Quality Gate Review

---
name: quality-gate-review
version: 1.1.1
description: '[Project Management] Use when enforcing quality gates, verifying standards compliance, tracking metrics, or generating audit trails.'
---

## Quick Summary

**Goal:** Enforce quality gates, verify compliance with standards, and track quality metrics across the development lifecycle.

> **Renamed:** formerly `/qc-specialist` — that name no longer resolves as a slash command; use `/quality-gate-review`.

**Workflow:**

1. **Identify Gate** — Determine which quality gate applies (Idea>PBI, PBI>Dev, Dev>QA, QA>Release)
2. **Verify Checklist** — Run through pass/fail criteria for the gate stage
3. **Generate Report** — Produce PASS/FAIL/CONDITIONAL gate status with evidence
4. **Track Metrics** — Log in audit trail and update quality metrics dashboard

**Key Rules:**

- Every gate must have a clear PASS/FAIL/CONDITIONAL status
- Evidence must be provided for critical checklist items
- Sign-offs are required before release gates can pass

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

# Quality Gate Review

Enforce quality gates, verify compliance with standards, track quality metrics, and generate audit trails across the development lifecycle.

---

## Core Capabilities

### 1. Quality Gates

Define pass/fail criteria at each stage:

#### Gate: Idea → PBI

- [ ] Problem statement present
- [ ] Business value articulated
- [ ] No technical solution prescribed
- [ ] Target users identified

#### Gate: PBI → Development

- [ ] Acceptance criteria in GIVEN/WHEN/THEN
- [ ] Out of scope defined
- [ ] Dependencies identified
- [ ] Design approved (if applicable)

#### Gate: Development → QA

- [ ] Code review approved
- [ ] Mutation score meets target; surviving mutants triaged (line-coverage diagnostic only — not a gate)
- [ ] No blocking lint findings under the canonical severity bar
- [ ] Documentation updated

#### Gate: QA → Release

- [ ] All test cases executed
- [ ] No open CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM findings; any Round 2+ LOWs are recorded
      as deferred rather than treated as a reason to reopen a fix/review loop
- [ ] Regression suite passed
- [ ] PO sign-off received

#### PO Acceptance Decision (per-AC verdict — how "PO sign-off received" is earned)

For each acceptance criterion from the PBI/story:

1. **Read criterion** — Ensure it's testable and measurable
2. **Check evidence** — Review test results, screenshots, demo recordings
3. **Verify** — Does the implementation satisfy the criterion?
4. **Verdict** — PASS or FAIL with specific evidence

**Decision rules:** Every acceptance criterion must have a PASS/FAIL verdict. REJECT must list the specific items that failed. CONDITIONAL ACCEPT must list conditions and a timeline.

```
## Acceptance Decision

**Feature/PBI:** {Reference}
**Reviewer:** {PO name/role}
**Date:** {date}
**Verdict:** ACCEPT | REJECT | CONDITIONAL ACCEPT

### Criteria Review

| # | Criterion | Verdict | Evidence |
|---|-----------|---------|----------|
| 1 | {AC text} | PASS | {Evidence} |
| 2 | {AC text} | FAIL | {Why it failed} |

### Decision Details
- {Rationale for overall verdict}

### Conditions (if CONDITIONAL)
- {Condition — deadline}

### Rejected Items (if REJECT)
- {Item — what needs to change}
```

#### Verdict Validation Gate (why-review — MANDATORY before emitting REJECT/CONDITIONAL or any FAIL criterion)

> **Purpose:** ACCEPT/REJECT/CONDITIONAL is a JUDGMENT. Validate it adversarially before it is emitted so a wrong verdict or a mis-classified FAIL criterion does not gate a release on ground that does not hold. This gate validates the verdict only — it routes any required fix back to the owning team/sibling review, it does NOT self-converge a fix-loop.

**Trigger:** Any REJECT, any CONDITIONAL ACCEPT, or any criterion marked FAIL. Skip ONLY when every criterion PASSES with an unconditional ACCEPT.

**Protocol:**

1. Read the finalized gate report (the Acceptance Decision above) from `plans/reports/{skill}-{date}-{slug}.md` (or the exact report path written).
2. Invoke `/why-review --validate-findings <report-path>` — verify each FAIL criterion and each stated condition has `file:line` / evidence proof and clears why-review's finding-survival bar.
3. **If why-review demotes/removes any FAIL criterion or condition:** update the verdict and criteria table, then add a `## Why-Review Validation Notes` section citing what changed and why.
4. **If the verdict changed after validation:** re-run this gate — maximum 2 validation passes — until the remaining FAIL criteria/conditions are validated. No fix-loop: this skill decides the gate and routes fixes to the owning team; it never restarts a full review over its own fixes.

**Anti-bias (MANDATORY before emitting):** steel-man the OPPOSITE verdict — argue for ACCEPT if about to REJECT, and for REJECT if about to ACCEPT; the verdict that survives its own counter-argument ships. A gate decision that was never challenged is not validated.

### 2. Compliance Verification

- Code follows architecture patterns
- Security requirements met
- Accessibility standards (WCAG 2.1 AA)
- Performance benchmarks

### 3. Audit Trail

Track artifact lifecycle:

```
{Artifact} | {Action} | {By} | {Date} | {Notes}
```

### 4. Quality Metrics

#### Code Quality

- Cyclomatic complexity
- Mutation score (line-coverage diagnostic only — not a gate)
- Technical debt ratio
- Duplication %

#### Process Quality

- Defect escape rate
- First-time-right %
- Cycle time
- Lead time

---

## Quality Gate Checklists

### Pre-Development Checklist

```markdown
## Quality Gate: PBI Ready for Development

**PBI:** {PBI-ID}
**Reviewer:** {Name}
**Date:** {Date}

### Requirements

- [ ] Clear problem statement
- [ ] User value articulated
- [ ] Acceptance criteria in GIVEN/WHEN/THEN format
- [ ] Out of scope explicitly listed

### Design

- [ ] Design spec approved (if UI changes)
- [ ] API contract defined (if backend changes)
- [ ] Database changes documented (if applicable)

### Dependencies

- [ ] Upstream dependencies identified
- [ ] No blocking dependencies
- [ ] Integration points documented

### Gate Status: PASS / FAIL / CONDITIONAL

**Notes:**
{Any concerns or conditions}
```

### Pre-QA Checklist

```markdown
## Quality Gate: Ready for QA (Dev → QA)

**Feature/PBI:** {Reference}
**Reviewer:** {Name}
**Date:** {Date}

### Readiness

- [ ] All acceptance criteria implemented
- [ ] Unit tests passing
- [ ] Code review complete
- [ ] No known CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM findings; binary gates remain blocking
- [ ] Test data prepared

### Gate Status: PASS / FAIL / CONDITIONAL

**Notes:**
{Any concerns or conditions}
```

### Database Performance gate (applies to all stages)

- [ ] Database performance (pagination on all list queries; indexes on filter/FK/sort columns) — verified via `/production-readiness-review` and `/performance-review`

### Pre-Release Checklist

```markdown
## Quality Gate: Ready for Release

**Feature:** {Feature name}
**Release:** {Version}
**Date:** {Date}

### Testing

- [ ] All test cases executed
- [ ] Pass rate: \_\_\_\_%
- [ ] No open CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM findings
- [ ] Any Round 2+ LOW findings are listed as deferred with owner/follow-up

### Code Quality

- [ ] Code review approved
- [ ] Mutation score meets target; surviving mutants triaged (line-coverage reported as a diagnostic only, no threshold)
- [ ] No security vulnerabilities
- [ ] Performance benchmarks met

### Documentation

- [ ] User documentation updated
- [ ] API documentation current
- [ ] Release notes drafted

### Sign-Offs

- [ ] QA Lead: **\*\***\_**\*\*** Date: **\_\_\_**
- [ ] Dev Lead: **\*\***\_**\*\*** Date: **\_\_\_**
- [ ] PO: **\*\*\*\***\_\_**\*\*\*\*** Date: **\_\_\_**

### Gate Status: PASS / FAIL

**Release Decision:**
{Go / No-Go with notes}
```

---

## Workflow Integration

### Running Quality Gate

When user runs `/quality-gate {artifact-or-pr}`:

1. Identify gate type based on artifact/stage
2. Load appropriate checklist
3. Verify each criterion
4. Generate pass/fail report
5. Log in audit trail

---

## Metrics Dashboard Template

```markdown
## Quality Metrics - Sprint {N}

### Code Quality

| Metric         | Target          | Actual | Trend |
| -------------- | --------------- | ------ | ----- |
| Mutation score | meets target    |        | ↑↓→   |
| Line coverage  | diagnostic only |        | ↑↓→   |
| Complexity     | <15             |        |       |
| Duplication    | <5%             |        |       |
| Debt Ratio     | <10%            |        |       |

### Process Quality

| Metric            | Target | Actual |
| ----------------- | ------ | ------ |
| Defect Escape     | <5%    |        |
| First-Time-Right  | >90%   |        |
| Avg Review Cycles | <2     |        |

### Defect Trends

| Sprint | Found | Fixed | Escaped |
| ------ | ----- | ----- | ------- |
| N-2    |       |       |         |
| N-1    |       |       |         |
| N      |       |       |         |
```

---

## Output Conventions

### File Naming

```
{YYMMDD}-qc-gate-{stage}-{slug}.md
{YYMMDD}-qc-audit-{feature}.md
{YYMMDD}-qc-metrics-sprint-{n}.md
```

---

## Quality Checklist

Before completing QC artifacts:

- [ ] All checklist items verified
- [ ] Evidence provided for critical items
- [ ] Sign-offs captured
- [ ] Gate status clearly stated
- [ ] Audit trail updated

## Related

- `spec`
- `code-review`

---

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

- `docs/project-reference/domain-entities-reference.md` — Domain entity catalog, relationships, cross-service sync (read when task involves business entities/models)

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

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

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

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

> **Sequential Thinking Protocol** — Structured multi-step reasoning for complex/ambiguous work. Use when planning, reviewing, debugging, or refining ideas where one-shot reasoning is unsafe.
>
> **Trigger when:** complex problem decomposition · adaptive plans needing revision · analysis with course correction · unclear/emerging scope · multi-step solutions · hypothesis-driven debugging · cross-cutting trade-off evaluation.
>
> **Format (explicit mode — visible thought trail):**
>
> 1. `Thought N/M: [aspect]` — one aspect per thought, state assumptions/uncertainty
> 2. `Thought N/M [REVISION of Thought K]: ...` — when prior reasoning invalidated; state Original / Why revised / Impact
> 3. `Thought N/M [BRANCH A from Thought K]: ...` — explore alternative; converge with decision rationale
> 4. `Thought N/M [HYPOTHESIS]: ...` then `[VERIFICATION]: ...` — test before acting
> 5. `Thought N/N [FINAL]` — only when verified, all critical aspects addressed, confidence >80%
>
> **Mandatory closers:** Confidence % stated · Assumptions listed · Open questions surfaced · Next action concrete.
>
> **Stop conditions:** confidence <80% on any critical decision → escalate via AskUserQuestion · ≥3 revisions on same thought → re-frame the problem · branch count >3 → split into sub-task.
>
> **Implicit mode:** apply methodology internally without visible markers when adding markers would clutter the response (routine work where reasoning aids accuracy).
>
> **Deep-dive:** see `/sequential-thinking` skill (`.claude/skills/sequential-thinking/SKILL.md`) for worked examples (API design, debugging, architecture), advanced techniques (spiral refinement, hypothesis testing, convergence), and meta-strategies (uncertainty handling, revision cascades).

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

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

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

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

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

> **Trade-Off Interrogation Gate** — ALWAYS ask these THREE questions before ANY verdict, score, finding, or recommendation — about the thing under review AND about every recommendation YOU make. — why: naming a benefit without its price is an endorsement, not a review; the costliest trade-offs are the ones nobody wrote down.
>
> 1. **Is there any trade-off?** Name what it SACRIFICES. "None" / "pure win" is an unfinished analysis, NOT an answer — to claim none, state which dimensions you checked and why each is unaffected: future change cost · complexity · performance/latency · memory/cost · coupling · reversibility · migration burden · operational load · blast radius · security posture · testability · team skill/ramp · delivery time · UX.
> 2. **Is it worth it?** Weigh gain against sacrifice EXPLICITLY — what is gained (with a metric) · what it costs · WHO pays · WHEN it comes due — then emit **WORTH IT / NOT WORTH IT / UNCLEAR**. "Better" with no metric and no cost FAILS this question. NOT WORTH IT → withdraw or replace the recommendation, never keep it as-is.
> 3. **Is the trade-off material enough to CONFIRM WITH THE USER?** A material trade-off is the user's call, never yours. **MATERIAL** when ANY holds: irreversible / one-way door (data migration, public contract, storage format, vendor lock-in) · cost shifted onto someone else (another team, ops/on-call, future maintainer, end user) · one quality attribute traded for another (correctness↔speed, security↔convenience, latency↔cost, simplicity↔flexibility) · a boundary crossed (client↔server tier, service contract, event contract, shared library) · a high-consequence path (auth, money, data integrity, breaking change, High/Medium residual risk) · the worth-it verdict is UNCLEAR.
>
> **MATERIAL → STOP and confirm via `AskUserQuestion` BEFORE the verdict stands** — state the trade-off, both options, what each sacrifices, and your recommendation. **NOT material →** record it inline with a one-line justification and proceed.
>
> **Non-asking execution contexts — ESCALATE BY HANDOFF, never by silence.** `AskUserQuestion` reaches only the main interactive agent: a sub-agent cannot ask the user, and a terminal/verdict-only mode asks nothing by design. When you are running in such a context, the obligation is **redirected, never waived** — do ALL of: (a) complete questions 1 and 2 normally; (b) decide materiality and record it in the Trade-Off Assessment row with `confirmed? = NO — cannot ask from this context`; (c) **name the unconfirmed MATERIAL trade-off explicitly in your returned summary/verdict so the CALLER (or parent orchestrator) escalates it via `AskUserQuestion` on your behalf** — a material trade-off mentioned only inside a report file on disk is NOT a handoff; (d) do not emit an unqualified PASS — mark the verdict as carrying an unconfirmed material trade-off, so the caller's gate stays closed until the user answers. The caller inherits the escalation duty the moment it reads your return.
>
> This carve-out is about **reachability, not convenience**: it applies ONLY where the tool genuinely cannot reach the user (spawned sub-agent, terminal validate/verdict-only mode, non-interactive/headless run). It is NEVER a licence to skip the question, to self-approve a one-way door, or to downgrade materiality because asking is inconvenient — if you CAN ask, you MUST ask.
>
> **Emit a Trade-Off Assessment row** per reviewed decision and per recommendation: `| decision | sacrifices | gain (metric) | who pays, when | WORTH IT/NOT/UNCLEAR | material? | confirmed? |`.
>
> **BLOCKED until:** trade-off named (or dimensions-checked justification given) · worth-it verdict emitted · materiality decided · every MATERIAL trade-off either confirmed with the user OR — in a non-asking context — handed off in the returned verdict for the caller to confirm. A MATERIAL trade-off that is neither confirmed nor handed off can NEVER be PASS, and NEVER gets buried as a Low-severity note.
>
> **NEVER** answer "no trade-off" without checking · decide a material trade-off silently on the user's behalf · let convergence/delivery pressure authorize walking through a one-way door · bundle several material trade-offs into one vague "proceed?".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> **Project Protocol Overlay** — Before executing this skill, resolve any PROJECT overlay rules layered onto it: match this skill's name against the `Target` column of the project's skill-protocol index (`docs/project-reference/skill-protocols-reference.md` by default; a `referenceDocs` entry in `docs/project-config.json` overrides the path), taking the most specific matching tier ONLY — exact name > glob > `*`. **That precedence orders overlays against EACH OTHER, never against this skill.** Read ONLY the matched bodies, resolved as `<protocols-dir>/<Name>.md`; a row's Body link is display text, never a read path. A matched body that is missing or malformed is REPORTED and skipped — never reconstructed from the index Description. No index, or no match -> proceed with no overlay, silently. Full contract: `.claude/skills/project-skill-protocol/references/registry.md`.
>
> Overlays are **ADDITIVE ONLY**: they ADD rules on top of this skill's own protocol and NEVER replace, override, disable, or reinterpret a rule it already states — removing every overlay must return this skill to exactly its documented behavior. An overlay is a BRIEF, not an authority escalation: it can NEVER waive a workflow gate, git discipline, a review gate, or a user-confirmation gate. A genuine overlay-vs-skill conflict, or two equally-specific overlays that directly contradict -> surface both to the user; NEVER resolve silently.

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

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

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

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

## Closing Reminders

**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Goal:** Enforce quality gates, verify compliance with standards, track quality metrics, and generate audit trails across the development lifecycle.

**Protocols in force (concise digest of the SYNC/shared blocks this skill carries):**

- **AI Mistake Prevention:** verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references, verify all affected outputs, re-read after context loss, surface ambiguity.
- **Critical Thinking:** Traced `file:line` proof per claim; confidence >80% to act.
- **Sequential Thinking:** Multi-step Thought N/M with REVISION/BRANCH/HYPOTHESIS markers, confidence closer.

**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** break work into small todo tasks using `TaskCreate` BEFORE starting
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** search codebase for 3+ similar patterns before creating new code
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** cite `file:line` evidence for every claim (confidence >80% to act)
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** add a final review todo task to verify work quality

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