifact             | Output template                             |
| ----------- | -------------------- | ------------------------------------------- |
| `pbi`       | Product Backlog Item | PBI Review Result                           |
| `story`     | User story set       | Story Review Result (+ AC Coverage Matrix)  |
| `spec-tests` | Test specification   | Test Spec Review Result (+ Coverage Matrix) |
| `design`    | Design spec          | Artifact Review                             |

### PBI Review (`--type=pbi`)

| #   | Check                                                                                                      | Presence                                                  | Quality Depth                                                                                                                                                                                  |
| --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 1   | **Releasable outcome and full flow are defined** — the PBI is an independently releasable actor-facing outcome, not a technical layer | Is the actor, outcome, complete journey, and gate evidence present? For UI, are pages/views, navigation, components, states, and demo journey present? | Can a stakeholder recognize the value from entry through result and exit? Are persistence, access, failure, recovery, and visible truth covered where applicable? Does the scope hide foundation/setup/migration work as the outcome? A UI PBI represented by one isolated screen FAILS. |
| 2   | **Problem statement is clear** — the problem being solved is described in concrete terms                   | Is a problem statement present? Is it 2+ sentences?       | Is the problem scoped correctly? Could it be framed differently to lead to a different (simpler) solution? Are symptoms confused with root cause?                                              |
| 3   | **Acceptance criteria are testable and measurable** — each AC can be verified by a test                    | Are ACs present? Do they use measurable language?         | Can a QA engineer write an automated test for EACH AC without clarification? Are they specific enough to catch regressions? Vague ACs ("feature works correctly") are not acceptance criteria. |
| 4   | **Scope is well-defined (what's in and out)** — both in-scope and out-of-scope items are explicitly listed | Is an in/out scope list present? Does it have both sides? | Are out-of-scope items specific enough to prevent scope creep? Is anything ambiguously in/out? A scope that says nothing is out of scope is an undefined scope.                                |
| 5   | **Dependencies are identified** — all external dependencies the PBI relies on are listed                   | Is a dependencies section present? Does it list items?    | Are ALL dependencies listed (technical, data, service, team)? Are "can-parallel" items truly safe to parallelize, or do they share a shared resource?                                          |
| 6   | **Business value is articulated** — the why behind the PBI is stated in terms of user or business outcome  | Is business value described?                              | Is the value quantified or just stated? Does it connect to a user outcome, not just a feature delivery? "Users can now do X" is better than "we implemented feature Y".                        |
| 7   | **Priority is assigned** — the PBI has an explicit priority level                                          | Is a priority level assigned?                             | Is priority justified with data (RICE/MoSCoW), or arbitrary? Is it consistent with other PBIs in the same sprint? A PBI that is "high priority" without justification is unranked.             |

### User Story Review (`--type=story`)

| #   | Check                                                                                                                    | Presence                                                       | Quality Depth                                                                                                                                                 |
| --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 1   | **Follows GIVEN/WHEN/THEN format** — the story uses the structured BDD format                                            | Are all three parts (GIVEN, WHEN, THEN) present?               | Are all 3 parts present AND meaningful? Or is GIVEN trivial ("Given a user exists")? A GIVEN that describes no precondition adds no value.                    |
| 2   | **Is independent (not dependent on other stories)** — the story can be implemented without requiring another story first | Is independence stated or inferable?                           | Would descoping other stories prevent this story from being implemented? Implicit dependencies are as blocking as explicit ones.                              |
| 3   | **Is estimable (team can size it)** — the team has enough information to assign story points                             | Is the story sized or estimable based on content?              | Does the team have enough info to estimate? Is "can't estimate" a sign of missing AC? If it can't be sized, it's not ready for sprint.                        |
| 4   | **Is small enough for one sprint** — the story fits within a single sprint's capacity                                    | Is the story sized at ≤8 story points or scoped to one sprint? | Could this be split further? Stories >8SP should always be split. A story that "could fit" in a sprint but requires multiple sub-systems is likely too large. |
| 5   | **Has acceptance criteria** — the story defines measurable conditions for completion                                     | Are acceptance criteria present?                               | Are criteria testable? Would they catch a bug if the feature works in 9/10 cases? ACs that only describe the happy path are incomplete.                       |

### Design Spec Review (`--type=design`)

| #   | Check                                                                                                                                         | Presence                                            | Quality Depth                                                                                                                                                                                   |
| --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 1   | **All component states covered (default, hover, active, disabled, error, loading)** — spec defines visual behavior for all interaction states | Are all 6 states defined?                           | Are edge-case states (error, loading) as fully designed as the default state, or sketched? An undesigned error state will be improvised in implementation.                                      |
| 2   | **Design tokens specified (colors, spacing, typography)** — specific token values are called out, not ad-hoc values                           | Are token references present instead of raw values? | Are tokens from the project's token system, or are new values introduced? New values outside the token system break design consistency silently.                                                |
| 3   | **Responsive behavior defined** — how the component adapts across breakpoints is documented                                                   | Are breakpoint behaviors defined?                   | Are ALL breakpoints covered, or only desktop and mobile? Tablet-specific layouts are the most frequently omitted. Are content truncation / overflow behaviors specified?                        |
| 4   | **Accessibility requirements noted** — WCAG-relevant requirements (color contrast, keyboard nav, ARIA) are documented                         | Are accessibility notes present?                    | Are requirements specific (WCAG level, contrast ratio) or vague ("should be accessible")? Vague accessibility notes produce non-compliant implementations. Is keyboard navigation flow defined? |
| 5   | **Interaction patterns documented** — animations, transitions, and user interaction flows are specified                                       | Are interaction behaviors described?                | Are timing and easing values specified? Is behavior defined for both forward and reverse interactions (e.g., open AND close)? Unspecified interactions are implemented inconsistently.          |
| 6   | **Linked from the Feature Spec** — the design-spec path is recorded in the governing Feature Spec frontmatter `design_spec:` key so the spec stays the navigable hub | Is the design-spec path present in the Feature Spec frontmatter `design_spec:` (or `mockup:`) key? | Does the recorded path resolve to THIS design-spec, and does the design-spec deepen the spec's tech-agnostic §6 interaction surface (same UX-role view names / observable states) rather than diverge from it? An unlinked design-spec is an orphan — FAIL. Contract: `SYNC:ui-intent-layer` (inlined in this skill). |

#### UI/UX Design Principles Pass — `--type=design` ONLY (9 dimensions)

> **Scope gate:** this pass applies to `--type=design` and to NOTHING else. `--type=pbi`, `--type=story`, and `--type=spec-tests` are UNAFFECTED — their checklists, tallies, and verdicts are unchanged. A design artifact for a feature with no user-facing surface skips the whole pass with the reason stated.

The 40 clauses of `SYNC:ui-ux-design-principles` (full body inlined below in this skill) bind the design-spec path in the **REVIEW** role: each clause is a fail-condition against the ARTIFACT — *does the spec SPECIFY the decision this clause demands, at a depth an implementer could not get wrong?* The missing specification is the finding; the reviewer names the gap, never supplies the value.

Run **NINE focused passes over the artifact — one dimension at a time**, never a simultaneous sweep (a simultaneous sweep degenerates into the presence-checking this skill's Adversarial Review Mindset already forbids). Answer each `Think:` prompt from first principles before looking for the gap.

**Every finding:** `UI-<clause>` + `file:line` (artifact section + line) + severity per `SYNC:severity-rubric` already in force (Critical/High/Medium/Low), folded into the EXISTING verdict machinery — a clause gap that leaves a Required check unmet drives that check to fail (**FAIL**); a gap that only weakens depth lands as a Recommended miss or an Action Item under **NEEDS WORK**. No new scale, no new verdict.

| #   | Dimension                 | Clauses            | `Think:`                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
| --- | ------------------------- | ------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 1   | Visual Hierarchy & Layout | `UI-1.1`-`UI-1.5` | Does the spec name ONE focal element per view, or leave first-read priority to the implementer? Is grouping expressed as whitespace or as nested boxes? Are the empty, loading and error states specified as fully as the populated state, or sketched? |
| 2   | Typography                | `UI-2.1`-`UI-2.5` | Does the spec reference a fixed 6-step scale with named families/weights (max 2 families, 3 weights each), or ad-hoc sizes? Are body size (16px web, 17px mobile, never below 14px), measure (45-75 characters), and leading (1.5 body, 1.1-1.2 display) stated or assumed? |
| 3   | Colour & Contrast         | `UI-3.1`-`UI-3.4` | Are contrast ratios written as measured numbers (4.5:1 text, 3:1 UI edges) or as the word "accessible"? Does any state carry meaning by colour alone with no icon/label/position pair? Is dark mode specified as its own surface treatment, or implied as an inversion? |
| 4   | Spacing & Grid            | `UI-4.1`-`UI-4.4` | Is a single base unit (4px or 8px) declared, with every gap a multiple of it? Is spacing assigned to containers rather than children? Are breakpoints justified by where the layout fails, or copied from device names?                              |
| 5   | Interaction & Feedback    | `UI-5.1`-`UI-5.5` | Is a response under 100ms specified for every action? Are all 5 states plus loading enumerated per component? Is undo offered where the spec calls for a confirmation? Are motion duration/easing (150-250ms, ease-out) and reduced-motion behaviour written down? Is the focus ring's appearance specified rather than removed? |
| 6   | Navigation & IA           | `UI-6.1`-`UI-6.4` | Does each specified view answer where-am-I / what's-here / where-next? How many top-level destinations does the IA declare (max 5)? Are labels drawn from user vocabulary or internal naming? Does every state have a URL or a defined back path?    |
| 7   | Forms & Input             | `UI-7.1`-`UI-7.5` | Does the spec justify each field's existence today? Are labels specified as persistently visible rather than placeholders? Are validation timing (on blur), error placement, and remediation wording defined? Are keyboard type/autocomplete/autocapitalise declared per field? Is data preservation across error, navigation and refresh specified? |
| 8   | Mobile & Touch            | `UI-8.1`-`UI-8.4` | Are hit targets specified at >=44x44pt with 8px separation independent of icon size? Where does the spec place primary actions relative to the thumb zone? Is every gesture given a tappable equivalent? Are safe areas and keyboard avoidance addressed? _(No touch surface in the artifact → skip with the reason stated.)_ |
| 9   | Speed & Perceived Speed   | `UI-9.1`-`UI-9.4` | Does the spec choose skeleton vs spinner deliberately per surface? Is optimistic update with a VISIBLE rollback specified? Is reserved space defined for every async or media element so nothing shifts? Are offline, timeout and retry specified as designed states rather than left as edge cases? |

**No double-counting** with Design Spec checks 1-6: check 1 (6 component states) meets `UI-5.2`/`UI-1.5`; check 2 (design tokens) meets `UI-2.5`/`UI-4.1`/`UI-3.2`; check 3 (responsive) meets `UI-4.4`/`UI-8.*`; check 4 (accessibility) meets `UI-3.1`/`UI-3.3`/`UI-5.5`; check 5 (interaction patterns) meets `UI-5.4`/`UI-5.1`. Where they meet, emit ONE finding carrying BOTH citations at the HIGHER severity — never two findings for one gap.

**Precedence:** the project design-system / SCSS / token docs **OUTRANK** these clauses — a spec following the project's own scale, unit, breakpoints, or token pairs SATISFIES the clause. A genuine conflict is surfaced to the user with both sides, NEVER resolved silently.

### Test Spec Review (`--type=spec-tests`)

> **[BLOCKING] Read** `docs/project-reference/spec-principles.md` — use Section 5 (Test Case Registry — TC ID format, priorities, minimum coverage) and Section 6 (Evidence Format) as review criteria in addition to the checklist below.
> **[BLOCKING] Tech-agnostic check:** flag framework/product/language/design-pattern names in a TC's behavioral prose as findings (per `spec-principles.md` §3). Source paths, class names, and test identifiers (e.g. `{File}::{Method}`) are CORRECT in evidence fields (`**Evidence**`, `CoveredBy`, legacy `IntegrationTest`, `[Source:]`), frontmatter, and Mermaid — never flag those.
> **[BLOCKING] Business-oriented TCs / one-to-many cardinality:** Each TC must read as a **business / user-story acceptance scenario**, not a per-class/per-method technical unit. **Flag** any TC that appears split or narrowed just to mirror code structure (e.g. one TC per handler/component when the user-observable behavior is the same) — that breaks M1/M5 and the business orientation. One business TC is expected to be covered by **many** annotation-tagged tests across components/services; that one-to-many shape is correct and is NEVER a finding. Canonical contract: `.claude/skills/shared/tc-format.md` → TC ↔ Test Code Cardinality.

#### Required (all must pass)

| #   | Check                                                                                                                              | Presence                                                                          | Quality Depth                                                                                               |
| --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 1   | **TC ID format** — All TCs follow `TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN}` format                                                                      | Do all TCs use the `TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN}` pattern?                                  | Are IDs unique per TC? Does the FEATURE code match the actual feature?                                      |
| 2   | **Story coverage** — Every user story has at least one corresponding TC                                                            | Does every story ID appear in at least one TC?                                    | Does each TC actually test the story behavior, or does it just reference the story ID in a comment?         |
| 3   | **AC coverage** — Every acceptance criterion has a test case                                                                       | Is every AC traceable to at least one TC?                                         | Does each AC have a TC that would FAIL if the AC is violated? Single-test-per-AC misses edge cases.         |
| 4   | **Happy path** — Each story has at least one happy path TC                                                                         | Is a happy path TC present per story?                                             | Does the happy path TC verify the full end-to-end scenario, or just a happy-path stub?                      |
| 5   | **Error path** — Each story has at least one error/failure TC                                                                      | Is an error/failure TC present per story?                                         | Does the error TC verify the exact error response (code + message), not just that an error occurred?        |
| 6   | **No duplicate TCs** — No two TC IDs describe the same business scenario                                                            | Are all TC IDs unique with distinct **business** scenarios?                       | Flag near-duplicate TCs (same scenario, trivially different input). NOTE: this is about duplicate *TCs* — multiple *test methods* sharing one TC is the expected one-to-many shape, NEVER a duplicate. |
| 7   | **Testable assertions** — Each TC has clear expected result (not vague "should work")                                              | Does each TC have a specific expected result?                                     | Is each assertion specific enough to catch regressions? Would it pass if the return value is wrong?         |
| 8   | **Business intent / invariant guarded** — Each TC names the rule it protects                                                       | Does every meaningful TC include `Business Intent / Invariant Guarded`?           | Would the TC fail if that business rule/invariant breaks, or does it only mirror implementation details?    |
| 9   | **Authorization TCs** — At least 1 TC per story verifying unauthorized access is rejected                                          | Is an authorization TC present per story?                                         | Does the authorization TC test a realistic access scenario, not just "wrong role → 403 without body check"? |
| 10  | **TC format completeness** — Every TC has Related Behaviors anchor table and `CoveredBy:` field                                  | Does every TC include a Related Behaviors anchor table and `CoveredBy:` field? Legacy `IntegrationTest:` is migration input only. | For Tested-status TCs, is `CoveredBy:` populated with **≥1** covering test link `{TestFile}::{MethodName}`, a test-filter expression, or an approved manual-QC marker — not `Untested`? A TC may list several covering tests; never require exactly one. |
| 11  | **Preservation Tests (bugfix context)** — When fixing a bug, at least 1 TC verifies the pre-fix behavior is no longer reproducible | If this is a bugfix: is there a TC that would have CAUGHT the bug before the fix? | Does the preservation TC assert the exact broken behavior (not just "no exception")?                        |
| 12  | **Invariant / Property TCs (Spec-Loop rule 1)** — an Invariant/Property TC category exists, and EACH `[HARD]` §4 rule / §5 invariant has ≥1 universally-quantified property TC plus a boundary counter-case | Is there a property/invariant TC category, and does every `[HARD]`/§5 rule appear in it? | Are properties universally quantified ("for ALL inputs in range X, Y holds") with a boundary counter-case that would FAIL if the invariant breaks — not a single happy example? |
| 13  | **§6 Interaction surface present (UI-bearing specs)** — the governing Feature Spec carries a non-empty §6 interaction surface (6.2 View Inventory + 6.3 Navigation Map + 6.4 Key UI States + 6.5 Per-Story Interaction Flow); a backend-only (no-UI) feature instead states the skip reason in §6 | For a UI-bearing feature, are §6.2–6.5 present and non-empty (views by UX role, navigation, observable states, per-story flow)? For a backend-only feature, is the skip reason stated? | Is each UI behavior cross-referenced to `US-`/`OP-`/`BR-`, and is the prose **M1-clean** — naming ZERO frameworks/routes/URLs/CSS/component classes (those belong only in the linked `design-spec`)? An empty §6 on a UI feature, or framework/route/CSS leakage in §6 prose, is a FAIL. Contract: `SYNC:ui-intent-layer` (inlined in this skill). |

> **[BLOCKING] Spec-Loop property coverage (`--type=spec-tests`):** The reviewer MUST verify the Invariant/Property TC category exists and that every `[HARD]` §4 rule / §5 invariant maps to ≥1 universally-quantified property TC plus a boundary counter-case (example-only coverage is a finding). A missing property category — or any `[HARD]`/§5 rule with only example TCs and no property TC — is a **blocking artifact finding** (Required check #12 FAIL → NEEDS WORK).

#### Recommended (≥50% should pass)

| #   | Check                                                                                                                                                       | Presence                                                                 | Quality Depth                                                                                                               |
| --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 1   | **Edge cases** — Boundary values, empty inputs, max limits tested                                                                                           | Are edge case TCs listed?                                                | Are these the RIGHT edge cases? Do they cover the 3 most likely production failure modes for this feature?                  |
| 2   | **Integration points** — Cross-service scenarios covered                                                                                                    | Are cross-service TCs present where applicable?                          | Do integration TCs verify actual data flow across services, or just that a downstream call was made?                        |
| 3   | **Performance TCs** — Response time or throughput expectations where relevant; production-like data volume TCs if >1000 records expected                    | Are performance TCs present where data volume or SLA expectations exist? | Do performance TCs use production-like data volumes, not toy datasets that trivially pass?                                  |
| 4   | **Security TCs** — Auth, authorization, input validation tested                                                                                             | Are security TCs present for auth, authz, and input validation?          | Do security TCs attempt realistic attack vectors (SQLi, over-posting, privilege escalation) not just "invalid token → 401"? |
| 5   | **Seed data TCs** — If feature needs reference data, TCs verify data exists and seeder runs correctly                                                       | If reference data is needed, does a seed data TC exist (or N/A)?         | If present, does the TC assert the exact seeded data shape, not just that the seeder ran without error?                     |
| 6   | **Data migration TCs** — If schema changes exist, TCs verify data transforms correctly, rollback works, no data loss                                        | If schema changes exist, does a migration TC exist (or N/A)?             | If present, does the TC verify rollback behavior and zero data loss, not just forward migration success?                    |
| 7   | **Test data requirements specified** — the data setup needed to run each test is documented                                                                 | Are test data requirements stated per test?                              | Is test data specific enough to create fixtures without guessing? Vague data requirements ("a valid user") will cause test setup divergence across environments. |
| 8   | **GIVEN/WHEN/THEN format used** — tests follow the structured BDD format                                                                                    | Are all tests written in GIVEN/WHEN/THEN?                                | Are the THEN clauses assertions on observable outcomes, or on internal state? Tests asserting on internal state are brittle and break on refactoring.            |

## M1-M7 Compliance Gate (BLOCKING — applies to ALL artifact types)

> **Contract:** See `.claude/skills/shared/sdd-artifact-contract.md` → "AI-SDD Mandates (M1-M7)". This review enforces M6: any artifact (PBI, story, design spec, test spec) that violates **M1-M5 or M7** MUST receive a NEEDS WORK verdict that names the violated mandate ID and cites the exact section + line. Passing an **M1-M5/M7** violation makes this review itself defective. (M6 binds THIS review, not the artifact — which is why the artifact-facing set reads M1-M5 **and M7**, never "M1-M6".)
>
> Carriers are EXEMPT from M1/M2 — source identifiers are CORRECT inside `[Source: ...]`, `**Evidence**`, `**CoveredBy**`, legacy `**IntegrationTest**` fields, YAML frontmatter, and ` ```mermaid ``` ` blocks. Only flag leakage in narrative prose (descriptions, AC/scenario text, rule statements). Banned prose token list: `docs/project-reference/spec-principles.md` §3.2.

- [ ] **M1 — Tech-agnostic prose.** FAIL if narrative prose, headings, summaries, or AC/scenario text name a framework/product, a language-native type, or a product/design-pattern class name (banned-token list in `spec-principles.md` §3.2). Cite the section + leaked token.
- [ ] **M2 — No source code in prose.** FAIL if prose expresses behavior as a class/method/file-path/namespace used as a noun (e.g. "call the create-async method") instead of the business operation (e.g. "create the record"). Source identifiers belong only in evidence carriers. Cite the section + line.
- [ ] **M3 — Abstract-IDs-first traceability.** FAIL if a requirement/rule/AC/test-case lacks a logical ID (`FR-/BR-/OP-/TC-`), OR has a logical ID but no `[Source: namespace/service/id]` abstract-anchor evidence, OR the `[Source:]` evidence uses physical code coordinates or repository-root paths instead of a stack-portable abstract anchor, OR the anchor is treated as the primary citation. `[Source: namespace/service/id]` abstract-anchor evidence is REQUIRED and KEPT — SECONDARY to the logical ID, never the spine and never removed; physical coordinates live only in the provenance sidecar.
- [ ] **M4 — Unambiguous, observable criteria.** FAIL if AC/expected-result prose uses vague language ("handle appropriately", "process normally", "as needed"), OR two engineers could implement it differently while both claiming conformance, OR no observable completion state / named error condition exists. (Reinforces the AC-testability technique above.)
- [ ] **M5 — Rebuild-from-artifact.** FAIL if a competent team with ZERO codebase knowledge could not re-implement the described behavior on a different stack from the artifact alone (it relies on reading source to be understood). Cite the section + the missing detail.
- [ ] **M7 — Business-visibility (business-tree artifacts only).** Apply **the demo test to each case's BODY**: *"what would a stakeholder SEE change?"* — **no answer → FAIL as TECHNICAL-ONLY.** Every `Given` must be a state a user could arrange, every `When` an action a user could take, every `Then` an outcome a user could see. FAIL a case whose `When` is an invocation (a handler runs, a consumer receives, a job fires, a model is inspected, data syncs) or whose `Then` asserts a schema/type/nullability/column/call-count rather than a business outcome. **Judge the BODY, never the title or ID** — a business-sounding title routinely fronts an invocation-shaped `When`. Cite the case ID + the offending `When`/`Then` clause.

> 🔴 **M1 vs M7 — the distinction this gate exists for.** M1 governs **vocabulary**; M7 governs **subject matter**. **A technical case written in impeccably tech-free prose satisfies M1 while violating M7** — and that gap is the single most common way business specs rot: each bugfix adds one more tech-free-sounding case about a consumer, a sync, or a load path, every M1 check passes, and the business tree fills with cases no one can demo. ⚠️ **Passing a case because its prose is clean is the exact failure this box catches.** ⚠️ Conversely, do NOT fail a case merely for containing a technical-sounding noun: if a user or QC can demo the outcome, it is business — **M7 asks what the case is ABOUT, not which words it uses.**

If ANY box fails → verdict is NEEDS WORK; list each violated mandate ID with its concrete section/line citation in the Action Items.

## Readability Checklist (MUST ATTENTION evaluate)

Before approving, verify code is **easy to read, easy to maintain, easy to understand**:

- **Schema visibility** — If function computes a data structure (object, map, config), a comment should show output shape so readers don't trace the code
- **Non-obvious data flows** — If data transforms through multiple steps (A → B → C), a brief comment should explain the pipeline
- **Self-documenting signatures** — Function params should explain their role; flag unused params
- **Magic values** — Unexplained numbers/strings should be named constants or have inline rationale
- **Naming clarity** — Variables/functions should reveal intent without reading the implementation

## Output Format (per `--type`)

Pick the template matching `--type`. All templates lead with a **Status/Verdict** and `### Required`/`### Recommended` tallies; the `pbi`/`story`/`spec-tests` shapes add their own evidence sections (preserved verbatim from the former `refine-review`, `story-review`, `tdd-spec-review` skills).

### `--type=design` (default shape)

```
## Artifact Review

**Artifact Type:** [PBI | Story | Design | Test Spec]
**Artifact:** [Reference/title]
**Date:** {date}
**Verdict:** READY | NEEDS WORK

### Checklist Results
- [pass] [Item] — [evidence]
- [fail] [Item] — [what's missing/wrong]

### Action Items (if NEEDS WORK)
1. [Specific actionable item]
```

### `--type=pbi`

```markdown
## PBI Review Result

**Status:** PASS | WARN | FAIL
**Artifact:** {pbi-path}

### Required ({X}/{Y})

- ✅/❌ Check description

### Recommended ({X}/{Y})

- ✅/⚠️ Check description

### Issues Found

- ❌ FAIL: {issue}
- ⚠️ WARN: {issue}

### Releasable Outcome Evidence

- **Actor and outcome:** { ... }
- **Full-flow journey:** {entry → action → result → exit}
- **Technical-only work:** {attached enabling tasks | none}
- **UI surface:** {page/view inventory + navigation + components + states + demo journey | N/A — backend-only with reason}
- **Gate:** PASS | BLOCKED

### Verdict

{PROCEED | REVISE_FIRST}
```

### `--type=story`

```markdown
## Story Review Result

**Status:** PASS | WARN | FAIL
**Stories reviewed:** {count}
**Source PBI:** {pbi-path}

### AC Coverage Matrix

| Acceptance Criterion | Covered By Story | Status |
| -------------------- | ---------------- | ------ |

### Required ({X}/{Y})

- ✅/❌ Check description

### Recommended ({X}/{Y})

- ✅/⚠️ Check description

### Missing Stories

- {Any PBI AC not covered}

### Dependency Issues

- {Circular deps, missing ordering}

### Verdict

{PROCEED | REVISE_FIRST}
```

### `--type=spec-tests`

```markdown
## Test Spec Review Result

**Status:** PASS | WARN | FAIL
**TCs reviewed:** {count}
**Coverage:** {X}% of stories, {Y}% of acceptance criteria

### Coverage Matrix

| Story/AC | TC IDs | Happy | Error | Edge |
| -------- | ------ | ----- | ----- | ---- |

### Required ({X}/{Y})

- ✅/❌ Check description

### Recommended ({X}/{Y})

- ✅/⚠️ Check description

### Missing Coverage

- {Stories/AC without TCs}

### Verdict

{PROCEED | REVISE_FIRST}
```

## Validated Fix + Full Re-Review (MANDATORY when fixes are applied)

> **Protocol:** `SYNC:double-round-trip-review` + `SYNC:fresh-context-review` + `SYNC:review-protocol-injection` (all inlined above in this file).

Do not spawn a fresh sub-agent just to re-review the same finding set before fixing it. If the artifact needs work, fix actionable findings first, then restart the full artifact review over the current artifact. When that restarted review uses a fresh `general-purpose` sub-agent, use the canonical Agent template from `SYNC:review-protocol-injection` above. Artifact reviews (PBI, story, design spec, test spec) are NOT code — use `agent_type: "general-purpose"`, not `"code-reviewer"`. When constructing the Agent call prompt:

1. Copy the Agent call shape from the `SYNC:review-protocol-injection` template verbatim
2. Set `agent_type: "general-purpose"`
3. Embed the full verbatim body of these SYNC blocks (inlined above in this skill file): `SYNC:evidence-based-reasoning`, `SYNC:rationalization-prevention`, `SYNC:understand-code-first` (omit code-specific protocols like `SYNC:bug-detection`, `SYNC:design-patterns-quality`, `SYNC:fix-layer-accountability` which are not applicable to artifact files)
4. Set the Task as `"Run a full fresh artifact review over the current {artifact-type} after fixes were applied. Focus on: implicit assumptions, missing coverage of edge cases / error scenarios, unverified cross-references, completeness gaps only visible on second reading, whether acceptance criteria are truly testable and measurable, and regressions introduced by fixes."`
5. Set Target Files as the explicit artifact file path(s)
6. Set report path as `plans/reports/artifact-review-rerun{N}-{date}.md`

After sub-agent returns:

1. **Read** the sub-agent's report
2. **Integrate** findings as `## Re-Review {N} Findings` in the main report — DO NOT filter or override
3. **If NEEDS WORK:** fix actionable artifact findings, then restart the full artifact review from the beginning
4. **Repeated blocker cap:** if the same blocker repeats across 2 full invocations with no progress, escalate by asking the user directly
5. **Final verdict** must incorporate findings from ALL review passes that actually ran

## IMPORTANT Task Planning Notes (MUST ATTENTION FOLLOW)

- Always plan and break work into many small todo tasks using task tracking
- Always add a final review todo task to verify work quality and identify fixes/enhancements

---

## Bulk Multi-Artifact Sweeps

> For bulk multi-artifact review (10+ artifacts at once), use `$changes-review` — its Systematic Review Protocol categorizes the set and fires parallel sub-agents.

---

## AI Agent Integrity Gate (NON-NEGOTIABLE)

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

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

**Prerequisites:** **MUST ATTENTION READ** before executing:

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

<!-- 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 the current task list 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:** the current task list 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:understand-code-first -->

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

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

<!-- SYNC: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 by asking the user directly** 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 `spawn_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 by asking the user directly 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 `spawn_agent` tool calls — use `code-reviewer` agent_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 `spawn_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 by asking the user directly. **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)

```
spawn_agent({
  description: "Fresh Round {N} review",
  agent_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 task tracking. 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` agent_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:ui-intent-layer -->

> **[BLOCKING] Capture a tech-agnostic UI/UX intent layer in every UI-bearing spec — a reader must be able to visualize how the feature works without naming any technology.** When the feature has a user interface, the spec MUST ATTENTION carry an interaction-surface section so the application — not just its API — can be rebuilt on any stack:
>
> 1. **View Inventory** — list each view/screen by its UX ROLE and purpose (e.g. "list of items", "item editor", "confirmation step") and what information it presents. Describe by role, never by an implementation name.
> 2. **Navigation Map** — how a user moves between views: entry points, transitions, and exits. Trace how this surface connects to neighboring features already in the system.
> 3. **Key observable UI States** — the distinct states a user can observe per view (empty, loading, populated, error, success, permission-denied, etc.) — described as what the user perceives, not how it is rendered.
> 4. **Per-story interaction flow** — for each user story, the step-by-step click/action path from intent to outcome, cross-referenced to the logical IDs the spec already owns (`US-`/`OP-`/`BR-`).
> 5. **Couple to the companion design artifact** — keep deep visual fidelity (layout, tokens, pixel detail) OUT of the spec; it lives in the linked `design-spec`/mockup. Record that companion's path in the spec frontmatter so the spec stays the navigable hub.
>
> **M1-clean (NON-NEGOTIABLE):** the prose names ZERO frameworks, routes/URLs, CSS, or component-class names — only roles, information, states, and flows. Technology detail belongs in the companion design artifact, never here.
>
> **Skip ONLY** when the feature is backend-only (no UI) — state that reason explicitly in the section.

<!-- /SYNC:ui-intent-layer -->

<!-- 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: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 by asking the user directly 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.** ask the user directly 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 by asking the user directly 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:ui-ux-design-principles -->

> **UI/UX Design Principles (Rev 1.0 — 40 clauses, web + mobile)** — the working rule set for ANY task that designs, plans, implements, or reviews a user interface. Applies to BOTH platforms unless a clause names one (§8 is mobile/touch). Cite clauses by ID: `UI-3.1`, `UI-8.2`.
>
> **Precedence:** project design-system / SCSS / frontend-pattern docs OUTRANK these clauses; these clauses outrank generic taste. A genuine conflict is SURFACED to the user with both sides — NEVER resolved silently. — why: the project's own recorded decision is the authority; these clauses are the default when it is silent.
>
> **1.0 Visual Hierarchy & Layout**
>
> - `UI-1.1` One focal point per screen. Two elements competing for first read → demote one.
> - `UI-1.2` Signal order: size → weight → colour → position. Use the cheapest signal that works before adding another.
> - `UI-1.3` Group by proximity, NEVER by border. Whitespace separates cleanly; boxes inside boxes do not.
> - `UI-1.4` Align to a shared edge. Every unexplained indent reads as an accident.
> - `UI-1.5` Design the empty, loading and error state FIRST. The full state is the easy one.
>
> **2.0 Typography**
>
> - `UI-2.1` Max 2 families, 3 weights each. More variety reads as inconsistency, not range.
> - `UI-2.2` Body text 16px web, 17px mobile. NEVER below 14px for anything a user must read.
> - `UI-2.3` Line length 45–75 characters. Constrain the measure, not the container.
> - `UI-2.4` Leading scales inversely with size: 1.5 body, 1.1–1.2 display.
> - `UI-2.5` Fixed type scale — 6 named steps shared with engineering. NEVER one-off sizes.
>
> **3.0 Colour & Contrast**
>
> - `UI-3.1` Contrast 4.5:1 text, 3:1 UI edges. Measure it — NEVER judge by eye on a bright screen.
> - `UI-3.2` One accent, one job. An accent that is everywhere points at nothing.
> - `UI-3.3` Colour NEVER carries meaning alone — pair it with an icon, label or position.
> - `UI-3.4` Dark mode is NOT inverted light mode. Lift surfaces to signal elevation; soften pure-white text.
>
> **4.0 Spacing & Grid**
>
> - `UI-4.1` One spacing unit, multiplied — 4px or 8px base; every gap a multiple of it.
> - `UI-4.2` Space belongs to the container, not the child. Use `gap`; reserve margins for exceptions.
> - `UI-4.3` Tighter inside, looser between — inner padding always smaller than the gap to the next group.
> - `UI-4.4` Breakpoints follow content, not devices. Break where the layout stops working.
>
> **5.0 Interaction & Feedback**
>
> - `UI-5.1` Every action gets a response under 100ms, even when the result takes longer.
> - `UI-5.2` Specify all 5 states — default, hover, focus, active, disabled — plus loading where it applies.
> - `UI-5.3` Prefer undo over confirmation. Confirm ONLY what cannot be reversed.
> - `UI-5.4` Motion clarifies cause and effect: 150–250ms, ease-out, honours reduced-motion.
> - `UI-5.5` Keep the visible focus ring. Restyle it if it clashes; NEVER remove it.
>
> **6.0 Navigation & IA**
>
> - `UI-6.1` Every screen answers: where am I, what's here, where next.
> - `UI-6.2` Max 5 top-level destinations. Depth beats a crowded first level.
> - `UI-6.3` Label by the user's word, not the internal one. Team vocabulary is not a taxonomy.
> - `UI-6.4` Every state deserves a URL or a back path. Deep links and hardware back must land somewhere sensible.
>
> **7.0 Forms & Input**
>
> - `UI-7.1` Ask for less. Every field needs a reason it exists today.
> - `UI-7.2` Labels stay visible. Placeholders are hints, NEVER labels.
> - `UI-7.3` Validate on blur, not on keystroke. Errors sit next to the field and say how to fix it.
> - `UI-7.4` Match keyboard to data type — correct input type, autocomplete and autocapitalise on every field.
> - `UI-7.5` NEVER lose entered data. Preserve input across errors, navigation and refresh.
>
> **8.0 Mobile & Touch** _(mobile/touch surfaces)_
>
> - `UI-8.1` Hit target ≥44×44pt, 8px apart. The target may exceed the visible icon.
> - `UI-8.2` Primary actions in the bottom third — that is where the thumb lives.
> - `UI-8.3` Gestures are shortcuts, NEVER the only route. Anything swipeable is also tappable.
> - `UI-8.4` Respect safe areas and the keyboard. Notch, home indicator and on-screen keyboard all steal space.
>
> **9.0 Speed & Perceived Speed**
>
> - `UI-9.1` Show structure before data — skeletons for known layouts, spinners only for unknown waits.
> - `UI-9.2` Assume success optimistically. Update UI first, reconcile after, roll back visibly on failure.
> - `UI-9.3` Reserve space for anything that loads. Images, ads and fonts must NEVER shift the layout.
> - `UI-9.4` Design for the slow connection. Offline, timeout and retry are states, NOT edge cases.
>
> **Apply by role** — the clauses are one set; what you DO with them depends on the task:
>
> | Role                                | Obligation                                                                                                                                                              |
> | ----------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
> | DESIGN / PLAN a surface             | Clauses shape the artifact: empty/loading/error specified first (`UI-1.5`), all 5 states enumerated (`UI-5.2`), type scale + spacing unit declared (`UI-2.5`, `UI-4.1`) |
> | IMPLEMENT a component               | Pre-completion gate: states · tokens · contrast · focus ring · touch target · reserved space (`UI-5.2`, `UI-2.5`/`UI-4.1`, `UI-3.1`, `UI-5.5`, `UI-8.1`, `UI-9.3`)      |
> | REVIEW UI code or a design artifact | Each clause is a fail-condition; every finding cites `UI-<clause>` + `file:line` + severity. NEVER a tick-box sweep — one focused pass per section                      |
> | SCAN / document a UI system         | Record where the PROJECT deliberately deviates, so the overriding doc becomes the recorded authority                                                                    |
>
> **Skip ONLY** when the change has no user-facing surface (backend-only, tooling, docs) — state that explicitly so the skip is auditable, not an omission.

<!-- /SYNC:ui-ux-design-principles -->

<!-- SYNC:design-distinctiveness-gate -->

> **[BLOCKING] Design distinctiveness gate (`DD-1`–`DD-8`) — binds on ANY task that designs, plans, mocks up, implements, or reviews a user-facing visual surface.** Deep catalog: `.claude/docs/design-knowledge.md`. Cite findings as `DD-<clause>` + `file:line`.
>
> **Precedence (resolve in this order, never silently):** the **brief's own stated visual direction WINS outright** — including when it asks for one of the `DD-4` tells. Then the **project's design-system / SCSS / frontend-pattern docs and accepted ADRs** — a house style IS an intentional identity, and re-deciding it per feature is the incoherence this gate prevents. Then these clauses. A genuine conflict is SURFACED to the user with both sides, NEVER resolved silently.
>
> **Relationship to `UI-1.1`–`UI-9.4`:** a different question, no overlap — the 40 clauses ask _"is this usable, accessible, consistent?"_ (a measurable floor); this gate asks _"is this THIS product's interface, or the one any generator would emit for any brief?"_. A surface can pass all 40 clauses and still be a template. BOTH bind; where they touch (type scale, colour, motion timing) the clause sets the floor and this gate picks the value.
>
> - `DD-1` **Ground it in the subject matter.** Before designing, name the concrete subject, the audience, and the design's primary job — and CONFIRM with the user when the brief is silent. Distinctive choices come FROM the subject's industry, materials and vernacular; they are never taste applied on top. **Test: if the palette, type and layout would fit a different product unchanged, there is no identity yet.**
> - `DD-2` **Every choice carries a WHY.** "It's common", "it's clean", "users expect it" are not reasons. A decision with no articulable reason is a default that arrived unnoticed. Defaults hide in what feels like infrastructure — typography, navigation, data display, and TOKEN NAMES. **Token-name test: someone reading only your CSS variables should be able to guess what product this is** (`--ink`/`--parchment` evoke a world; `--gray-700`/`--surface-2` evoke a template).
> - `DD-3` **Two passes, and the review pass is mandatory.** (1a) Write a compact **design plan** — Colour (4–6 named hex values) · Type (families + roles + scale) · Layout (one-sentence prose + ASCII wireframes to compare alternatives, including alignment: left/centre/justified) · Principles (what makes THIS page unique). (1b) **BLOCKING generic test — before any code:** work through a similar prompt and see whether you arrive somewhere similar; **any part that reads like the generic default for any comparable page rather than a choice for THIS brief gets REVISED, and you state what you changed and why.** Then (2a) build the REVISED plan, (2b) critique. — why: writing a plan and going straight to code reproduces the default, because the plan came from the same patterns the code will.
> - `DD-4` **Audit every FREE axis against the generated-design tell catalog** (`[model-knowledge]`, calibration not prohibition — each trait is legitimate for SOME brief): **T1** cream `#F4F1EA` + high-contrast serif + terracotta near `#D97757` (Anthropic's own interaction accent — on a user's brief it reads specifically as a tell) · **T2** near-black + one acid-green/vermilion accent · **T3** broadsheet hairline-rule pastiche, zero radius, dense columns · **T4** the SaaS-card kit: identical rounded cards, ONE radius regardless of hierarchy, the same `rgba(0,0,0,.1)` shadow under each, gradient washes as decoration · **T5** template chrome whatever the subject: tracked-out ALL-CAPS eyebrow above every heading, meta strings joined with middle dots (`A · B · C`), `WORD — fragment` labels with a spaced em dash, tinted near-black (`#0B0B0B`/`#111`) standing in for black, monospace for small data labels, `→` appended to link/button text. **A match is a HYPOTHESIS about a missed decision, never a defect** — promote it only by naming the axis, that the brief left it free, and what the subject suggested instead.
> - `DD-5` **Typography carries the personality.** One family, or two CLEARLY distinct ones — you do NOT need separate display and body faces. Choose deliberately, not the default you would reach for on any project. Set a real scale with intentional weights, widths and spacing. When type is a headline it is an ACTIVE part of the design, not a neutral delivery vehicle. Measure under ~80 characters; serifs tolerate slightly longer lines and want slightly more line-height than sans at the same size. Hierarchy needs weight/tracking/opacity, not size alone. **Avoid the three commonest tells: accenting a single word in a headline (italic/bold/colour) · ALL CAPS labels · an eyebrow label that names the section the heading already names.**
> - `DD-6` **Structure is information, not decoration.** Outlines, borders, numbering, eyebrows, dividers and labels must encode something about the content. **Before adding numbered markers (`01 / 02 / 03`), check the content really IS a sequence** — a stepped process, timeline or ranking. For every device ask: what does this tell the reader that whitespace would not? Nothing → cut it. **Hero:** open with the most characteristic thing in the subject's world, in whatever form fits (headline, image, animation, live demo, interactive moment) — big-number-plus-small-label-plus-gradient is the DEFAULT treatment, so use it only when it is genuinely best here. **Composition:** rhythm over monotone (same card size, same gap, same density everywhere is the sound of no one deciding); proportions must say something you can articulate; one dominant focal point.
> - `DD-7` **Motion sparingly and deliberately.** Non-user-triggered motion draws attention ONLY. One orchestrated moment — a single page-load sequence or one reveal — lands better than scattered effects; **fade-and-slide-up entrances on each section and hover transitions on every card are the generic default and read as generated.** Motion that ANSWERS a person's action (opening, expanding, confirming) is welcome when it shows what changed. Honour `prefers-reduced-motion`.
> - `DD-8` **Spend boldness once, then remove one accessory.** Let ONE element be the memorable thing and keep everything around it quiet and disciplined; cut any decoration that does not serve the brief. **Critique the BUILT page, not just the plan** — composition, craft (density is a decision, not a constant), content coherence, and CSS honesty (negative margins undoing a parent's padding, `calc()` values that exist only as workarounds, absolute positioning to escape layout flow are lies; the correct answer is always simpler than the hack). Take screenshots to review where the environment supports it — a picture is worth 1000 tokens. Then ask "if they said this lacks craft, what would they point to?" and fix that. **Build the quality floor in silently** — responsive, visible keyboard focus, reduced-motion respected, measured contrast, tokens never raw hex or magic numbers — and watch CSS selector specificity, where a type-based selector (`.section`) and an element-based one (`.cta`) most often cancel each other's padding/margin.
>
> **Memory:** vary between briefs — light and dark, families, direction. NEVER converge on the same choice across generations (Space Grotesk, for example). Where the project already has a design system, tokens, or an `interface-system.md`, ADOPT and record it rather than re-deciding; write back any pattern used 2+ times with measurements worth remembering.
>
> **Skip ONLY** when the change has NO user-facing visual surface (backend-only, tooling, docs) — state that reason explicitly so the skip is auditable, not an omission.

<!-- /SYNC:design-distinctiveness-gate -->

<!-- SYNC:design-review-checklist -->

> **Front-End Design Review Checklist** — the EXECUTABLE review protocol for any artifact carrying a user-facing front-end surface. Full catalog (`A1`…`Q`, ~130 checks with failure signals and default severities): **`.claude/docs/design-review-checklist.md`**. This gate carries the protocol and the triage pass; the file carries the checks.
>
> **Applies when — and ONLY when — the change, plan, or artifact carries a user-facing front-end surface.** A back-end-only diff, a doc edit, or a config change is `N/A`: state that once and move on. NEVER run a UI review on a non-UI change to manufacture coverage. When it DOES apply, **MUST ATTENTION READ `.claude/docs/design-review-checklist.md` and work its sections** — a review that cites a check ID without opening the catalog is asserting, not checking.
>
> **`CL-1` Context before checks (§0.1).** Establish platform · primary user & expertise · primary task · success metric · constraints · review scope · available artifacts. Fewer than four known → state the gap at the top of the report and mark affected findings **low confidence** — why: a check judged against an unknown task is a guess wearing an ID.
>
> **`CL-2` Evidence or nothing (§0.2).** Every finding cites a specific location (screen · element · `file:line`). NEVER invent a measurement — contrast, tap-target size, and load time that cannot be measured from the given artifact are `NOT VERIFIABLE`, never a guessed number. Tag every finding `MEASURED` · `OBSERVED` · `HEURISTIC`. Status values: `PASS` · `FAIL` · `PARTIAL` · `N/A` · `NOT VERIFIABLE`.
>
> **`CL-3` Severity, then a cap (§0.3).** `P0` blocks task completion / loses data / excludes a protected group (ship blocker) · `P1` significant friction or a legal accessibility floor (fix before release) · `P2` measurable inefficiency (next iteration) · `P3` polish (backlog) · `P4` note. Cap the report at the top 10 by severity unless a full audit was requested. A clean section reports "no issues found" — NEVER pad. Every `P0`/`P1` carries a concrete fix.
>
> **`CL-4` Section sweep, in order.** §A core usability heuristics · §B cognitive load & decision design · §C visual design & hierarchy · §D interaction + **the eight screen states** (ideal, empty, first-run, loading, partial, error, offline, maximum-data) · §E information architecture · **§F web / §G mobile / §H desktop — conditional on platform** · §I accessibility (WCAG 2.2 AA; every item `P1` minimum, `P0` when it blocks the task) · §J content & UX writing · §K trust, ethics & privacy (dark patterns are `P0`) · **§L AI & agentic patterns — conditional on the product having AI features** · §M cross-cutting consistency · §N edge-case probes. One focused pass per section — why: a section skipped in the long middle silently becomes an unreported defect class.
>
> **`CL-5` Quick Triage Pass (§P)** when a full sweep is not possible — these 10 catch the majority of serious defects: (1) can a new user complete the primary task unaided · (2) does every action give visible feedback within 400ms · (3) do empty/loading/error states exist AND offer a forward path · (4) is the primary action obvious, singular, reachable · (5) text ≥4.5:1 contrast and focus visible · (6) whole flow completable by keyboard · (7) touch targets ≥44/48px · (8) destructive actions reversible · (9) holds at 320px and 200% zoom · (10) any dark patterns.
>
> **`CL-6` Report shape (§O).** Context (+ known gaps) → Verdict (Ship / Ship with fixes / Do not ship) → What works (2–4 specific strengths, cited) → Findings grouped `P0`→`P3`, each with Location · Evidence + tag · Impact · Principle (checklist ID) · Fix → Open questions → Coverage table. Any `P0` caps the grade at Fail regardless of score; report a score only ALONGSIDE findings, never instead of them.
>
> **Precedence and no-double-counting.** The project's design-system / SCSS / frontend-pattern docs and accepted ADRs OUTRANK this checklist; the brief's stated direction outranks aesthetic judgment. A deliberate, documented convention is NEVER a defect — check intent before flagging, and surface a genuine conflict to the user with both sides, NEVER resolve it silently. This checklist is the review PROCEDURE, not a third set of taste rules: `UI-1.1`–`UI-9.4` ask "does it meet the usability floor?", `DD-1`–`DD-8` ask "is this THIS product's interface?", and these checks ask "did the review actually look, with evidence, and rank it?". Where a check restates a `UI-*` or `DD-*` clause, report the defect ONCE under whichever ID the consuming skill already uses.
>
> **For a PLAN or a PLAN REVIEW.** When the plan contains front-end work, the checklist binds the plan's ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA, not a built page: name the platform, the applicable conditional sections (§F/§G/§H, §L), the eight screen states each UI phase must deliver (§D2), and the §I accessibility floor — so the work is specified against the checklist before it is written. A UI phase whose acceptance criteria omit the states and the a11y floor is INCOMPLETE — say so.

<!-- /SYNC:design-review-checklist -->

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

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

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

<!-- SYNC: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: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:ui-intent-layer:reminder -->

- **MANDATORY** For UI-bearing specs, author/maintain the tech-agnostic interaction-surface layer (View Inventory + Navigation Map + observable UI States + per-story `US-/OP-/BR-`-traced flow); keep deep visual fidelity in the linked `design-spec`/mockup recorded in frontmatter; name ZERO frameworks/routes/CSS/component classes; skip ONLY for backend-only features with a stated reason.

<!-- /SYNC:ui-intent-layer: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: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 by asking the user directly**, 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: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 by asking the user directly 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.** ask the user directly 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 `spawn_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:ui-ux-design-principles:reminder -->

- **MUST ATTENTION** apply the 40 UI/UX Design Principles (`UI-1.1`–`UI-9.4`) to any user-facing surface: one focal point, proximity grouping, empty/loading/error designed FIRST (§1) · ≤2 families, 16px web / 17px mobile body, never <14px, 45–75ch, fixed 6-step scale (§2) · 4.5:1 text / 3:1 edges measured, one accent, colour never alone, dark mode ≠ inversion (§3) · one 4/8px unit, `gap` over margins, tighter-inside-looser-between, content-driven breakpoints (§4) · <100ms response, all 5 states, undo over confirm, 150–250ms ease-out honouring reduced-motion, visible focus ring (§5) · where-am-I/what's-here/where-next, ≤5 top-level destinations, user's words, URL or back path (§6) · fewer fields, visible labels, validate on blur, matched keyboard, NEVER lose input (§7) · ≥44×44pt targets 8px apart, bottom-third primaries, gestures never the only route, safe areas (§8) · structure before data, optimistic update with visible rollback, reserved space, slow-connection states (§9). Project design-system docs OUTRANK these clauses — a genuine conflict goes to the user, NEVER resolved silently. Cite every finding as `UI-<clause>` + `file:line`. Skip ONLY for changes with no user-facing surface, stated explicitly.

<!-- /SYNC:ui-ux-design-principles:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:design-distinctiveness-gate:reminder -->

- **MUST ATTENTION** apply the design distinctiveness gate (`DD-1`–`DD-8`) to any user-facing visual surface: ground it in the named subject/audience/job and confirm when the brief is silent (`DD-1`) · every choice carries a WHY, token names included (`DD-2`) · write a design plan (colour 4–6 named hex · type families+roles+scale · layout prose+ASCII+alignment · principles) then run the BLOCKING generic test and state what you revised BEFORE coding (`DD-3`) · audit every free axis against the T1–T5 tell catalog — cream+serif+`#D97757`, acid-on-black, broadsheet, the SaaS-card kit, template chrome (ALL-CAPS eyebrows, `A · B · C`, spaced-em-dash labels, `#0B0B0B`, mono data labels, trailing `→`) — a match is a missed decision, never a defect (`DD-4`) · 1–2 clearly distinct families, real scale, <80ch, no single-word headline accent / ALL-CAPS labels / redundant eyebrows (`DD-5`) · numbering only on real sequences; hero = the subject's most characteristic thing, not big-number+gradient (`DD-6`) · one orchestrated motion moment, never per-section entrances plus universal card hovers (`DD-7`) · spend boldness once, critique the BUILT page, remove one accessory (`DD-8`). The brief's stated direction OUTRANKS the tell catalog; project design-system docs OUTRANK these clauses — genuine conflicts go to the user, NEVER resolved silently. Cite findings as `DD-<clause>` + `file:line`. Skip ONLY for surfaces with no user-facing visuals, stated explicitly.

<!-- /SYNC:design-distinctiveness-gate:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:design-review-checklist:reminder -->

- **MUST ATTENTION** when the change/plan/artifact has a user-facing front-end surface, READ `.claude/docs/design-review-checklist.md` and run it: `CL-1` establish context first (platform · user · task · metric · constraints · scope · artifacts — fewer than four → state the gap, findings are low confidence) · `CL-2` evidence or nothing, cite a location per finding, NEVER invent a measurement (unmeasurable → `NOT VERIFIABLE`), tag `MEASURED`/`OBSERVED`/`HEURISTIC` · `CL-3` rank `P0`–`P4`, cap at top 10 by severity, NEVER pad, concrete fix on every `P0`/`P1` · `CL-4` sweep §A–§N in order, one focused pass each, with §F/§G/§H and §L applied only when the platform/product matches and §I (WCAG 2.2 AA) as a `P1` floor · `CL-5` short on time → run the 10-check §P triage · `CL-6` report in the §O shape. Project design-system docs and ADRs OUTRANK the checklist; report a defect ONCE across `UI-*`/`DD-*`/`CL-*`. For a plan, the checklist binds the UI phases' acceptance criteria (platform, conditional sections, the eight screen states, the a11y floor). Skip ONLY when the change has NO user-facing front-end surface, stated explicitly.

<!-- /SYNC:design-review-checklist:reminder -->

## Closing Reminders

**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Goal:** Review one artifact (PBI, design spec, story, or test spec) for completeness and quality so it is evidence-backed, handoff-ready, and free of missing assumptions or acceptance gaps. For generated PBIs, prove one independently releasable actor-facing outcome with a complete full-flow surface when UI is involved.

**Protocols in force — MUST ATTENTION honor every block below (concise digest of the SYNC/shared blocks this skill carries):**

- **Nested Task Creation:** Parent workflow rows never replace child phase tracking.
- **Project Reference Docs Guide:** Read required project docs before target work.
- **Task Tracking External Report:** Bootstrap tasks; persist review findings to `plans/reports/`.
- **Critical Thinking Mindset:** Traced `file:line` proof; confidence >80% to act.
- **Evidence Based Reasoning:** No claim without cited evidence; state confidence.
- **Understand Code First:** Read code, grep 3+ patterns before any change.
- **Double Round Trip Review:** Validate findings, fix only current-round blocking findings, and restart the full review until the round severity bar is clear (Round 1: zero findings; Round 2+: zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, LOW deferred; binary gates always block).
- **Releasable PBI Contract:** Apply `.claude/skills/shared/releasable-pbi-contract.md`; technical-only PBIs and UI PBIs represented by one isolated screen are FAIL, not WARN.
- **Fresh Context Review:** Spawn fresh zero-memory sub-agent after each fix cycle.
- **Review Protocol Injection:** Embed all 11 protocol bodies verbatim in sub-agent prompts.
- **AI Mistake Prevention:** verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references, verify all affected outputs, re-read after context loss, surface ambiguity.
- **Severity Rubric:** Classify findings Critical/High/Medium/Low by consequence using `SYNC:severity-rubric`; round 1 blocks on every validated finding, rounds 2–3 block only CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, and LOW is recorded/deferred. Failed binary gates always block.
- **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** execute the main steps IN ORDER — (1) Identify type → (2) Adversarial Mindset + Anti-Bias Gate → (3) type Required/Recommended checklist → (4) M1-M7 BLOCKING gate → (5) Readability checklist → (6) per-type output template → (7) validated-fix + full re-review loop until the current round bar is clear (round 1: zero findings; round 2+: zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, with LOWs recorded as deferred); NEVER skip or merge steps without explicit user approval — why: each step catches a distinct defect class the others miss.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** be a SKEPTIC, not a presence-checker — run ALL 6 adversarial techniques (steel-man rejected alternatives, stress-test 3 assumptions, AC-testability, pre-mortem, unseen alternatives, contrarian pass) and clear the Anti-Bias Gate BEFORE any verdict — why: sections that exist but hold weak/untestable content create false confidence worse than missing ones.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** enforce the BLOCKING M1-M7 gate on ALL types — any **M1-M5 or M7** violation forces NEEDS WORK citing the mandate ID + exact section/line; NEVER pass an M1-M5/M7 violation — why: passing it makes this review itself defective.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** M7 (business-visibility) is judged on each case's BODY via the demo test — *"what would a stakeholder SEE change?"*; no answer → NEEDS WORK as TECHNICAL-ONLY. A `When` that is an invocation (handler runs, consumer receives, job fires, data syncs, model inspected) or a `Then` asserting schema/type/nullability/call-count FAILS M7 **even in flawless tech-free prose** — why: M1 governs vocabulary, M7 governs subject matter, and passing a case because its prose is clean is exactly how technical cases accumulate in business specs one bugfix at a time.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** exempt source identifiers inside evidence carriers (`[Source:]`, `**Evidence**`, `CoveredBy`, legacy `IntegrationTest`, frontmatter, mermaid) — flag tech leakage only in narrative/AC/scenario prose — why: carriers are CORRECT places for class/path/test names; flagging them is a false finding.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** dispatch on `--type={pbi|story|spec-tests|design}` (infer if omitted) — apply that type's Required/Recommended checklist; verdict = PASS (all Required + ≥50% Recommended) | WARN (all Required, <50% Recommended) | FAIL (any Required fails).
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** for `--type=design` ONLY: run the 9-dimension UI/UX Design Principles pass — all 40 clauses (`UI-1.1`-`UI-9.4`), one dimension at a time; every finding cites `UI-<clause>` + `file:line` + `SYNC:severity-rubric` severity and folds into the existing Required/Recommended verdict; `pbi`/`story`/`spec-tests` are unaffected, and project design-system docs OUTRANK the clauses.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** for `--type=spec-tests`: every `[HARD]` §4 rule / §5 invariant maps to ≥1 universally-quantified property TC + boundary counter-case — a missing property category is a blocking finding; one business TC covered by MANY tests is the correct one-to-many shape, NEVER a duplicate.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** run the findings-validation gate BEFORE fixing — invoke `$why-review --validate-findings <report-path>` first; NEVER edit the artifact to resolve findings before this gate returns CLEAN — why: validate-before-fix at parity with `$plan-review` prevents fixing phantom findings.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** fix only validated blocking findings, then restart the FULL review with a fresh `general-purpose` sub-agent (artifacts are NOT code) and loop until the current exit bar is clear (round 1: zero findings; round 2+: zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, LOW deferred) — NEVER spawn a confirmation sub-agent after a bar-clearing round — why: every fix invalidates the prior verdict, but a bar-clearing pass needs no re-confirmation.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** cite `file:line`/section+line evidence for every finding (confidence >80% to act, <60% DO NOT recommend); every NEEDS WORK item must be actionable — why: speculation produces non-fixable findings.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** break work into small todo tasks using task tracking BEFORE starting; add a final review todo task to verify work quality.

**[TASK-PLANNING]** Before acting, analyze task scope and systematically break it into small todo tasks and sub-tasks using task tracking.

> **[IMPORTANT]** Analyze how big the task is and break it into many small todo tasks systematically before starting — this is very important.

---

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

**Anti-Rationalization:**

| Evasion | Rebuttal |
| ------- | -------- |
| "Required sections present, looks complete" | Presence ≠ quality. Name what's IN them and the specific failure mode NOT addressed. |
| "ACs are defined" | Are they TESTABLE? Name the automated test a QA engineer writes for each — without clarification. |
| "Alternatives were considered" | Real alternatives or strawmen set up to lose? Steel-man the strongest rejected one. |
| "Verdict is clear, skip the contrarian pass" | Generate 2 sentences arguing the OPPOSITE conclusion first, then decide on evidence. |
| "M1-M5/M7 violation is minor, let it pass" | Passing an M1-M5/M7 violation makes THIS review defective. NEEDS WORK + cite mandate ID + section/line. |
| "No tech words in it — M7 passes" | M1 ≠ M7. Apply the demo test to the BODY: what would a stakeholder SEE change? No answer → FAIL, however clean the prose. |
| "This sync/consumer case is business-critical, so it stays" | If it's business-critical it's demoable — rewrite it demoably. A case that CANNOT be rewritten demoably is exactly what M7 moves out. |
| "Source name in prose, flag it" | Check the carrier first — `[Source:]`/`**Evidence**`/`CoveredBy`/legacy `IntegrationTest`/frontmatter/mermaid are EXEMPT. |
| "Fix the finding, then I'm done" | Validate findings (`$why-review`) BEFORE fixing, then restart the FULL review until the current exit bar is clear (round 1: zero findings; round 2+: zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, LOW deferred). |
| "Skip evidence for review judgments" | Cite section+line for every finding; confidence >80% to act, <60% DO NOT recommend. |

**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** SKEPTIC stance — clear the Anti-Bias Gate (adversarial techniques) before any verdict.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** M6 enforcement — NEEDS WORK on any **M1-M5 or M7** violation, cite mandate ID + section/line; carriers exempt.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** M7 — apply the demo test to each case's BODY, not its prose; an invocation-shaped `When` or a schema/type/call-count `Then` is TECHNICAL-ONLY and FAILS even when perfectly tech-free.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** validate findings before fixing, then restart the FULL fresh review until the current exit bar is clear (round 1: zero findings; round 2+: zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, LOW deferred).

<!-- CODEX:SYNC-PROMPT-PROTOCOLS:START -->
## Static Prompt Protocol Mirror (Auto-Synced)

Source: `.claude/.ck.json` + `.claude/skills/shared/sync-inline-versions.md` (`:full` blocks) + `.claude/scripts/lib/hookless-prompt-protocol.cjs` (legacy filename; static protocol composer)

## [WORKFLOW-EXECUTION-PROTOCOL] [BLOCKING] Workflow Execution Protocol — MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST CRITICAL. Do not skip for any reason.

**Generic portability boundary:** Reusable skills and protocol text stay project-neutral; project-specific conventions are discovered from docs/project-config.json and docs/project-reference/. Apply shared AI-SDD from `shared/sdd-artifact-contract.md`. Read `docs/project-config.json` and `docs/project-reference/docs-index-reference.md`, then open the project reference docs named there immediately before the first target read, grep, edit, test, or analysis. For spec, test-case, behavior-change, public-contract, or `docs/specs/` work, route through the local spec docs named by the docs index: `feature-spec-reference.md`, `spec-system-reference.md`, `spec-principles.md`, and `workflow-spec-test-code-cycle-reference.md` when specs/tests/code must stay synchronized. If either file or a required reference doc is missing or stale, auto-run `$project-init` (or the narrow lower-level route such as `$project-config`, `$docs-init`, `$scan-all`, or `$scan --target=<key>`) before ordinary project-specific work. After compaction, resume, delegation, or a material context change, re-read the required docs and state `Reference docs read: ... | Not applicable: ...`; a hook reminder or prior conversation is not proof that the files are loaded. Any supported AI tool may execute when this shared context and local docs are available.

1. **DETECT:** If the prompt starts with an explicit slash skill/workflow command, execute it directly. Otherwise match the prompt against the workflow catalog and skill list.
2. **ANALYZE:** Choose the best option: execute directly, invoke a skill, activate a standard workflow, or compose a custom step combination.
3. **AUTO-SELECT:** Pick the best option yourself. Do not ask the user to choose between direct execution, skill, standard workflow, or custom workflow.
4. **ACTIVATE:** For a selected workflow, call `$start-workflow <workflowId>`; for a selected skill, invoke that skill; for a custom workflow, sequence custom steps directly; for direct execution, proceed with the task.
5. **CREATE TASKS:** task tracking for ALL workflow/skill/custom steps before execution when the selected path has multiple steps.
6. **PARALLELIZE:** Before executing the task list, tag each task `PAR` (independent inputs + write set disjoint from every other `PAR` task) or `SEQ` (name the blocking dependency), group `PAR` tasks into waves, declare the wave plan, and spawn each wave's sub-agents in ONE message — all-return barrier per wave, fan-out one level deep unless a sub-agent's own definition authorizes further fan-out. Sequential-by-default is a defect when tasks are independent; do not parallelize shared write targets, output-consuming tasks, trivial single-file work, ordering a skill or workflow explicitly fixes, or user-approval gates.
7. **EXECUTE:** Advance per the **Workflow Step Advancement & Parallel Phases** rule in your context instructions — model-driven; a sub-agent completion advances a step identically to an inline call; a parallel-phase group is an all-return barrier (advance only after ALL members return, never serialize it)
## Shared AI-SDD Protocol Markers

Source: `.claude/skills/shared/sync-inline-versions.md`

## SYNC:ai-sdd-artifact-contract

> **AI-SDD Artifact Contract** — Shared spec-driven development rules stay portable and source-owned.
>
> 1. Keep reusable AI-SDD principles in `.claude`; put repository-specific paths, commands, owners, products, and formats in project config/reference docs.
> 2. Preserve cycle: `spec -> plan -> tasks -> implement -> verify -> update spec/docs`.
> 3. Trace every requirement or invariant through decision, task, TC/test, source evidence, and docs/spec update.
> 4. Treat code-to-spec extraction as reference-only until accepted by the canonical spec owner.
> 5. Any supported AI tool may plan, implement, review, or verify with synced context; using multiple tools is optional.
> 6. Update `.claude` source first, then sync generated mirrors; do not manually edit `.agents`, `.codex`, or `AGENTS.md`. — why: mirrors are generated artifacts; hand-edits are overwritten on the next sync
> 7. If `docs/project-config.json`, root instruction files, or a required project-reference doc is missing or stale, auto-run `$project-init` or the narrow lower-level route before ordinary project-specific work.
>
> **Active reference:** `shared/sdd-artifact-contract.md` in the active skills root.

---

## SYNC:ai-sdd-artifact-contract:reminder

- **MANDATORY** Apply `shared/sdd-artifact-contract.md`; keep reusable AI-SDD in `.claude` and local rules in project docs.
- **MANDATORY** Code-to-spec extraction is reference-only until canonical acceptance; any supported AI tool may execute with synced context.
- **MANDATORY** Update `.claude` source before syncing generated mirrors; do not manually edit `.agents`, `.codex`, or `AGENTS.md`.
- **MANDATORY** Missing or stale project config, root instruction files, or required reference docs route project-specific work through `$project-init` or the narrow setup route automatically.
**[TASK-PLANNING] [MANDATORY]** BEFORE executing any workflow or skill step, create/update task tracking for all planned steps, then keep it synchronized as each step starts/completes.
## [LESSON-LEARNED-REMINDER] [BLOCKING] Task Planning & Continuous Improvement — MANDATORY. Do not skip.

Break work into small tasks (task tracking) before starting. Add final task: "Analyze AI mistakes & lessons learned".

**Extract lessons — ROOT CAUSE ONLY, not symptom fixes:**
1. Name the FAILURE MODE (reasoning/assumption failure), not symptom — "assumed API existed without reading source" not "used wrong enum value".
2. Generality test: does this failure mode apply to ≥3 contexts/codebases? If not, abstract one level up.
3. Write as a universal rule — strip project-specific names/paths/classes. Useful on any codebase.
4. Consolidate: multiple mistakes sharing one failure mode → ONE lesson.
5. **Recurrence gate:** "Would this recur in future session WITHOUT this reminder?" — No → skip `$learn`.
6. **Auto-fix gate:** "Could `$code-review`/`$code-simplifier`/`$security-review`/`$lint` catch this?" — Yes → improve review skill instead.
7. BOTH gates pass → ask user to run `$learn`.
**[CRITICAL-THINKING-MINDSET]** Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act.
**Anti-hallucination principle:** 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.
**AI Attention principle (Primacy-Recency):** Put the 3 most critical rules at both top and bottom of long prompts/protocols so instruction adherence survives long context windows.
**Goal-driven execution:** Define success criteria first, loop until verified, and stop only when observable checks pass.
**Tests verify intent:** Tests must protect business rules/invariants and fail when the protected intent breaks, not only mirror current behavior.
## Common AI Mistake Prevention (System Lessons)

- **Re-read files after context compaction.** Edit requires prior Read in same context; compaction wipes read state. Re-read before editing.
- **Grep for old terms after bulk replacements.** AI over-trusts find/replace completeness. Grep full repo after bulk edits for missed refs in docs/configs/catalogs.
- **Check downstream references before deleting.** Deletions cascade doc/code staleness. Map referencing files before removal.
- **After memory loss, check existing state before creating new.** Compaction wipes prior-work memory. Query current state to resume — never blindly duplicate.
- **Verify AI-generated content against actual code.** AI hallucinates APIs, class names, method signatures. Grep to confirm existence before documenting/referencing.
- **Trace full dependency chain after edits.** Changing a definition misses downstream consumers. Trace the full chain.
- **When renaming, grep ALL consumer file types.** Some file types silently ignore missing refs (no compile error). Search code, templates, configs, generated files.
- **Trace ALL code paths when verifying correctness.** Code existing ≠ code executing. Trace early exits, error branches, conditional skips — not just happy path.
- **Update docs that embed canonical data when source changes.** Docs inlining derived data (workflows, schemas, configs) go stale silently. Update all embedding docs alongside source.
- **Verify sub-agent results after context recovery.** Background agents may finish while parent compacted — grep-verify output, don't trust assumed completion.
- **Cross-check full target list against sub-agent assignments.** Parallel sub-agents by category miss boundary items. Reconcile union of assignments against target list before proceeding.
- **Sub-agents inherit knowledge only from their agent .md definition — use custom agent types, not built-in Explore.** Tool adoption = permission + knowledge + enforcement (numbered workflow step).
- **Persist sub-agent findings incrementally, not as a final batch.** Long sub-agents hit cutoffs before final write — findings lost. Instruct append-per-section to report file.
- **When debugging, ask "whose responsibility?" before fixing.** Trace caller (wrong data) vs callee (wrong handling). Fix at responsible layer — never patch symptom site.
- **Test failure → record a provisional verdict before trace/edit, then investigate.** Use the full five-way taxonomy: SOURCE-WRONG (production violates intent), TEST-WRONG (assertion/setup is stale), TEST-NOT-OPTIMAL (valid but fragile or low-signal test), ENVIRONMENT-BLOCKED (external state prevents a verdict), or AMBIGUOUS (intent/evidence cannot choose safely). Then trace root cause and triangulate against the governing spec (`docs/specs/**` if one exists) AND source. NEVER weaken an assertion, add a skip, relax a timeout, or change source merely to force green.
- **Grep ALL removed names after extraction/refactoring.** Primary file "done" ≠ secondary files clean. Grep entire scope for every removed symbol before declaring complete.
- **Assume existing values are intentional — ask WHY before changing OR flagging one as a defect.** Pattern-matching as "wrong" skips context. Before changing or reporting any constant/limit/flag/cutoff: read comments, git blame, the CALLER's ordering (the guarantee that makes the value correct usually lives in code running immediately BEFORE the cited line), and 2+ sibling call sites of the same convention. A doc stating WHAT without WHY is missing rationale, not proof of a missing guard — and in a validation pass, an accurate `file:line` citation proves the transcription, never the defect.
- **Verify ALL affected outputs, not just the first.** One build green ≠ all green. Multi-stack changes (backend/frontend/tests/docs) require verifying EVERY output.
- **Evaluate fit before copying a nearby pattern.** Closest example ≠ matching preconditions — verify the new context shares the same constraints, base classes, scope, lifetime.
- **Holistic-first debugging — resist nearest-attention trap.** Don't dive into first plausible cause. List EVERY precondition (config, env vars, paths, DB, endpoints, creds, versions, DI, data). Verify each against evidence (grep/query — not reasoning). Ask "what would falsify this?" — if nothing, it's not a hypothesis. Most expensive failure: going deeper in "obvious" layer while bug sits in layer never questioned.
- **Surgical changes — apply the diff test (context-aware).** Two modes: (1) Bug fix → every line traces to the bug; no restyling; orphan cleanup only for imports YOUR changes made unused. (2) Review/enhancement → implement improvements AND announce as "Enhancement beyond main request: [what]". Never silently scope-creep. Diff test: "Would this line exist if I wasn't asked to do X?" — if no, delete or announce.
- **Surface ambiguity before coding — don't pick silently.** Multiple valid interpretations → present each with effort: "[Request] could mean (1) [N h], (2) [N h]. Which matters?" List scope/format/volume/constraints assumptions first. If simpler path exists, say so. Never silently pick.
- **[MANDATORY FIRST ACTION] ALWAYS activate a suitable skill or workflow BEFORE responding.** Match task against workflow catalog + skill list; invoke via skill invocation or `$start-workflow <workflowId>`. NEVER answer or write code before checking. Skip = protocol violation.
- **Why-Review adversarial mindset — apply when reviewing any plan, decision, or design.** Default SKEPTIC not VALIDATOR: steel-man a rejected alternative, invert each stated reason ("what does it sacrifice?"), stress-test top 2-3 assumptions, run pre-mortem ("ships, fails in 3 months — what breaks?"), surface 1-2 alternatives author missed. Section presence ≠ quality; quality = causal reasoning + concrete mitigations + evidence, not "it's better" or "monitor closely".
- **Front-load report-write in sub-agent prompts for large reviews.** Many-file sub-agents hit budget before final write — findings lost. Design prompts so: (1) report-write is first explicit deliverable, (2) append per-file/section (not batched), (3) scope bounded so reads don't exhaust budget. Truncated mid-sentence with no report file → spawn narrower scope, don't retry same prompt.
- **After context compaction, re-verify all prior phase outcomes before continuing.** Summaries describe intent, not environment state (git index, filesystem, processes). On resume, FIRST audit: git status, re-read modified files, verify filesystem. Every "completed" claim is an untested hypothesis until evidence confirms.
- **OOM/memory: check row count before row size.** Triage: (1) Unbounded query — no DB filter for trigger? Push filter to DB; eliminates OOM. (2) Large rows? Projection reduces proportionally. Row reduction > projection in ROI.
- **Assert the outcome your system OWNS, never the intermediate state your INFRASTRUCTURE owns.** When testing anything asynchronous (queue/broker delivery, retries, background jobs, caches, replication), assert the final business/entity state. NEVER assert the delivery bookkeeping — consume/send status, attempt counts, last-error, row existence or counts in a broker, scheduler, or outbox/inbox table. That bookkeeping lives in shared infrastructure that ANY co-running process (a peer worker, a second replica, a leftover local container) can write, usually under a deterministic shared key, so the assertion silently tests the developer's environment instead of the system: green when run alone, flaky the instant anything else shares that broker + database. Gate question for every assertion: "would this hold no matter WHICH process did the work?" — if no, assert the converged data state instead. Corollary: process-local fault injection and in-process telemetry cannot gate work any process may perform — use them as stress amplifiers (arm → bounded window → disarm → assert convergence), never as preconditions.
- **Keep domain concepts out of generic/shared/infrastructure layers.** Reusable layer (shared library, framework, infra module) must reference NO consumer-specific domain concept — tenant/customer/product IDs, business entities, feature rules. Leak compiles + runs → passes review silently while coupling the "reusable" layer to one consumer. Keep shared type domain-free; push domain fields/logic down into the consumer via subclass/composition. — why: a layer coupled to one consumer's domain is no longer reusable.

<!-- CODEX:SYNC-PROMPT-PROTOCOLS:END -->