Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Production Readiness Review?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/duc01226-production-readiness-review)
---
name: production-readiness-review
description: '[Code Quality] Use when a workflow step or the user asks for a production readiness review of service-layer and API changes.'
---
> Codex compatibility note:
> - Invoke repository skills with `$skill-name` in Codex; this mirrored copy rewrites legacy Claude `/skill-name` references.
> - Host-native execution: Codex runs a skill by loading its `SKILL.md` instructions and executing the required steps with available tools. No separate `Skill` tool is required; a loaded skill is already activated.
> - Source vs execution: prefer the registered `.agents/skills/<name>/SKILL.md` for Codex execution. `.claude/**` remains the canonical authoring source; reading it for a registry or source inspection does not switch this session to Claude Code.
> - Capability check: interpret Claude tool names through the active host before declaring a blocker. Continue when Codex can perform the required operation; stop and ask only when the actual capability is unavailable, naming the step and evidence. Host-native execution is not a protocol deviation and needs no extra approval.
> - Task tracker mandate: BEFORE executing any workflow or skill step, create/update task tracking for all steps and keep it synchronized as progress changes.
> - Use ask user tool to ask user.
> - Ignore Claude-specific mode-switch instructions when they appear.
> - Strict execution contract: when a user explicitly invokes a skill, execute that skill protocol as written.
> - Subagent authorization: when a skill is user-invoked or AI-detected and its protocol requires subagents, that skill activation authorizes use of the required `spawn_agent` subagent(s) for that task.
> - Do not skip, reorder, or merge protocol steps unless the user explicitly approves the deviation first.
> - For workflow skills, steps follow the guided contract in `$start-workflow` (gate steps fixed; other steps may flex with a logged reason); report step-by-step evidence.
> - If a required step/tool cannot run in this environment, stop and ask the user before adapting.
<!-- 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:** Ensure service/API changes are production-ready across observability, reliability, data integrity, and database performance: score each dimension with evidence and expose operational gaps.
**Summary:**
- **Main steps (in order):** (1) **Resolve scope** — args else `git diff --name-only` uncommitted; backend service/API files only, skip frontend/tests/docs/config-only. (2) **Score 12 criteria 0-2** across the 4 dimensions (/24). (3) **Extended SRE Readiness gate** — 8 pass/fail deploy-time + operate-time items; any failed or unresolved binary gate blocks PASS regardless of score or owner risk acceptance. Gating, NOT scored — does not change the /24 math. (4) **Map score + gate → verdict**. (5) **Structural Impact Analysis** — assess downstream impact by grep/read (optional graph hint: blast-radius, `tests_for`, downstream trace when `graph.db` exists; a stale-able hint, never required). (6) **Validated Fix + Full Re-Review** loop only while current-round blocking findings remain: Round 1 = all validated severities; Round 2 = CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM; LOW-only is deferred; failed binary gates always block; not run under `--report-only`. (7) **Emit the SRE Review Results report** — `file:line` evidence per score and per gate item. Execute in order; NEVER skip/merge a step — why: untracked steps get silently merged and gaps reach production.
- Score 12 criteria 0-2 across four dimensions (Observability/8, Reliability/8, Data Integrity/4, DB Performance/4) for an advisory /24 readiness rating (strong 19-24 / needs work 13-18 / low 0-12), separate from overall PASS/FAIL — every score needs `file:line` evidence or it is 0.
- The DB Performance Protocol is MANDATORY and non-advisory: ALL list queries must paginate (no unbounded GetAll/ToList) and ALL filter fields, foreign keys, and sort columns must have matching indexes.
- The /24 rating is advisory only; overall PASS/FAIL follows the canonical round predicate and binary gates; the validated-fix full re-review and DB Performance Protocol are NEVER skippable regardless of change size — and when batched (≥10 files), re-score all 12 criteria holistically from combined cross-batch evidence, never by averaging per-batch scores.
- **`--report-only`:** read-only leaf mode for a caller that owns every fix and re-review — main steps 1–5 and 7 plus the Why-Review Findings Validation Gate, no fix, no restart, no nested sub-agents, no user prompt, no writer beyond the report; returns the `/24` score, gate verdict, and severity-grouped findings; see [Report-Only Mode](#report-only-mode---report-only).
- After applying any fix, validate findings first, then rerun the FULL review (fresh sub-agent with zero prior-round memory); a pass clearing the current round's exit bar ENDS the loop (Round 1: zero open findings (Round-1 LOW closure); Round 2: zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, LOW deferred). Do not start another round for LOW-only findings; failed binary gates remain blocking.
**Workflow:**
1. Resolve scope from arguments or uncommitted changes; review only backend service/API files.
2. Score all 12 criteria across the four dimensions, then run the 8-item Extended SRE Readiness gate.
3. Map score plus gate to a verdict; run Structural Impact Analysis (grep/read; optional graph hint).
4. Validate every finding, fix only validated findings that block the current round, and restart a full fresh review after fixes until the exit bar is clear; Round 2 LOW-only findings are deferred without another cycle. Under `--report-only`, validate only — the caller owns fixes and re-review.
5. Emit the SRE Review Results report with `file:line` evidence for every score and gate item.
**Key Rules:**
- **MUST ATTENTION** give every score and gate item `file:line` evidence; an unprovable score is `0`.
- **NEVER** skip the DB Performance Protocol, validated-finding gate, or full re-review. Under `--report-only` the full re-review belongs to the caller that applies the fixes; the other three still run here.
- **MUST ATTENTION** re-score all 12 criteria holistically when batching; never average per-batch scores.
- **NEVER** let advisory technique or scenario matrices change the `/24` score, gate result, or verdict.
**When to use:** After implementing backend service or API changes, before committing. Frontend-only changes exempt.
**Why:** Working code that can't be debugged, monitored, or rolled back is technical debt in disguise.
**Deployment context:** Read `docs/project-config.json` → `infrastructure` section:
- `containerization` → check Dockerfiles, docker-compose
- `orchestration` → check K8s manifests, Helm charts
- `cicd.tool` → check pipeline configs
## Your Mission
<task>
$ARGUMENTS
</task>
## Report-Only Mode (`--report-only`)
> **Use when** a caller runs this skill as a read-only leaf — e.g. a workflow parallel review barrier or a review batch — and another step owns every fix. `--report-only` in `$ARGUMENTS` is an execution flag, not a scope; without it every step below applies unchanged.
>
> **MANDATORY — when `--report-only` is passed, read `.claude/skills/workflow-review-changes/references/caller-mode.md` § `--report-only` in full FIRST.** It holds the rules every read-only leaf shares (no fix or restart, scope from the caller's brief, no nested fan-out, no user questions, write only the report, return contract); the rules below are this skill's own.
>
> 1. **Run main steps 1–5 and 7 plus the Why-Review Findings Validation Gate.** Scope, the 12-criterion score, the Extended SRE Readiness gate, verdict mapping, the DB Performance Protocol, and the Structural Impact Analysis all run; `$why-review --validate-findings` still validates every finding. **Step 6 does not run:** no fix, no restart, no fresh re-review sub-agent. Return the validated report; the caller owns fixes and any re-review. — why: two writers of one artifact inside a barrier race each other.
> 2. **Scope.** Apply Scope Resolution to the brief's files or diff. No backend service/API file in scope → return `N/A — no service/API files in scope` with the file list as evidence.
> 3. **No nested fan-out.** Skip `SYNC:systematic-review-batching`; score the whole scope serially in this context (the holistic-scoring fallback above).
> 4. **Map every gap to a severity by consequence** (`SYNC:severity-rubric`): a criterion scored `0` → CRITICAL or HIGH, `1` → MEDIUM, LOW only for a polish-only gap with evidence of no material impact; emit score, consequence, and tier together. A `fail` gate item is a failed binary gate carried as a CRITICAL blocker with its named consequence; a `partial` item is an open evidence blocker, never LOW.
> 5. **Return** the advisory `/24` score, the `{n}/8` gate result and the verdict (PASS only when no failed or unresolved binary gate and no finding blocking the current round remains), in addition to the caller-mode return contract. The Next Steps prompt does not run.
>
> For this mode the declared step order ends at step 7 without step 6; stopping there is the mode's contract, not a skipped step.
## Review Mindset (NON-NEGOTIABLE)
**Be skeptical. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80%.**
- NEVER accept operational readiness at face value — verify by reading implementations
- Every score MUST have `file:line` evidence — unprovable score = 0
- Question: "Is this really handled?" → trace error/retry/timeout path to confirm
- Challenge: "Are ALL failure modes covered?" → check behavior when dependencies fail
- Verify: "Can we debug this in production?" → check logging, correlation, metrics
## Scope Resolution
1. Arguments specify files/directories → review those
2. Else → review uncommitted changes (`git diff --name-only`)
3. Focus: backend source files under service root (per the project's structure reference / `docs/project-config.json`), API controllers, service classes
4. Skip: frontend files, test files, documentation, config-only changes
## Production Readiness Scoring
Score each criterion 0-2: **0** = not addressed, **1** = partially, **2** = fully.
> **MANDATORY when batched (≥10 files, `SYNC:systematic-review-batching` active):** score the 12 criteria **holistically across the FULL cross-batch scope**, NOT by merging or averaging per-batch scores. Several criteria are cross-file — e.g. "all query filter fields have indexes" can have the query in one batch, the migration in another; a per-batch score sees only its ≤8 files and false-flags `0` when the satisfying file lives in a different batch. The synthesis/reduce tier MUST therefore **RE-SCORE each of the 12 criteria from combined cross-batch evidence** (batch agents surface evidence per criterion; reducer assigns the score). If holistic re-score is infeasible, do NOT batch production-readiness-review — fall back to whole-scope serial scoring.
### Observability (max 8)
> **Think:** If this service errors at 3am, can on-call engineer diagnose root cause from logs alone — without reproducing?
| # | Criterion | What to Check |
| --- | ---------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 1 | **Structured Logging** | External API calls and critical operations log errors with context (request ID, user, parameters) |
| 2 | **Error Context** | Exceptions include enough context to diagnose without reproducing (entity IDs, operation type, input summary) |
| 3 | **Metrics Awareness** | Operations >100ms consider tracking duration. New endpoints consider latency monitoring |
| 4 | **Correlation** | Cross-service calls include or propagate correlation IDs for distributed tracing |
### Reliability (max 8)
> **Think:** If the downstream dependency is down or slow, does this service degrade gracefully or cascade-fail?
| # | Criterion | What to Check |
| --- | ------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 5 | **Retry Strategy** | Transient failures (HTTP, DB timeouts) have retry logic or documented reason for not retrying |
| 6 | **Timeout Configuration** | HTTP clients and external calls have explicit timeout (not relying on defaults) |
| 7 | **Error Handling** | Errors handled gracefully — no swallowed exceptions, no generic catch-all without logging |
| 8 | **Fallback Behavior** | Critical paths define behavior when dependencies fail (degraded mode, cached response, user-facing error) |
### Data Integrity (max 4)
> **Think:** If database wiped and reseeded from scratch, does system still reach a valid state?
| # | Criterion | What to Check |
| --- | ---------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 9 | **Seed vs Migration** | Seed data (default records, system config) lives in startup data seeders, NOT in one-time migration executors |
| 10 | **Seeder Idempotency** | Data seeders use check-then-create pattern (query before insert) — safe for repeated runs on any environment |
**Decision test:** _"If the database is reset, does this data still need to exist?"_ Yes → must be in seeder. No → migration acceptable.
### Database Performance (max 4)
> **Think:** At 10x current data volume, do these queries still complete in <1s?
> **Database Performance Protocol (MANDATORY):**
>
> 1. **Paging Required** — ALL list/collection queries use pagination. NEVER load all records into memory. Verify: no unbounded `GetAll()`, `ToList()`, or `Find()` without `Skip/Take` or cursor-based paging.
> 2. **Index Required** — ALL query filter fields, foreign keys, and sort columns have database indexes configured. Verify: entity expressions match index field order, database collections have index management methods, migrations include indexes for WHERE/JOIN/ORDER BY columns.
| # | Criterion | What to Check |
| --- | -------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 11 | **Pagination** | List/collection queries use pagination (Skip/Take, cursor). No unbounded GetAll/ToList loading all records into memory |
| 12 | **Database Indexes** | Query filter fields, foreign keys, and sort columns have matching database indexes. Migrations include index creation |
> **Spec-Loop Discipline for changed core logic (MANDATORY — gates the verdict, not a scored criterion):**
>
> 1. **Mutation bar, not coverage %** — for changed service/API core logic the bar is the **MUTATION-SCORE gate**: a surviving mutant on a changed line is a release blocker (it proves an invariant the tests do not assert), NEVER a line-coverage-% question. A green coverage number over un-asserted behavior does not clear this gate.
> 2. **Dual feedback** — every production-readiness finding that changes behavior feeds BOTH the spec (NAME the contract/invariant in Section 8) AND a guarding test; a code-only fix is INCOMPLETE. A surviving mutant → add the killing test AND record the invariant it protects in the spec.
## Extended SRE Readiness Gate (step-by-step, pass/fail — gating, NOT scored)
> **Runs as main step 3, after scoring, before verdict mapping.** Deploy-time and operate-time SRE aspects the 12-criteria `/24` model does NOT score. Check each item **step by step**; record `pass` / `partial` / `fail` with `file:line` evidence or explicit `N/A — reason`. Gate does **not** change `/24` math — it overlays it: **a failed binary gate blocks PASS at every round regardless of score or owner risk acceptance; `partial` is unresolved, not a pass**. Separately apply the canonical review predicate: round 1 blocks every validated severity; round 2 blocks CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM and defers LOW. Owner risk acceptance is recorded but does not clear a failed gate or an open blocking finding. Read deployment context from `docs/project-config.json → infrastructure` (referenced above) to decide which items are `N/A` (e.g. no orchestration → readiness/liveness probes `N/A` with stated reason).
| # | Gate Item | What to Check | Status | Evidence |
| - | --------- | ------------- | ------ | -------- |
| G1 | **Rollout & Rollback** | Deploy is staged/canary-able; a documented, fast rollback path exists (feature flag, versioned + reversible migration). No irreversible one-way change without a stated recovery plan. | pass/partial/fail | `file:line` or `N/A — reason` |
| G2 | **Health Checks** | Readiness + liveness endpoints/probes exist and reflect real dependency health (not an always-200 stub). | pass/partial/fail | ... |
| G3 | **Alerting & Runbook** | New failure modes have an actionable alert (signal, not noise) and a runbook / escalation note. | pass/partial/fail | ... |
| G4 | **SLO / Error-Budget** | Change respects an SLO or names the latency/availability target it affects; no silent new failure mode against the budget. | pass/partial/fail | ... |
| G5 | **Capacity & Resource Limits** | Load ceilings, resource limits, autoscaling/back-pressure considered; no unbounded fan-out or unbounded in-memory growth. | pass/partial/fail | ... |
| G6 | **Config & Secrets** | Required config present in all envs and fails fast if missing; no secrets committed in the diff. | pass/partial/fail | ... |
| G7 | **Graceful Shutdown/Startup** | In-flight work drains on shutdown; startup waits for / degrades gracefully on unready dependencies. | pass/partial/fail | ... |
| G8 | **Concurrency & Idempotency** | Operations are safe under retry / at-least-once delivery; no race on shared state; idempotency keys where needed. | pass/partial/fail | ... |
**Gate verdict:** `{n}/8 pass`, with each non-applicable item justified separately. Any failed or unresolved binary gate, unresolved evidence, or finding blocking the current round ⇒ overall verdict cannot be PASS even at a 19-24 score. Use `review-policy.cjs` with the persisted round/minimum; never relabel a binary failure as LOW.
**AI surface?** Only if the change creates or changes a model call, prompt, agent, tool/MCP, retrieval or eval (see `node .claude/scripts/ai-signal-scan.cjs`): read `.claude/skills/shared/protocols/ai-engineering-gate.md` and route depth to `$ai-engineering-review` (not a gate item; `{n}/8` unchanged); otherwise skip this line.
## Technique Applicability (advisory — NON-SCORING, NON-GATING)
Invoke `SYNC:scale-technique-gate`: derive the system's scale tier from evidence (users/RPS, SLO, data volume, tenancy, topology — cite `file:line`/config/infra + confidence), then emit the **Technique Applicability Matrix** (`technique | tier-warranted? | present? | verdict | advice | evidence`) across the 10 concern groups. Surface warranted-but-missing reliability/scale techniques (rate limiting, backups, DR, failover, graceful degradation) as **advice**; flag `OVER-ENGINEERED` techniques the tier does not warrant.
> **Advisory only — this matrix does NOT add a gate item, does NOT change the `{n}/8` gate result, the `/24` score, or the verdict.** A `MISSING-WARRANTED` technique is guidance to consider at this tier, NOT a gate `fail`. `N/A-by-scale` for small systems is expected, never a failure. Full catalog → `.claude/docs/scale-technique-catalog.md`.
## Scoring
| Score | Advisory rating | Recommendation |
| ----- | --------------- | -------------- |
| 19-24 | Strong readiness | Candidate for PASS only after all binary gates, evidence, current-round severity bar and persisted minimum clear. No Git authority is granted. |
| 13-18 | Needs work | Address evidenced gaps; the score alone neither authorizes deployment nor invents a blocking finding. |
| 0-12 | Low readiness | Investigate operational gaps against the applicable criteria and evidence. |
**Overall PASS/FAIL is separate from the advisory score:** PASS requires the canonical `review-policy.cjs` round predicate, all binary gates and evidence resolved, and persisted `minRounds` met; otherwise FAIL. Keep deferred LOW findings visible after round 1.
> Optional: `python .claude/scripts/code_graph connections <file> --json` on service boundary files can hint at cross-service impact (verify by reading).
## Structural Impact Analysis (grep/read; optional graph hint)
Optional: when grep and reading files alone may not reveal a high-risk blast radius (shared contract, many callers, cross-module/cross-service flow, public API), the code graph (`.code-graph/graph.db`) can add callers, dependents and impacted tests. Treat it as a hint, NOT proof: the graph can be stale or incomplete (it lags uncommitted edits and unindexed paths) — verify anything that matters by reading the files/grep. Skip it for low-risk or local changes.
- `python .claude/scripts/code_graph graph-blast-radius --json` → blast radius >20 nodes is a rough high-risk deployment hint (confirm by reading)
- `python .claude/scripts/code_graph query tests_for <function_name> --json` → verify test coverage on changed functions
- `python .claude/scripts/code_graph trace <service-file> --direction downstream --json` → hint at downstream event handlers, bus consumers, cross-service calls to check for error handling (verify by reading)
## Why-Review Findings Validation Gate (MANDATORY when findings exist)
> **Purpose:** Adversarial validation of own findings BEFORE any fix. Catches over-flagged criteria, false positives, and severity/score inflation at the source rather than letting them drive fixes or ship downstream.
**Trigger:** Any finding produced (any severity). Skip ONLY when the verdict is unconditional PASS with literally zero findings.
**Protocol:**
1. Read own finalized report from `tmp/reports/{skill}-{date}-{slug}.md`
2. Invoke `$why-review --validate-findings tmp/reports/{skill}-{date}-{slug}.md` — verify each finding has `file:line` proof, steel-man each rejected interpretation, and stress-test every severity/score classification (each finding must clear why-review's finding-survival bar to be kept)
3. Read the CLEAN / HAS-ISSUES verdict returned by why-review
4. **If why-review demotes/removes any finding:** UPDATE own report with revised severities, remove false positives, and add a `## Why-Review Validation Notes` section citing what changed and why
5. **If why-review confirms all findings:** append a `## Why-Review Validation` line stating "All N findings re-validated against actual code; no severity changes."
**Skip conditions (record explicit reason if skipping):** unconditional PASS with zero findings; why-review is itself the active context (avoid recursion).
**Why this exists:** SRE sub-agent reports inherit confirmation bias — the orchestrator absorbs severity claims as ground truth. Validate findings BEFORE the fix so no fix is ever driven by an inflated or false finding; this gate feeds the "Validated Fix + Full Re-Review" loop below.
## Validated Fix + Full Re-Review (MANDATORY when fixes are applied)
> Not run under `--report-only` — the validated report is returned to the caller, which owns fixes and any re-review.
When a review pass finds issues, validate findings before any fix. Do NOT spawn a fresh sub-agent only to re-review the same finding set before validation/fix. After validated SRE fixes applied, rerun the full SRE review. If that restarted review uses a sub-agent, spawn it with ZERO prior-round memory. A clean review pass ENDS the review once the persisted `minRounds` is met.
**When a fresh sub-agent is part of the restarted review, spawn via canonical template in `SYNC:review-protocol-injection`:**
1. `agent_type`: `code-reviewer`
2. Task: `"SRE production readiness review after validated fixes — score all 12 criteria (0-2) for {files reviewed in the current full scope}"`
3. Review mode: `"Fresh full re-review after validated fixes. Zero memory of prior rounds. Re-read ALL target files from scratch."`
4. Reference Docs: `code-review-rules.md` from the reference-docs root (default `docs/project-reference`; a `docsRoots.projectReference.path` entry in `docs/project-config.json` overrides the path)
5. Target Files: same files from Scope Resolution
6. Integrate sub-agent report findings — DO NOT filter or override
**Fresh re-review focus** (what prior rounds typically miss):
- Operational concerns spanning multiple services
- Subtle reliability gaps (retry, circuit breakers, timeout handling)
- Missing observability (structured logging, correlation IDs, metrics)
- Data-integrity edge cases under concurrent load
**Final verdict = every review pass that actually ran, combined.**
## Output Format
```markdown
## SRE Review Results
**Scope:** {files reviewed}
**Date:** {date}
**Score:** {X}/24
**Verdict:** PASS / NEEDS WORK / NOT READY
### Observability ({X}/8)
| # | Criterion | Score | Evidence |
| --- | ------------------ | ----- | -------------------------- |
| 1 | Structured Logging | 0/1/2 | {file:line or "not found"} |
| 2 | Error Context | 0/1/2 | ... |
| 3 | Metrics Awareness | 0/1/2 | ... |
| 4 | Correlation | 0/1/2 | ... |
### Reliability ({X}/8)
| # | Criterion | Score | Evidence |
| --- | ----------------- | ----- | -------- |
| 5 | Retry Strategy | 0/1/2 | ... |
| 6 | Timeout Config | 0/1/2 | ... |
| 7 | Error Handling | 0/1/2 | ... |
| 8 | Fallback Behavior | 0/1/2 | ... |
### Data Integrity ({X}/4)
| # | Criterion | Score | Evidence |
| --- | ------------------ | ----- | -------- |
| 9 | Seed vs Migration | 0/1/2 | ... |
| 10 | Seeder Idempotency | 0/1/2 | ... |
### Database Performance ({X}/4)
| # | Criterion | Score | Evidence |
| --- | ---------------- | ----- | -------- |
| 11 | Pagination | 0/1/2 | ... |
| 12 | Database Indexes | 0/1/2 | ... |
### Extended SRE Readiness ({n}/8 gate — pass/fail, does not change /24)
| # | Gate Item | Status | Evidence |
| -- | ------------------------ | ----------------- | ----------------- |
| G1 | Rollout & Rollback | pass/partial/fail | `file:line` / N/A |
| G2 | Health Checks | pass/partial/fail | ... |
| G3 | Alerting & Runbook | pass/partial/fail | ... |
| G4 | SLO / Error-Budget | pass/partial/fail | ... |
| G5 | Capacity & Resource Limits | pass/partial/fail | ... |
| G6 | Config & Secrets | pass/partial/fail | ... |
| G7 | Graceful Shutdown/Startup | pass/partial/fail | ... |
| G8 | Concurrency & Idempotency | pass/partial/fail | ... |
_Any failed or unresolved binary gate above blocks PASS regardless of score or owner risk acceptance; open current-round blocking findings also prevent PASS._
### Gaps to Address
- {specific actionable item}
### Recommendation
{Proceed / Address gaps first}
```
## Important Notes
- Advisory (final VERDICT only) — score/verdict inform team but don't block commits; MANDATORY process steps (validated-fix full re-review, Database Performance Protocol) are NEVER advisory
- Evidence-based — cite `file:line` for every score; unprovable score = 0
- Proportional — small bug fixes need less rigor than new endpoints (applies to VERDICT interpretation, NOT to skipping MANDATORY steps)
- Extended SRE Readiness gate is pass/fail, NOT scored — does not change `/24` math; but any failed or unresolved binary gate blocks PASS at every round, regardless of owner risk acceptance. Use `docs/project-config.json → infrastructure` to mark items `N/A` with stated reason
- Check framework patterns — background-job base handlers, base-controller error handling
---
## Next Steps
**MANDATORY** after a standalone run, use ask user tool. Skip it when a parent workflow or skill invoked this review, when it runs as a sub-agent, or under `--report-only` — return the report path, score, gate verdict, and findings to the caller instead:
- **"$watzup (Recommended)"** — wrap up + check doc staleness
- **"$test"** — run tests before wrapping up
- **"Skip, continue manually"** — user decides
> **Combined audit:** For a whole-project architecture + compliance + production-readiness audit in one pass, run `$architecture --mode=full` (or `$start-workflow workflow-architecture-audit`) — fans out this skill, `architecture --mode=review`, `architecture --mode=scalability` as parallel sub-agents and synthesizes one consolidated report.
---
> **[IMPORTANT]** Use task tracking to break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting. For simple tasks, AI MUST ask user whether to skip.
- `domain-entities-reference.md` in the reference-docs root (default `docs/project-reference`; a `docsRoots.projectReference.path` entry in `docs/project-config.json` overrides the path) — Domain entity catalog, relationships, cross-service sync (read when task involves business entities/models)
> **Critical Purpose:** Ensure quality — no flaws, no bugs, no missing updates, no stale content. Verify code AND documentation.
> **External Memory:** Complex/lengthy work → write intermediate findings + final results to `tmp/reports/` — prevents context loss, serves as deliverable.
> **Evidence Gate:** MANDATORY — every claim, finding, recommendation requires `file:line` proof or traced evidence with confidence percentage (>80% to act, <80% verify first).
<!-- PROTOCOL-GUIDES:START -->
> **Protocol guides** — A hook delivers each protocol's full text when this skill loads. If a protocol's text is not in your context, read its file below before you act on it.
- `category-review-thinking` — Derive review concerns per category of changed files from domain knowledge; reviewing a changeset that spans several file categories → .claude/skills/shared/protocols/category-review-thinking.md
- `engineering-foundation-gate` — Seven engineering-foundation dimensions judged by project profile; creating or reviewing how a project is built, run, tested or checked → .claude/skills/shared/protocols/engineering-foundation-gate.md
- `evidence-based-reasoning` — Ground every material claim in file:line, config or source evidence, with stated confidence; making any claim, finding or recommendation → .claude/skills/shared/protocols/evidence-based-reasoning.md
- `goal-contract-satisfaction-loop` — Save the goal in a file and loop until every saved criterion passes; executing work against a user goal → .claude/skills/shared/protocols/goal-contract-satisfaction-loop.md
- `graph-assisted-investigation` — Optional hint: a code-graph query can add callers and dependents when grep may miss a high-risk blast radius, and it can be stale; a high-risk change where grep and reading alone may miss the blast radius → .claude/skills/shared/protocols/graph-assisted-investigation.md
- `review-principle-awareness` — Classify the change context first, then apply the current principles that fit it; starting any review → .claude/skills/shared/protocols/review-principle-awareness.md
- `review-protocol-injection` — Verbatim template and protocol blocks for every fresh sub-agent review prompt; spawning a fresh sub-agent to review → .claude/skills/shared/protocols/review-protocol-injection.md
- `scale-technique-gate` — Which scale techniques a system warrants, and which it does not; reviewing architecture or production readiness → .claude/skills/shared/protocols/scale-technique-gate.md
- `scenario-stress-eval` — Judge the system under concrete failure and load scenarios; evaluating resilience or production readiness → .claude/skills/shared/protocols/scenario-stress-eval.md
- `severity-rubric` — One consequence-based Critical, High, Medium, Low scale for every finding and gate; classifying a finding or deciding whether a review round passes → .claude/skills/shared/protocols/severity-rubric.md
- `subagent-return-contract` — Sub-agents return a structured envelope and a report path, never an inline report; spawning a sub-agent → .claude/skills/shared/protocols/subagent-return-contract.md
- `systematic-review-batching` — Map-reduce review: size-capped batches, one sub-agent per batch, then reduce; reviewing a large changeset → .claude/skills/shared/protocols/systematic-review-batching.md
- `task-tracking-external-report` — Task breakdown before the work and report files written incrementally; starting any multi-step skill, plan or review → .claude/skills/shared/protocols/task-tracking-external-report.md
- `trade-off-interrogation-gate` — Three trade-off questions before any verdict, score or recommendation; rendering a verdict or recommending an option → .claude/skills/shared/protocols/trade-off-interrogation-gate.md
<!-- PROTOCOL-GUIDES:END -->
<!-- SYNC:graph-assisted-investigation:reminder -->
**Optional advice:** the code graph (`.code-graph/graph.db`) can hint at a high-risk blast radius grep misses; it can be stale, so verify by reading files. Never required.
<!-- /SYNC:graph-assisted-investigation:reminder -->
<!-- SYNC:evidence-based-reasoning:reminder -->
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** cite `file:line` evidence for every claim; never speculate. Confidence >80% to act, <60% = do NOT recommend; "not enough evidence" is valid output.
<!-- /SYNC:evidence-based-reasoning: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 `tmp/reports/` incrementally and synthesize from disk.
<!-- /SYNC:task-tracking-external-report:reminder -->
<!-- SYNC:systematic-review-batching:reminder -->
- **MANDATORY** Large changeset → risk-weighted batches, one parallel sub-agent per batch: high-risk ≤8 files OR ≤2000 diff-lines; low-risk (styling, tests, docs, config text) may pool to ≤20 files OR ≤4000 diff-lines; mechanical churn is verified by pattern, not batched. Never review many files one-by-one.
- **MANDATORY** Each batch agent validates its own findings (`$why-review --validate-findings` in its own session); the reducer deduplicates by root cause FIRST, then re-validates only CRITICAL/HIGH (including in-batch rejections and demotions), reviewer conflicts, unvalidated findings and a MEDIUM sample.
- **MANDATORY** > 6 categories OR > 40 files → add the hierarchical synthesis tier; each concern-synthesizer emits cross-concern interaction candidates and the orchestrator runs the cross-concern pass before concluding.
<!-- /SYNC:systematic-review-batching:reminder -->
<!-- SYNC:severity-rubric:reminder -->
- **MANDATORY** Classify every finding Critical/High/Medium/Low by consequence using the affected asset, shipped impact, exposure, reversibility, evidence location, and confidence; Critical/High/MEDIUM remain actionable under the round bar, while LOW is recorded/deferred from round 2 onward.
- **MANDATORY** A finding names a reachable trigger path (caller, input, state or event that reaches the defect) and a consequence; an unreachable concern is an observation, and unsettled reachability is `NOT VERIFIABLE` only when the concern would be MEDIUM or higher (an observation otherwise) — never a speculative LOW.
- **MANDATORY** Keep binary gates separate from severity: a failed test, security must-fix, required artifact, or parity check blocks at every round and is never relabeled LOW.
- **MANDATORY** Score-based skills (sre 0-2, perf two-axis) map onto the same four tiers — no parallel severity vocabulary.
<!-- /SYNC:severity-rubric:reminder -->
<!-- SYNC:category-review-thinking:reminder -->
- **MANDATORY** Derive review categories from file language + directory semantics + change nature; create a sub-task per category.
- **MANDATORY** Derive each category's concerns from first principles with `file:line` evidence — never a fixed checklist.
<!-- /SYNC:category-review-thinking:reminder -->
<!-- SYNC:scale-technique-gate:reminder -->
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** scale-technique gate: derive the scale tier from evidence FIRST (T0 internal · T1 <10k · T2 10k–1M · T3 millions+), then judge each warranted technique `PRESENT`/`MISSING-WARRANTED`/`N/A-by-scale`/`OVER-ENGINEERED`. Advise on warranted-but-missing gaps AND advise AGAINST unwarranted heavyweight techniques (anti-over-engineering). **ADVICE-ONLY — emit the Technique Applicability Matrix as guidance; NEVER mutate any score, verdict band, or gate pass/fail.** Full catalog → `.claude/docs/scale-technique-catalog.md` (authoritative for tier thresholds & per-technique warranting tiers — on any change update the catalog FIRST, then re-run `inject_scale_technique_gate.py`).
<!-- /SYNC:scale-technique-gate:reminder -->
<!-- SYNC:scenario-stress-eval:reminder -->
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** scenario-stress gate: reuse the scale tier `T0`–`T3` AND derive business-criticality `B0`–`B3` from evidence first — apply the **criticality-signal floor** (regulated/PII/financial/health data · money movement · auth/identity · legal-compliance → at least `B2` even absent SLA docs; do NOT default to `B3`). Select only the scenarios the `B`/`T` combination warrants, then walk each (simulate → trace → failure signature → self-heal/MTTR → trade-off) and assign `WITHSTANDS`/`DEGRADES-GRACEFULLY`/`FAILS-HARD`/`N/A-by-business`/`OVER-HARDENED`. Anti-over-engineering is first-class (a lean system that needs no HA/DR is a PASS) AND symmetric (never under-harden a `B2`+ system for low traffic). **ADVICE-ONLY — emit the Scenario Stress Matrix as guidance; NEVER mutate any score, verdict band, or gate pass/fail.** Full catalog → `.claude/docs/scenario-stress-catalog.md` (authoritative for scenarios/verdicts/business-tiers — on any change update the catalog FIRST, then re-run `inject_scenario_stress_gate.py`; scale tier stays single-sourced in `scale-technique-catalog.md`).
<!-- /SYNC:scenario-stress-eval:reminder -->
<!-- PROMPT-ENHANCE:STEP-TASK-CLOSING:START -->
## Prompt-Enhance Closing Anchors
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** follow declared step order for this skill; NEVER skip, reorder, or merge steps without explicit user approval
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** for every step/sub-skill call: set `in_progress` before execution, set `completed` after execution
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** every skipped step MUST include explicit reason; every completed step MUST include concise evidence
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** if Task tools unavailable, maintain an equivalent step-by-step plan tracker with synchronized statuses
<!-- PROMPT-ENHANCE:STEP-TASK-CLOSING:END -->
<!-- SYNC:goal-contract-satisfaction-loop:reminder -->
- **MANDATORY** Resolve the active Goal Contract BEFORE work (active plan `goal.md` → `<plans root>/goals/{YYMMDD-HHmm}-{slug}/goal.md`, plans root default `plans` and overridable via a `docsRoots.plans.path` entry in `docs/project-config.json` → 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) **what does it SACRIFICE?** name the dimensions checked (change cost · complexity · perf · coupling · reversibility · migration · ops load · blast radius · security · testability · delivery time · UX) — "none"/"pure win" is an unfinished analysis; (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 using ask user tool 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 — an un-walked-back one-way door is the user's call, not the reviewer's.
- **MANDATORY — a context that cannot ask escalates BY HANDOFF, never by silence.** ask user tool reaches only the main interactive agent, so a sub-agent or a terminal/verdict-only mode cannot ask. There the duty is REDIRECTED, not waived: still name the trade-off, still decide materiality, record `confirmed? = NO — cannot ask from this context`, and **state the unconfirmed MATERIAL trade-off in your RETURNED verdict so the CALLER escalates it** (a note only in an on-disk report is not a handoff); never emit an unqualified PASS. If you CAN ask, you MUST ask.
<!-- /SYNC:trade-off-interrogation-gate:reminder -->
<!-- SYNC:engineering-foundation-gate:reminder -->
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** evidence-backed lifecycle/scale/criticality/repo/runtime profile; unknowns take lower tiers. Judge all 7 outcomes: **F1** reproducible build/run/test · **F2** exercise supported/required modes; dual modes only when warranted · **F3** applicable local/CI/production-shaped test portability · **F4** test-strength proof; no universal mutation tool · **F5** measured performance at warranted scale/risk · **F6** build/change scalability at meaningful module boundaries · **F7** stack/profile-fit mechanical checks. Evidence-backed `N/A-by-profile` is valid; prevent over-engineering. Creation blocks warranted omissions; brownfield advises without score changes, with smallest next steps. Catalog: `.claude/docs/engineering-foundation-catalog.md`; update first, re-run `inject_engineering_foundation_gate.py`.
<!-- /SYNC:engineering-foundation-gate:reminder -->
<!-- SYNC:review-principle-awareness:reminder -->
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** Every review first checks the change context and routes only applicable principles to their detailed protocols: scale-ready foundation, test intent in the project's native format (GWT is one option), AI-agent-as-user access, and UI/component design when relevant. Record evidence-backed apply/adapt/defer/N/A/block/unverified status with owner and next step; do not invent unrelated findings or expand scope.
<!-- /SYNC:review-principle-awareness:reminder -->
## Closing Reminders
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Goal:** Ensure service/API changes are production-ready across observability, reliability, data integrity, and database performance: score each dimension with evidence and expose operational gaps.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — Main steps (execute in order, NEVER skip/merge):** (1) Resolve scope (args else uncommitted `git diff`; backend service/API only, skip frontend/tests/docs/config-only) → (2) Score the 12 criteria 0-2 across the 4 dimensions (/24) → (3) Extended SRE Readiness gate — 8 pass/fail deploy/operate items; any failed or unresolved binary gate blocks PASS regardless of owner risk acceptance (gating, not scored, does not change /24) → (4) Map score + gate → verdict → (5) Structural Impact Analysis (grep/read; optional graph hint) → (6) Validated Fix + Full Re-Review only for current-round blocking findings (Round 1: all; Round 2: CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM; LOW-only deferred; binary gates always block; not run under `--report-only`) → (7) Emit the SRE Review Results report with `file:line` evidence per score and per gate item — why: AI repeatedly forgets the re-review loop and stops at scoring.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — Protocols in force (concise digest of the SYNC/shared blocks this skill carries; each is a signpost — the canonical body above governs, NEVER skip one):**
- **Graph-Assisted Investigation (optional):** the code graph is a stale-able hint for high-risk blast radius, never required.
- **Sub-Agent Return Contract:** Sub-agents return only the summary; full report on disk.
- **Nested Task Creation:** Child skills still create visible phase tasks under the parent.
- **Task Tracking & External Report:** Bootstrap tasks; persist review findings to `tmp/reports/`.
- **Evidence-Based Reasoning:** Cite `file:line` for every claim; confidence >80% to act.
- **Double Round-Trip Review:** Review → validate → fix blocking findings → full re-review; round 1 requires zero open findings, round 2 requires zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM with LOW deferred.
- **Fresh Context Review:** Spawn fresh zero-memory sub-agent after fixes; never reuse.
- **Review Protocol Injection:** Embed all 11 protocol bodies verbatim in sub-agent prompts.
- **Systematic Batching:** ≥10 files → size-capped parallel batches, then reduce.
- **Severity Rubric:** Classify Critical/High/Medium/Low by consequence using `SYNC:severity-rubric`; map 0–2 scores onto it. Round 1 blocks on every open validated finding (Round-1 LOW closure), round 2 blocks only CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, LOW is recorded/deferred, and failed binary gates always block.
- **Category Review Thinking:** Derive each category's concerns from first principles, not a checklist.
- **Scale-Technique Gate (advisory):** Derive scale tier from evidence, emit the Technique Applicability Matrix as guidance — NEVER mutate the `/24`, the `{n}/8` gate, or the verdict.
- **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** every score requires `file:line` evidence — unprovable score = 0; assume the worst without proof — why: an unverified "looks fine" is how silent operational gaps reach production.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** the DB Performance Protocol and validated-fix full re-review are NEVER skippable regardless of change size — the /24 rating is advisory, overall PASS/FAIL and these process steps are not — why: small changes are exactly where unbounded queries and missing re-reviews slip through.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** validate findings BEFORE any fix, then rerun the FULL review (fresh sub-agent, zero prior-round memory) before declaring PASS — a pass clearing the current round's exit bar ENDS the loop (round 1: zero open findings; round 2: zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, LOW deferred) — why: every fix invalidates the prior verdict.
The following are all MANDATORY:
- **MANDATORY** break work into small todo tasks via task tracking BEFORE starting; mark one `in_progress`, complete it immediately after evidence — why: untracked review steps get silently merged or skipped.
- **MANDATORY** read required project-reference docs first (`code-review-rules.md`, `backend-patterns-reference.md`, `domain-entities-reference.md`, always `lessons.md`) and cite `Reference docs read: ...` — why: project conventions override generic SRE assumptions.
- **MANDATORY** grep 3+ existing patterns for the changed area (base handlers, base-controller error handling, paging/index helpers) and verify pattern fit before scoring — why: closest example ≠ matching preconditions; a paging helper may not apply to this query's lifetime/scope.
- **MANDATORY** every score, finding, and recommendation carries `file:line` proof + confidence (>80% to act, <80% verify first) — NEVER score from inference — why: scoring without trace is the #1 false-PASS source.
- **MANDATORY** ALL list queries MUST paginate (no unbounded `GetAll`/`ToList`/`Find` without `Skip/Take` or cursor); ALL filter fields, foreign keys, and sort columns MUST have matching indexes — score `0` until each is proven.
- **Optional advice:** for a high-risk cross-service blast radius grep may miss, the code graph (blast-radius, `tests_for`, downstream trace) can add hints — it may be stale; verify by reading. Never required.
- **MANDATORY** when batched (≥10 files), RE-SCORE all 12 criteria holistically from combined cross-batch evidence — NEVER average per-batch scores — why: a cross-file criterion (query in one batch, migration in another) false-flags `0` per-batch.
- **MANDATORY** changed core logic clears the MUTATION-SCORE gate, not a coverage %; every behavior-changing finding feeds BOTH the spec (name the contract/invariant in §8) AND a guarding test — a code-only fix is INCOMPLETE.
- **MANDATORY** in a standalone run, validate decisions with the user using ask user tool for the Next Steps hand-off — never auto-decide; a direct call asks no workflow question; a parent-invoked, sub-agent, or `--report-only` run returns them to the caller instead.
**Anti-Rationalization:**
| Evasion | Rebuttal |
| --------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| "Fix was small, skip re-review" | NEVER — fixes changed the target; validate findings, then rerun the FULL review before PASS |
| "No explicit paging but it looks fine" | Score 0 until proven with `file:line`. Assume worst without evidence |
| "Already checked observability" | Show `file:line` proof. No proof = no check |
| "The score is advisory so skip MANDATORY steps" | Only the rating is advisory. Overall PASS/FAIL, binary gates and validated-fix re-review remain mandatory |
| "Score it from what I remember of the code" | Re-read and cite `file:line`; inference is not evidence — unprovable = 0 |
| "Batched, so average the per-batch scores" | Re-score all 12 holistically from combined evidence; each batch sees only its own files and false-flags |
| "Tests pass, mutation gate is covered" | Green coverage over un-asserted behavior fails the gate; a surviving mutant is a blocker |
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** every score needs `file:line` evidence or it is `0`; assume worst without proof.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** `--report-only` runs steps 1–5 and 7 plus findings validation — no fix, no restart, no batching fan-out, no user question, no writer beyond the report; return the `/24` score, gate verdict, and findings grouped by severity — why: a read-only leaf that fixes, fans out, or asks races or stalls its barrier siblings.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** DB Performance Protocol + validated-fix full re-review are NEVER skippable regardless of change size.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** validate findings before fixing, then rerun the FULL review before PASS — a pass clearing the current round's exit bar ENDS the loop (round 1: zero open findings; round 2: zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, LOW deferred).
