Feature Implement

---
name: feature-implement
version: 1.0.0
description: '[Implementation] Use when implementing a feature step by step.'
execution-mode: subagent
context-budget: high
---

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

> **[BLOCKING]** Execute skill steps in declared order. NEVER skip, reorder, merge steps without explicit user approval.
> **[BLOCKING]** Before each step or sub-skill call, update task tracking: `in_progress` on start, `completed` on end.
> **[BLOCKING]** Every completed/skipped step MUST include evidence or explicit skip reason.
> **[BLOCKING]** If Task tools unavailable, maintain equivalent step-by-step plan tracker with same status transitions.

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

## Quick Summary

**Goal:** Ship a correct, fully-verified feature that satisfies the saved Goal Contract — implemented with deep research, comprehensive planning, and maximum quality verification (planned, reviewed, tested, documented) — with no skipped quality gate on any non-trivial change.

**Summary:** Resolve the saved goal and spec contract, research and trace the feature, obtain an approved plan, implement in verified phases, run tests and reviews, reconcile specs and docs, and close with evidence; use fast mode only when every trivial-task condition is satisfied.

**Workflow:**

1. **Research** — Deep investigation, multiple researcher subagents
2. **Plan** — Detailed plan via `/plan`; user approval required
3. **Implement** — Execute with full code review + SRE review
4. **Verify** — Run all tests, review changes, update docs

**Key Rules:**

- Maximum thoroughness: research → plan → implement → review → test → docs
- User approval required at plan stage
- Break work into todo tasks; add final self-review task

> **Renamed:** formerly `cook` — now `/feature-implement`. The old name no longer resolves as a slash command.

> **feature-implement vs plan-execute:** `feature-implement` takes an idea/feature description and goes idea → research → **plan (created here)** → shipped. Use `/plan-execute` instead when a plan file already exists and you only need disciplined phase-by-phase execution + commit. feature-implement owns the front of the pipeline (research + planning); plan-execute owns the back (phase gates + auto-commit + `--parallel`/`--approval`/`--tests` flags).

## Standalone Mode Pipeline (skip entirely if invoked inside a workflow)

> **MANDATORY — standalone `/feature-implement` only.** When invoked OUTSIDE a workflow, wrap the core spine in this quality loop. Detect an active workflow via `TaskList` FIRST: if a parent `[Workflow]` row exists, SKIP this section — the surrounding workflow already sequences plan/review/why-review around this skill (e.g. `workflow-feature` wraps feature-implement with exactly these steps).
>
> Create these as `TaskCreate` tasks up front, in order, then execute them:
>
> 1. **`/spec` — spec-driven, BEFORE any plan or code.** Create or update the tech-free 8-section Feature Spec under `docs/specs/` so the plan and implementation satisfy an agreed contract, not chat memory. Decide the case from evidence: net-new capability with no code yet → `/spec [mode=draft]` (provisional, `Evidence: TBD`); enhancement to an already-documented feature → `/spec [mode=update]`; behavior/contract change to existing spec → `/spec [mode=amend]`; buggy/undocumented area that now warrants a spec → `/spec [mode=init]`. If a governing spec already exists and fully covers this change, record `Spec verified current — no change` with `file:line` evidence and proceed. **Skip ONLY in fast mode** (ALL Default Mode Policy trivial-task conditions met — no behavior/contract change); record the skip reason. Decide the case explicitly — skip only the authoring, never the decision.
> 2. **`/plan`** — author the implementation plan from the spec. feature-implement's Comprehensive Planning phase (Step 2) satisfies this; emit a reviewable plan artifact under `plans/`. Map each plan phase's `## Test Specifications` to the spec's §8 `TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN}` IDs.
> 3. **`/plan-review`** — recursively review/validate the plan; fix validated findings that block the current severity bar before implementing.
> 4. **Proceed** — execute the core implementation spine (research already done → implement → test → review → docs).
> 5. **`/spec [mode=sync]`** — *spec-driven closure.* Reconcile the spec's §8 `TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN}` ↔ integration tests and refresh `Evidence: TBD` markers to real `file:line` now that code exists. Run `/spec [mode=tests]` first if the implementation introduced behavior not yet captured as a test case. Skip only when step 1 was skipped (fast-mode trivial, no spec touched).
> 6. **`/changes-review`** — review the diff before commit.
> 7. **`/why-review`** — review rationale and change quality of the implementation.

## 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 the 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 a downstream rule would raise change cost, this principle wins.

---

## Default Mode Policy

> **Default mode HARD (full rigor).** Every section below — deep research, mandatory `/plan`, full `code-reviewer` review, mandatory tests, mandatory `/docs-update` — applies by default.
>
> **Opt out to fast mode ONLY when ALL true** (task genuinely trivial):
>
> - Single-file edit, ≤30 lines changed
> - No design choice (only one reasonable approach)
> - No cross-service impact, no contract change, no new dependency
> - No new pattern — follows existing codebase pattern
> - Existing tests cover change OR change non-functional (typo, comment, log message)
>
> **Any condition fails → use full protocol below.** When in doubt, default hard. Skipping review/tests on non-trivial change ships bugs.
>
> **Fast mode skips (and only skips):** researcher subagent phase (direct grep instead), mandatory `code-reviewer` review (self-review only), separate test phase (verify inline). Does NOT skip `/plan` step, test execution, `/docs-update` triage.

### Backend Context (if applicable)

> When task involves backend changes, read these directly before implementing:

- CQRS commands/queries, validation, repositories, entity events: `docs/project-reference/backend-patterns-reference.md`
- Entity catalog, relationships, cross-service sync: `docs/project-reference/domain-entities-reference.md`
- **Repository type (service-specific):** when the project declares a per-service repository abstraction (`backendServices.serviceRepositories` in `docs/project-config.json`), use that repository type for the service — NEVER the generic root repository base.

### Frontend/UI Context (if applicable)

> When task involves frontend or UI changes:

- Component patterns: `docs/project-reference/frontend-patterns-reference.md`
- Styling/BEM guide: `docs/project-reference/scss-styling-guide.md`
- Design system tokens: `docs/project-reference/design-system/README.md`

**Ultrathink** plan and implement these tasks with maximum verification:

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

<tasks>$ARGUMENTS</tasks>

**Mode:** Extra research, detailed planning, mandatory reviews.

## Workflow

### 0. Goal Contract Read (BEFORE implementation)

- Resolve the active Goal Contract per `SYNC:goal-contract-satisfaction-loop`: active plan `goal.md` → `plans/goals/{YYMMDD-HHmm}-{slug}/goal.md` → create from the current request via `.claude/templates/goal-contract-template.md`.
- Read the saved success criteria BEFORE any code change — implementation serves the saved criteria, not chat memory.
- After implementation and verification, append an Iteration Log entry to the goal file: result, evidence references (`file:line`, command output), remaining gaps mapped to criteria.

### 1. Deep Research Phase

- Launch 2-3 `researcher` subagents in parallel covering:
    - Technical approach validation
    - Edge cases, failure modes
    - Security implications
    - Performance considerations
- Use `/investigate` for comprehensive codebase analysis
- Research reports max 150 lines each
- **External Memory:** Write all research to `.ai/workspace/analysis/{task-name}.analysis.md`. Re-read ENTIRE file before planning.
- **Pre-Implementation Trace Gate:** For bugfix, failed verification, stale/incorrect final output, regression, or behavior-changing fix plans, MUST ATTENTION confirm the plan/referenced analysis includes `Debugger Trace: End -> Start`, all feeder paths, hypothesis matrix, owning fix layer, and forward convergence proof. If missing, STOP and produce the missing-trace list before editing.

> After implementing, run `python .claude/scripts/code_graph connections <file> --json` on modified files; verify no related files need updates.

### Graph-Trace Before Implementation

When graph DB available, BEFORE writing code, trace blast radius:

- `python .claude/scripts/code_graph trace <file> --direction both --json` — what calls this code AND what it triggers
- `python .claude/scripts/code_graph trace <file> --direction downstream --json` — all downstream consumers
- Prevents breaking implicit dependencies (bus message consumers, event handlers)

### 2. Comprehensive Planning

- Use `planner` subagent with all research reports
- Create full plan directory:
    - `plan.md` — overview with risk assessment
    - `phase-XX-*.md` — detailed phase files
    - Success criteria per phase
    - Rollback strategy

### 3. Verified Implementation

- Implement one phase at a time
- After each phase:
    - Run type-check, compile
    - Run relevant tests
    - Self-review before proceeding

### Batch Checkpoint (Large Plans)

For plans with 10+ tasks, execute in batches with human review:

1. **Execute batch** — Complete next 3 tasks (or user-specified size)
2. **Report** — Show implementation, verification output, any concerns
3. **Wait** — Say "Ready for feedback" and STOP. Do NOT continue automatically.
4. **Apply feedback** — Incorporate changes, execute next batch
5. **Repeat** until all tasks complete

<HARD-GATE>
Plans with 10+ tasks — do NOT execute all tasks continuously without checkpoint.
Stop after every batch for human review. Prevents runaway execution where early
mistakes compound through later tasks.
</HARD-GATE>

### 4. Mandatory Testing

- Use `tester` subagent for full test coverage
- Write tests for:
    - Happy path scenarios
    - Edge cases from research
    - Error handling paths
- NO mocks or fake data
- Repeat until all tests pass

### 5. Mandatory Code Review

- Use `code-reviewer` subagent
- Apply the canonical review policy: Round 1 fixes every validated finding;
  Round 2+ fixes only validated CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM findings, while
  LOW-only findings are recorded as deferred and do not reopen the loop.
- Failed binary gates (tests, required artifacts, security must-fix, parity)
  block at every round and are never relabeled LOW.
- Re-run tests after fixes and start a fresh full review after every fix cycle.
- Stop when the current round's severity bar is clear; cap at three rounds and
  escalate repeated/no-progress CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM findings rather than
  looping open-ended.

### 6. Documentation Update

- Use `docs-manager` to update relevant docs
- Use `project-manager` to update project status
- Record architectural decisions

### 7. Final Report

- Summary of all changes
- Test coverage metrics
- Security considerations addressed
- Unresolved questions (if any)
- Ask user to review and approve

## When to Use

- Critical production features
- Security-sensitive changes
- Public API modifications
- Database schema changes
- Cross-service integrations

## Quality Gates

| Gate     | Criteria                  |
| -------- | ------------------------- |
| Research | 2+ researcher reports     |
| Planning | Full plan directory       |
| Tests    | All pass, no mocks        |
| Review   | No blocking findings under the current severity bar; deferred LOWs listed |
| Docs     | Updated if needed         |

---

## Next Steps (Standalone: MUST ATTENTION ask user via `AskUserQuestion`. Skip if inside workflow.)

> **MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — NO EXCEPTIONS:** If this skill was called **outside a workflow**, MUST ATTENTION use `AskUserQuestion` to present these options. Do NOT skip because task seems "simple" or "obvious" — user decides:

- **"Proceed with full workflow (Recommended)"** — Detect best workflow to continue from here (feature implemented). Ensures review, testing, docs steps aren't skipped.
- **"/code-simplifier"** — Simplify and clean up implementation
- **"/workflow-review-changes"** — Review changes before commit
- **"Skip, continue manually"** — user decides

> If already inside a workflow, skip — workflow handles sequencing.

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

- `docs/project-reference/domain-entities-reference.md` — Domain entity catalog, relationships, cross-service sync (read when task involves business entities/models)
- `docs/specs/` — Test specifications by module (read existing TCs; generate/update via `/spec [mode=tests]` after implementation)

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

> **End-to-Start Debugger Trace** — For non-trivial bugs, failed verification, regression fixes, behavior-changing code, or unclear code flow, start from the observed final state and walk backward before proposing a fix.
>
> 1. **Frame 0: observed end state** — Name the exact user-visible output, failing assertion, log line, persisted value, API response, rendered UI, or aggregate bucket. Record the reader/query/renderer that produced it with `file:line` evidence.
> 2. **Walk backward one hop at a time** — Trace final reader -> projection/cache/storage -> writer -> consumer/handler/job -> producer/caller -> original trigger. At every hop record: input, transformation, output, owner, and evidence.
> 3. **Enumerate all feeder paths** — Find every upstream producer/caller/event/job that can write into the final path, including retry, async, cache, background, and alternate UI/API paths. Mark each path verified, ruled out, or still unknown.
> 4. **Build the hypothesis matrix** — For each plausible cause, list evidence for, evidence against, how to reproduce/verify, blast radius, and status (`primary`, `contributing`, `ruled out`, `latent`). Do not fix until competing causes are explicitly resolved or bounded.
> 5. **Choose the owning fix layer** — Identify the invariant owner and the lowest shared point that protects all downstream consumers. A fix at the symptom site is rejected unless the symptom site owns the invariant.
> 6. **Prove convergence forward** — After choosing the fix, walk start -> end again and show how the corrected state reaches the observed final output. Map each root cause to a fix part and each fix part to a test/proof.
>
> **BLOCKED until:** final state named · backward trace written · all feeder paths enumerated · hypothesis matrix completed · owning fix layer justified · forward convergence proof mapped to tests.
>
> **NEVER:** Start at the first suspicious code path. Collapse multiple producers into one "flow". Treat duplicate symptoms as duplicate records without proving the read model. Skip ruled-out hypotheses.

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

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

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

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

<!-- SYNC: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-system-context -->

> **UI System Context** — For ANY task touching `.ts`, `.html`, `.scss`, or `.css` files:
>
> **MUST ATTENTION READ before implementing:**
>
> 1. `docs/project-reference/frontend-patterns-reference.md` — component base classes, stores, forms
> 2. `docs/project-reference/scss-styling-guide.md` — BEM methodology, SCSS variables, mixins, responsive
> 3. `docs/project-reference/design-system/README.md` — design tokens, component inventory, icons
>
> Reference `docs/project-config.json` for project-specific paths.

<!-- /SYNC:ui-system-context -->

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

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

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

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

> **Nested Task Expansion Contract** — For workflow-step invocation, the `[Workflow] ...` row is only a parent container; the child skill still creates visible phase tasks.
>
> 1. Call `TaskList` first. If a matching active parent workflow row exists, set `nested=true` and record `parentTaskId`; otherwise run standalone.
> 2. Create one task per declared phase before phase work. When nested, prefix subjects `[N.M] /skill-name — phase`.
> 3. When nested, link the parent with `TaskUpdate(parentTaskId, addBlockedBy: [childIds])`.
> 4. Orchestrators must pre-expand a child skill's phase list and link the workflow row before invoking that child skill or sub-agent.
> 5. Mark exactly one child `in_progress` before work and `completed` immediately after evidence is written.
> 6. Complete the parent only after all child tasks are completed or explicitly cancelled with reason.
>
> **Blocked until:** `TaskList` done, child phases created, parent linked when nested, first child marked `in_progress`.

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

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

> **Project Reference Docs Gate (static JIT)** — Run after task-tracking bootstrap and immediately before target/source file reads, grep, edits, tests, or analysis. Project docs override generic framework assumptions; hooks may remind or accelerate this gate, but never prove that it ran.
>
> 1. Identify scope: file types, domain area, and operation.
> 2. **Read `docs/project-config.json` first — the project's machine-readable map.** It is the single source of truth for THIS repo (modules/paths, framework + search keywords, test/E2E/integration run-commands, design system, architecture rules, workflow patterns); ground exact paths, run-commands, and conventions on it **before investigating, planning, or coding** — never assume framework defaults (`CLAUDE.md` + reference docs are derived from it). If it — or the docs index, `lessons.md`, `CLAUDE.md`, `AGENTS.md`, or any required reference doc — is missing or stale, auto-run `/project-init` or the narrow route (`/project-config`, `/docs-init`, `/scan-all`, `/scan --target=<key>`, `/claude-md-init`) first; if Codex mirrors or `AGENTS.md` are stale, ask the user to run `/sync-codex` (never auto-run it).
> 3. Required docs by trigger: always `docs/project-reference/lessons.md`; doc lookup `docs-index-reference.md`; review `code-review-rules.md`; backend/CQRS/API `backend-patterns-reference.md`; domain/entity `domain-entities-reference.md`; frontend/UI `frontend-patterns-reference.md`; styles/design `scss-styling-guide.md` + `design-system/design-system-canonical.md`; integration tests `integration-test-reference.md`; E2E `e2e-test-reference.md`; feature docs/specs `feature-spec-reference.md` + `spec-system-reference.md` + `spec-principles.md`; behavior/public-contract/spec-test-code sync `workflow-spec-test-code-cycle-reference.md`; derived spec index/ERD/reimplementation guides `spec-system-reference.md` + source Feature Specs under `docs/specs/`; architecture/new area `project-structure-reference.md`.
> 4. Read every required doc, then before target work state: `Reference docs read: ... | Not applicable: ...`. After compaction, resume, delegation, or a material context change, repeat the route and restate the set; prior conversation and hook output are not proof of current loading.
>
> **Ready when:** scope evaluated, `docs/project-config.json` consulted, required docs checked/read or setup route completed, `lessons.md` confirmed, citation emitted.

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

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

> **Task Tracking & External Report Persistence** — Bootstrap this before execution; then run project-reference doc prefetch before target/source work.
>
> 1. Create a small task breakdown before target file reads, grep, edits, or analysis. On context loss, inspect the current task list first.
> 2. Mark one task `in_progress` before work and `completed` immediately after evidence; never batch transitions.
> 3. For plan/review work, create `plans/reports/{skill}-{YYMMDD}-{HHmm}-{slug}.md` before first finding.
> 4. Append findings after each file/section/decision and synthesize from the report file at the end.
> 5. Final output cites `Full report: plans/reports/{filename}`.
>
> **Blocked until:** task breakdown exists, report path declared for plan/review work, first finding persisted before the next finding.

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

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

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

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

<!-- SYNC: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:plan-quality -->

> **Plan Quality** — Every plan phase MUST ATTENTION include test specifications.
>
> 1. Add `## Test Specifications` section with TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN} IDs to every phase file
> 2. Map every functional requirement to ≥1 TC (or explicit `TBD` with rationale)
> 3. TC IDs follow `TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN}` format — reference by ID, never embed full content
> 4. Before any new workflow step: call `TaskList` and re-read the phase file
> 5. On context compaction: call `TaskList` FIRST — never create duplicate tasks
> 6. Verify TC satisfaction per phase before marking complete (evidence must be `file:line`, not TBD)
> 7. **Purpose-oriented naming:** For every planned public or cross-layer contract, port, interface, module, or adapter, name the consumer-visible capability or domain purpose; keep provider, framework, and transport names in concrete implementations (`IStorage`/`Storage` → `AzureBlobStorage`). — why: a contract name should survive an implementation swap.
> 8. **Contract-fit gate:** Check the proposed name against its callers and all implementations; use a narrower purpose name when a broad name overpromises (`IObjectStore` or `DocumentStore` instead of `IStorage` when the behavior is narrower). — why: abstraction names must describe the actual contract, not hide a mismatch.
> 9. **No speculative abstraction:** Plan an interface or port only when a real boundary, substitution need, or multiple meaningful implementations justifies it; keep a concrete type when it is the honest contract. — why: an unnecessary abstraction adds indirection and a second name without reducing change cost.
> 10. **Language convention:** Preserve the repository's naming syntax (`I` prefix where the language/project uses it); never force `I` or `Interface` markers across languages. — why: semantic purpose is portable, syntax is not.
> 11. **Foundation obligations — when the plan CREATES or CHANGES how the project is built, run, tested, or checked** (build or CI configuration, test harness, containerization, toolchain/dependency management, module boundaries, quality tooling): run `SYNC:engineering-foundation-gate` — its seven dimensions F1-F7, the four profile axes and the warranting matrix are in `.claude/docs/engineering-foundation-catalog.md`, which the plan reads directly when no carrier of that gate ran upstream — and carry every dimension it marks warranted into the plan as an **explicit phase with acceptance criteria** — never as an assumption that someone handles it later. Record each dimension deliberately skipped, with the reason. — why: a plan that stands up a foundation and silently omits a warranted dimension makes that omission permanent and invisible; foundations cost near nothing at creation and a great deal to retrofit.
>
> **Mode:** TDD-first → reference existing TCs with `Evidence: TBD`. Implement-first → use TBD → `/spec [mode=tests]` fills after.

<!-- /SYNC:plan-quality -->

<!-- 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:ui-copywriting -->

> **Words are design content, not decoration** — binds whenever a task authors, changes, or reviews user-visible strings (labels, CTAs, headings, empty/error/loading text, toasts, placeholder content). Deep detail: `.claude/docs/design-knowledge.md` §8. Copy makes a design feel as templated as the visuals do.
>
> Before writing anything, ask what the design needs to SAY and how it can best be said to help the person navigate the experience. Then:
>
> 1. **Write from the end user's perspective.** Name things by what users will understand in simple language, not by how the system is built — a user manages **notifications**, not **webhook config**. Describe what something is or does in plain terms rather than selling it. Being specific and legible to a new user ALWAYS beats being clever.
> 2. **Active voice by default.** A CTA says exactly what happens when it is used: **"Save changes"**, NEVER "Submit".
> 3. **One name per action, across the whole flow.** The button that says **Publish** produces a toast that says **Published**. The vocabulary of an interface is the signposting for someone navigating the product — cohesion and consistency are how people learn their way around.
> 4. **Failure and emptiness give DIRECTION, not mood.** Explain what went wrong and how to fix it, in the interface's voice rather than a person's. **Errors do NOT apologize, and are NEVER vague about what happened.** An empty screen is an invitation to act.
> 5. **Conversational tone, one job per element.** Plain verbs, sentence case, no filler, tone matched to the brand and the audience; let each written element do exactly one job.
> 6. **Real content, never lorem.** When the brief supplies no copy, write plausible strings for the ACTUAL subject. **Coherence check — read every visible string as a user would, checking for truth, not typos:** could a real person at a real company be looking at exactly this data right now, or does the page title belong to one product, the body to another, and the sidebar metrics to a third? A beautifully designed interface with nonsensical content is a movie set with no script.
>
> **Skip ONLY** when the change surfaces no user-visible text — state that explicitly.

<!-- /SYNC:ui-copywriting -->

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

- **MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** search 3+ existing patterns and read code BEFORE any modification. Run graph trace when graph.db exists.
<!-- /SYNC:understand-code-first:reminder -->

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

- **MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** cite `file:line` evidence for every claim. Confidence >80% to act, <60% = do NOT recommend.
<!-- /SYNC:evidence-based-reasoning:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:plan-quality:reminder -->

- **MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** include `## Test Specifications` with TC IDs per phase. Call `TaskList` before creating new tasks.
<!-- /SYNC:plan-quality:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:ui-system-context:reminder -->

- **MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** read frontend-patterns-reference, scss-styling-guide, design-system/README before any UI change.
<!-- /SYNC:ui-system-context:reminder -->

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

- **MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** run at least ONE graph command on key files when graph.db exists. Pattern: grep → graph trace → grep verify.
<!-- /SYNC:graph-assisted-investigation: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:end-to-start-debugger-trace:reminder -->

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<!-- SYNC: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: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:ui-copywriting:reminder -->

- **MUST ATTENTION** treat user-visible words as design content: end-user vocabulary, not system vocabulary (notifications, not webhook config) · active-voice CTAs that say what happens ("Save changes", never "Submit") · ONE name per action across the whole flow (Publish → "Published") · errors explain what happened and how to fix it and NEVER apologize or stay vague, empty screens invite action · sentence case, plain verbs, no filler, one job per element · real subject-specific copy, never lorem — and read every string for TRUTH: one coherent story, not three products' content on one screen. Skip ONLY when no user-visible text changes, stated explicitly.

<!-- /SYNC:ui-copywriting: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:** Ship a correct, fully-verified feature that satisfies the saved Goal Contract — implemented with deep research, comprehensive planning, and maximum quality verification (planned, reviewed, tested, documented) — with no skipped quality gate on any non-trivial change.

**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** follow the pipeline in order: resolve the Goal Contract → decide/create/sync the spec → research and trace → author and review the plan → implement one verified phase at a time → run full tests → review and fix validated findings that block the current severity bar → update docs/status → run spec sync, changes-review, and why-review → emit the final evidence report; use fast mode only when every opt-out condition passes.

**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — Protocols in force (concise digest of the SYNC/shared blocks this skill carries; each line is a signpost to its canonical body above):**

- **End-To-Start Debugger Trace:** Trace observed output backward through every feeder path before fixing.
- **Source/Test Drift Check:** When source behavior changes, reconcile affected tests from evidence.
- **AI Mistake Prevention:** verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references, verify all affected outputs, re-read after context loss, surface ambiguity.
- **UI System Context:** Read frontend, SCSS, and design-system docs before any UI change.
- **Graph-Assisted Investigation:** Run a graph command on key files when graph.db exists.
- **Nested Task Creation:** Expand child phase tasks and link the parent when nested.
- **Project Reference Docs Guide:** Read required project-reference docs (always `lessons.md`) before target work.
- **Task Tracking External Report:** Bootstrap task tracking; persist plan/review findings incrementally to disk.
- **Critical Thinking Mindset:** Critical + sequential thinking; every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80%.
- **Understand Code First:** Search 3+ patterns and read code before any modification.
- **Plan Quality:** Add `## Test Specifications` with TC IDs to every plan phase.

- **MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** default mode HARD — opt out to fast mode ONLY when ALL trivial-task conditions met
- **MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** break work into small todo tasks via `TaskCreate` BEFORE starting
- **MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** search codebase for 3+ similar patterns before creating new code
- **MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** cite `file:line` evidence for every claim (confidence >80% to act)
- **MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** add final review todo task to verify work quality
- **MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** validate decisions with user via `AskUserQuestion` — never auto-decide
- **MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** NEVER skip `code-reviewer` review or test execution on non-trivial change

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

---

> **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.