Tech Stack Research

---
name: tech-stack-research
description: '[Architecture] Use when researching and comparing tech stack options as a solution architect.'
---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

## Quick Summary

**Goal:** Deliver user-confirmed, per-layer tech stack — each choice backed by 3+ researched options, weighted scoring, cited evidence, confidence % — by acting as solution architect: derive technical requirements from business analysis, research current market, produce detailed comparison report, so team commits to stack fit for scale, budget, skills, timeline, NOT familiarity.

**Summary:**

- **Purpose:** act as solution architect — derive technical requirements from business analysis, research current market, produce per-layer comparison report so team commits to stack fit for scale/budget/skills/timeline, NOT familiarity.
- **All 7 main steps (run in order):** (1) Load Business Context → (2) Derive Technical Requirements + user-confirm → (3) Research Per Layer (WebSearch 3+ options each) → (4) Deep Comparison Matrix → (5) Weighted Score & Ranking → (6) Generate Report → (7) User Validation Interview.
- Requirements BEFORE research: load prior business/domain/PBI artifacts (Step 1), map business signals → technical requirements (Step 2), gate on user confirmation (ask the user directly) before any WebSearch (Step 3).
- Evaluate every stack layer (backend, frontend, database, messaging, infra, auth) independently — minimum 3 WebSearched options per layer, each with cited evidence (URL, benchmark, case study), NEVER familiarity (Steps 3-4).
- Score with weighted 8-criteria matrix (High=3x / Medium=2x / Low=1x), rank each layer with confidence %; capped <=200-line report → `{plan-dir}/research/tech-stack-comparison.md` (Steps 5-6).
- End-of-skill user validation interview (5-8 questions) mandatory, NEVER skipped — only confirmed decisions written to `phase-02-tech-stack.md` as `status: confirmed` (Step 7).

**Workflow:**

1. **Load Business Context** — Read business evaluation, domain model, refined PBI artifacts
2. **Derive Technical Requirements** — Map business needs to technical constraints
3. **Research Per Layer** — WebSearch top 3 options for each stack responsibility
4. **Deep Compare** — Pros/cons matrix, benchmarks, community health, team fit
5. **Score & Rank** — Weighted scoring across 8 criteria
6. **Generate Report** — Structured comparison report with recommendation
7. **User Validation** — Present findings, ask 5-8 questions, confirm choices

**Key Rules:**

- **MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** research minimum 3 options per stack layer
- **MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** include confidence % with evidence for every recommendation
- **MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** run user validation interview at end (NEVER skip)
- All claims must cite sources (URL, benchmark, case study)
- Recommend on benchmarked evidence (URL, benchmark, case study); NEVER on familiarity alone

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

## Step 1: Load Business Context

Read artifacts from prior workflow steps (search `plans/`, `team-artifacts/`):

- Business evaluation report (viability, scale, constraints)
- Domain model / ERD (complexity, entity count, relationships)
- Refined PBI (acceptance criteria, scope)
- Discovery interview notes (team skills, budget, timeline)

Extract and summarize:

| Signal                 | Value        | Source              |
| ---------------------- | ------------ | ------------------- |
| Expected users         | ...          | discovery interview |
| Domain complexity      | Low/Med/High | domain model        |
| Team skills            | ...          | discovery interview |
| Budget constraint      | ...          | business evaluation |
| Timeline               | ...          | business evaluation |
| Compliance needs       | ...          | business evaluation |
| Real-time needs        | Yes/No       | refined PBI         |
| Integration complexity | Low/Med/High | domain model        |

## Step 2: Derive Technical Requirements

Map business signals to technical requirements:

| Business Signal    | Technical Requirement                           | Priority |
| ------------------ | ----------------------------------------------- | -------- |
| High user scale    | Horizontal scaling, connection pooling          | Must     |
| Complex domain     | Strong type system, ORM with migrations         | Must     |
| Real-time features | WebSocket/SSE support, event-driven arch        | Must     |
| Small team         | Low learning curve, good DX, batteries-included | Should   |
| Tight budget       | Open-source, low hosting cost                   | Should   |
| Compliance         | Audit trail, encryption, auth framework         | Must     |

**MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** validate derived requirements with user by asking the user directly before proceeding to research.

## Step 3: Research Per Stack Layer

For EACH layer, research top 3 options via WebSearch (minimum 5 queries total):

### Stack Layers to Evaluate

| Layer                  | Example Options                 | Research Focus                        |
| ---------------------- | ------------------------------- | ------------------------------------- |
| **Backend Framework**  | Candidate backend runtimes/frameworks | Performance, type safety, ecosystem   |
| **Frontend Framework** | Candidate frontend frameworks         | DX, ecosystem, hiring, enterprise fit |
| **Database**           | Candidate database engines/stores      | Scale, query complexity, cost         |
| **Messaging/Events**   | Candidate messaging/event systems      | Throughput, reliability, complexity   |
| **Infrastructure**     | Docker+K8s, Serverless, PaaS    | Cost, ops overhead, scaling           |
| **Auth**               | Keycloak, Auth0, custom         | Cost, compliance, flexibility         |

### WebSearch Queries (minimum 5 per layer)

```
"{option_A} vs {option_B} {current_year} comparison"
"{option} enterprise production case studies"
"{option} community size github stars"
"{option} performance benchmarks {use_case}"
"{option} security track record vulnerabilities"
```

## Step 4: Deep Comparison Matrix

For EACH stack layer, produce comparison table:

| Criteria             | Option A          | Option B | Option C | Weight |
| -------------------- | ----------------- | -------- | -------- | ------ |
| **Team Fit**         | score + rationale | ...      | ...      | High   |
| **Scalability**      | score + rationale | ...      | ...      | High   |
| **Time-to-Market**   | score + rationale | ...      | ...      | High   |
| **Ecosystem/Libs**   | score + rationale | ...      | ...      | Medium |
| **Hiring Market**    | score + rationale | ...      | ...      | Medium |
| **Cost (hosting)**   | score + rationale | ...      | ...      | Medium |
| **Learning Curve**   | score + rationale | ...      | ...      | Medium |
| **Community Health** | score + rationale | ...      | ...      | Low    |

Scoring: 1-5 scale. Weight: High=3x, Medium=2x, Low=1x.

### Per-Option Detail Block

For each option, document:

```markdown
### {Layer}: {Option Name}

**Pros:**

- {Pro 1} — {evidence/source}
- {Pro 2} — {evidence/source}
- {Pro 3} — {evidence/source}

**Cons:**

- {Con 1} — {evidence/source}
- {Con 2} — {evidence/source}

**Best suited when:** {conditions}
**Not suitable when:** {conditions}
**Production examples:** {2-3 real companies using this}
```

## Step 5: Weighted Score & Ranking

Calculate weighted total per option per layer. Present ranking:

```markdown
### {Layer} Ranking

1. **{Option A}** — Score: {X}/100 — Confidence: {Y}%
2. **{Option B}** — Score: {X}/100 — Confidence: {Y}%
3. **{Option C}** — Score: {X}/100 — Confidence: {Y}%

**Recommendation:** {Option A}
**Why:** {2-3 sentence rationale linking to team skills, scale, and constraints}
```

## Step 6: Generate Report

Write report to `{plan-dir}/research/tech-stack-comparison.md` with:

1. Executive summary (recommended full stack in 5 lines)
2. Technical requirements table (from Step 2)
3. Per-layer comparison matrices (from Step 4)
4. Per-layer rankings with recommendations (from Step 5)
5. Combined recommended stack diagram
6. Risk assessment for recommended stack
7. Alternative stack (second-best combo) for comparison
8. Unresolved questions

Report must be **<=200 lines**. Use tables over prose.

## Step 7: User Validation Interview

**MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** present findings and ask 5-8 questions by asking the user directly:

### Required Questions

1. **Per-layer recommendation confirmation** — "For {layer}, I recommend {option}. Agree?"
    - Options: Agree (Recommended) | Prefer {option B} | Need more research
2. **Risk tolerance** — "The recommended stack has {risk}. Acceptable?"
3. **Team readiness** — "Team needs to learn {X}. Training plan needed?"
4. **Budget alignment** — "Estimated infra cost: ${X}/month. Within budget?"
5. **Timeline fit** — "This stack enables MVP in {X} months. Acceptable?"

### Optional Deep-Dive Questions (pick 2-3 based on context)

- "Should we consider {emerging tech} for {layer}?"
- "Any compliance requirements I haven't captured?"
- "Preference for managed services vs self-hosted?"
- "Monorepo or polyrepo for this team size?"

After user confirms, update report with final decisions, mark `status: confirmed`.

## Output

```
{plan-dir}/research/tech-stack-comparison.md    # Full comparison report
{plan-dir}/phase-02-tech-stack.md               # Final confirmed tech stack decisions
```

---

**MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** break work into small todo tasks using task tracking BEFORE starting.
**MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** validate EVERY recommendation with user by asking the user directly — NEVER auto-decide.
**MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** include confidence % and evidence citations for all claims.
**MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** add a final review todo task to verify work quality.

---

## Next Steps

**MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — NO EXCEPTIONS** after completing this skill, you MUST ATTENTION use ask the user directly to present these options. Do NOT skip because task seems "simple"/"obvious" — the user decides:

- **"$architecture-design (Recommended)"** — Design solution architecture with chosen tech stack
- **"$plan"** — If architecture already decided
- **"Skip, continue manually"** — user decides

### Council escalation (always-offer, second prompt)

After the existing `## Next Steps` prompt above resolves, present a **second**, independent ask the user directly call:

- **"Skip council — proceed with chosen stack (Recommended)"** — Continue with the selected tech stack as-is.
- **"Escalate to $llm-council"** — Run 11 sub-agent council. Best applied when 2+ stacks score within 15% on the comparison matrix or you have unfamiliar/strategic dependencies. Cheaper alternatives: `$why-review`, `$plan-validate`.

<!-- SYNC:scenario-stress-eval -->

> **Scenario Stress & Resilience Evaluation** — CONDITIONAL, evidence-gated, business-criticality-aware. The top-down companion to `SYNC:scale-technique-gate`: instead of *"is technique X present?"*, put the system UNDER concrete failure/load scenarios and judge whether it SURVIVES, SELF-HEALS, and whether its BUSINESS needs it to. **ADVICE-ONLY: emit the Scenario Stress Matrix as guidance; NEVER mutate any score, verdict band, or gate pass/fail.**
>
> 1. **Reuse the scale tier** derived by `SYNC:scale-technique-gate` (or derive it identically from evidence); **also derive business-criticality `B0`–`B3`** from specs/SLA/product docs + the domain, cite `file:line` + confidence. `B0` best-effort · `B1` important · `B2` business-critical · `B3` mission-critical/regulated. Unknown → state the assumption, do **NOT** default to `B3`/`T3`. **Criticality-signal floor (both-directions safety):** regulated / PII / financial / health data, money movement, auth/identity, or legal-compliance scope raises `B` to **at least `B2` even absent SLA/SLO docs**; anti-over-engineering lowers hardening ONLY when NO such signal is present. `B` (blast if it fails) and `T` (scale of load/data) are independent — a low-traffic payroll run is low-`T`, high-`B`.
> 2. **Select in-scope scenarios** — only those the system's `B`/`T` combination warrants (a `B0` internal PoC skips region-loss/DR entirely; a `B3`/`T0` regulated service still needs backups + DR by BUSINESS, not scale).
> 3. **Walk each in-scope scenario:** simulate the stimulus → trace the break path → name the failure signature → answer the self-heal/recovery question (auto-recover? MTTR? manual runbook?) → name the trade-off it forces. Families: traffic spike · sustained growth · data-volume growth · write/ingest burst · dependency down/slow · instance/node loss · zone/region loss · **data loss/corruption** · poison-message/retry-storm · cascading failure/backpressure · cold-start/deploy-blip · clock-skew/duplicate-delivery.
> 4. **Assign one verdict per scenario:** `WITHSTANDS` · `DEGRADES-GRACEFULLY` · `FAILS-HARD` (→ **advise only**) · `N/A-by-business` (not warranted → skip, not a gap) · `OVER-HARDENED` (resilience beyond business need → **advise AGAINST**, cite carrying cost).
> 5. **Anti-over-engineering guard (first-class):** a lean system whose business does not need HA/DR is a PASS; `OVER-HARDENED` flags resilience the business does not warrant. This guard is symmetric with the criticality-signal floor above — never under-harden a `B2`+ system just because its traffic is low.
> 6. **Output — Scenario Stress Matrix:** `scenario | in-scope (B/T)? | verdict | self-heal | trade-off | evidence (file:line/config/infra)`. Full catalog + Business×Scale in-scope baseline + verdict/tier tables → `.claude/docs/scenario-stress-catalog.md`. **ADVISORY-ONLY: NEVER mutate any `/20`, `/24`, verdict band, or gate pass/fail. Drift-guard: scenarios/verdicts/business-tiers are AUTHORITATIVE in the catalog — update it FIRST, then re-run `.claude/scripts/inject_scenario_stress_gate.py`. Scale tier stays single-sourced in `scale-technique-catalog.md`.**
>
> **BLOCKED until:** `- [ ]` scale tier + business-criticality (with criticality-signal floor) derived from evidence `- [ ]` in-scope scenarios selected `- [ ]` matrix emitted `- [ ]` over-hardening guard applied `- [ ]` advisory-only (no score/verdict mutation) confirmed

<!-- /SYNC:scenario-stress-eval -->

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

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

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

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

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

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

## Closing Reminders

**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Goal:** deliver user-confirmed, per-layer tech stack — each choice backed by 3+ researched options, weighted 8-criteria scoring, cited evidence, confidence % — so team commits to a stack fit for scale, budget, skills, timeline, NOT familiarity.

**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — run ALL 7 steps in declared order, none skipped:** (1) Load Business Context → (2) Derive Technical Requirements (+ ask the user directly confirm) → (3) Research Per Layer (WebSearch 3+ options each) → (4) Deep Comparison Matrix → (5) Weighted Score & Ranking (confidence %) → (6) Generate Report (<=200 lines) → (7) User Validation Interview (5-8 questions, write `status: confirmed`) — why: AI keeps collapsing this into "just pick a stack" and dropping requirements-derivation, scoring, and the confirmation gate that make the choice defensible.

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

- **Critical Thinking:** MUST ATTENTION apply critical + sequential thinking; traced proof, confidence >80% to act, NEVER guess as fact.
- **AI Mistake Prevention:** verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references, verify all affected outputs, re-read after context loss, surface ambiguity.

**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** research minimum 3 WebSearched options per stack layer (backend, frontend, database, messaging, infra, auth); every recommendation carries confidence % + cited evidence (URL, benchmark, case study) — NEVER recommend on familiarity alone — why: familiarity bias commits the team to the wrong stack that surfaces only at scale.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** gate on user by asking the user directly at EVERY decision point — confirm derived requirements before research (Step 2), confirm each layer recommendation in the end interview (Step 7) — NEVER auto-decide — why: the team owns the stack, not the AI.
**MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** break work into small todo tasks using task tracking BEFORE starting; mark one `in_progress`, `completed` immediately after evidence; add a final review todo.

<!-- SYNC:scale-technique-gate -->

> **Scalability & Production-Readiness Technique Gate** — CONDITIONAL, evidence-gated, scale-tiered. Judge which system-design techniques a system *warrants* at its scale — flag warranted-but-missing gaps AND advise AGAINST unwarranted heavyweight ones. **ADVICE-ONLY: emit the matrix as guidance; NEVER mutate any score, verdict band, or gate pass/fail.**
>
> 1. **Derive the scale tier FIRST — from evidence, never assumed.** Read users/RPS, SLO/latency targets, data volume, tenancy, topology from config/infra/specs; cite `file:line` + confidence. Tiers: `T0` internal/single-instance · `T1` small SaaS (<10k users) · `T2` high-scale (10k–1M) · `T3` massive/multi-region (millions+). Unknown tier → state assumption, do NOT default to T3.
> 2. **Judge each concern group only at/above its warranting tier** (member techniques → owning review skill for depth):
>    - Traffic & Edge — Rate Limiting, Load Balancing, Reverse Proxy, API Gateway, CDN, Edge Caching, WAF, DDoS (T1+; CDN/WAF T2+) → security-review owns WAF/DDoS
>    - Caching & Data Access — Caching, Cache Invalidation, DB Indexing, Query Optimization, N+1, Connection Pooling (T1+) → performance-review owns depth
>    - Data Scaling & Consistency — Read Replicas, Sharding, Partitioning, Replication, CAP, Eventual Consistency, Locks, Leader Election (T2+; sharding/multi-region T3) → performance-review
>    - Async & Messaging — Message Queues, Pub/Sub, Event-Driven, Saga, DLQ, Distributed Transactions, Backpressure, Webhooks, WebSockets/SSE (T2+)
>    - Resilience — Circuit Breakers, Timeouts, Retries, Backoff, Idempotency, Health Checks, Liveness/Readiness, Failover, Graceful Degradation (T1+) → production-readiness-review
>    - Scaling & Compute — Autoscaling, Horizontal/Vertical Scaling, Serverless Limits, Cold Starts, Cron Jobs, Thread Safety, GC/Memory Leaks (T1+; autoscaling T2+)
>    - Deployment & Release — CI/CD, Docker, Kubernetes, Blue-Green/Canary/Rolling, Rollbacks, Feature Flags, IaC/Terraform/Helm, Build Caching (CI/CD T0+; K8s/canary T2+)
>    - Observability — Monitoring, Logging, Distributed Tracing, Metrics, Alerting, SLOs/SLIs, Error Budgets (T1+; tracing/error-budgets T2+) → production-readiness-review
>    - Security & Compliance — Secrets Management, IAM, OAuth, JWT Rotation, TLS, Encryption at Rest/Transit, CORS, CSRF, SQLi, XSS, SSRF (T0+) → security-review owns
>    - DR & Infra — Backups, Disaster Recovery, Multi-Region, Chaos Engineering, Schema Versioning, DB Migrations, Cost Optimization (backups T1+; DR/multi-region/chaos T3) → production-readiness-review
> 3. **Assign one of 4 verdicts per warranted technique:** `PRESENT` · `MISSING-WARRANTED` (→ **advise only** — guidance, NOT a score/gate lever) · `N/A-by-scale` (below warranting tier) · `OVER-ENGINEERED` (present but unwarranted at this tier → advise AGAINST).
> 4. **Anti-over-engineering guard (first-class):** do NOT recommend K8s, sharding, multi-region, service mesh, event sourcing, or distributed transactions below their warranting tier. A correctly-lean small system is a PASS, never a gap.
> 5. **Output — Technique Applicability Matrix:** `technique | tier-warranted? | present? | verdict | advice | evidence (file:line/config/infra)`. Full grouped catalog + per-tier baseline → `.claude/docs/scale-technique-catalog.md`. Hosting reviews surface this matrix WITHOUT changing any `/20`, `/24`, verdict band, or PASS/FAIL (per user decision 2026-07-06). **Drift-guard: tier thresholds & per-technique warranting tiers are AUTHORITATIVE in `.claude/docs/scale-technique-catalog.md` — the inline tier summary above is a condensed pointer; on any tier/technique change, update the catalog FIRST, then re-run `.claude/scripts/inject_scale_technique_gate.py` to re-propagate this block.**
>
> **BLOCKED until:** `- [ ]` tier derived from evidence (not assumed) `- [ ]` matrix emitted `- [ ]` over-engineering guard applied `- [ ]` advisory-only (no score/verdict mutation) confirmed

<!-- /SYNC:scale-technique-gate -->

<!-- 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 -->

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

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

<!-- 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: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 -->

**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** requirements come BEFORE research — load prior business/domain/PBI artifacts (Step 1), map business signals to technical requirements (Step 2), user-confirm them, THEN WebSearch (Step 3) — NEVER research before requirements are derived and confirmed — why: researching first picks tech then back-fits the problem, the reverse of architecture.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** score every layer with the weighted 8-criteria matrix (High=3x / Medium=2x / Low=1x), rank with confidence %, cap the `{plan-dir}/research/tech-stack-comparison.md` report at <=200 lines using tables over prose — why: an unscored or unbounded report hides the trade-off the decision turns on.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** only user-confirmed decisions get written to `phase-02-tech-stack.md` as `status: confirmed` — the end interview (5-8 ask the user directly questions) is mandatory and NEVER skipped even when the choice seems "obvious" — why: an unconfirmed stack is a guess the team will pay for.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** every claim, finding, and recommendation requires `file:line`/URL proof or traced evidence + confidence % (>80% act, 60-80% verify first, <60% DO NOT recommend) — NEVER present a guess as fact — why: a stack chosen on speculation fails silently until production.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** evaluate fit before copying a reference stack from another project — verify the new context shares the same scale, budget, team skills, compliance, and timeline constraints — why: the closest example rarely matches preconditions, and a mismatched copy compiles but fails the real requirements.

**Anti-Rationalization:**

| Evasion                                          | Rebuttal                                                                                  |
| ------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| "Stack is obvious — skip the research"           | 3+ WebSearched options per layer with cited evidence anyway — familiarity is not evidence. |
| "I already know this is the best framework"      | Show the weighted 8-criteria score + confidence %. No matrix = no recommendation.          |
| "Skip the user interview, the choice is clear"   | The end interview is MANDATORY — only `status: confirmed` decisions get written.            |
| "Just research the stack, requirements are fine" | Derive + user-confirm technical requirements FIRST (Steps 1-2), then research.              |
| "One source is enough for this layer"            | Cite URL + benchmark + case study; a single anecdote is not benchmarked evidence.          |

> **External Memory:** For research/analysis work, write intermediate findings and final results to a report file in `plans/reports/` — prevents context loss and serves as deliverable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

## SYNC:ai-sdd-artifact-contract

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

---

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

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

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

**Extract lessons — ROOT CAUSE ONLY, not symptom fixes:**
1. Name the FAILURE MODE (reasoning/assumption failure), not symptom — "assumed API existed without reading source" not "used wrong enum value".
2. Generality test: does this failure mode apply to ≥3 contexts/codebases? If not, abstract one level up.
3. Write as a universal rule — strip project-specific names/paths/classes. Useful on any codebase.
4. Consolidate: multiple mistakes sharing one failure mode → ONE lesson.
5. **Recurrence gate:** "Would this recur in future session WITHOUT this reminder?" — No → skip `$learn`.
6. **Auto-fix gate:** "Could `$code-review`/`$code-simplifier`/`$security-review`/`$lint` catch this?" — Yes → improve review skill instead.
7. BOTH gates pass → ask user to run `$learn`.
**[CRITICAL-THINKING-MINDSET]** Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act.
**Anti-hallucination principle:** Never present guess as fact — cite sources for every claim, admit uncertainty freely, self-check output for errors, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence — certainty without evidence root of all hallucination.
**AI Attention principle (Primacy-Recency):** Put the 3 most critical rules at both top and bottom of long prompts/protocols so instruction adherence survives long context windows.
**Goal-driven execution:** Define success criteria first, loop until verified, and stop only when observable checks pass.
**Tests verify intent:** Tests must protect business rules/invariants and fail when the protected intent breaks, not only mirror current behavior.
## Common AI Mistake Prevention (System Lessons)

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

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