why-review

name	why-review
description	[Code Quality] Use when reviewing rationale and change quality for plans, PBIs, commits, diffs, docs, specs, reports, or explicit artifacts.

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 (No Hooks)

Codex uses static project-reference loading instead of runtime-injected project docs. 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.

[GOAL REMINDER — MUST ATTENTION CRITICAL]

Ensure every review target is reasonable, correct, proof-backed, and best-practice aligned. ALWAYS ASK THE 3 TRADE-OFF QUESTIONS (every decision AND every recommendation you make): (1) is there any trade-off? — name what it sacrifices; "none" is an unfinished analysis, not an answer; (2) is it worth it? — gain vs cost, who pays, when → WORTH IT / NOT WORTH IT / UNCLEAR; (3) is the trade-off material enough to confirm with the user? — irreversible, cost shifted to someone else, one quality attribute traded for another, boundary crossed, high-consequence path, or UNCLEAR → STOP and confirm by asking the user directly BEFORE the verdict. NEVER resolve a material trade-off silently. — why: naming a benefit without its price is an endorsement, not a review, and a one-way door is the user's call to walk through, never yours. MANDATORY SECOND PASS (full mode): whenever Round 1 produces ANY finding, you MUST call $why-review --validate-findings a SECOND time on those findings to confirm each is correct and reasonable BEFORE handoff. NEVER skip it; NEVER suppress, demote, or under-report findings to dodge it. The self-recursive review loop bound as the first full-mode action — the protocol loop primarily (host-independent), plus a /goal Stop-hook gate WHEN available — BLOCKS stopping until findings are validated. — why: an unvalidated finding is an unproven claim, and a second self-review catches the misreads and inflation Round 1 rationalized.

[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.

Quick Summary

Goal: Resolve the requested review target and apply the matching adversarial review path (plan/PBI rationale, code changes, docs/spec/report, findings, or explicit artifact) so decisions, findings, and plans survive adversarial rationale review before downstream work proceeds.

Summary: (read-this-if-nothing-else digest — the skill's purpose + ALL main steps)

• PURPOSE — be the adversarial rationale reviewer: every plan/PBI/diff/doc/spec/report/finding survives a SKEPTIC pass before downstream work proceeds; success metric is Easy-to-Change (lower future change cost or reject). Gate EVERY finding on file:line + severity + confidence.
• STEP 1 — DETECT MODE FIRST (recursion control): --validate-findings is TERMINAL — NEVER re-invokes $why-review, NEVER runs the gate, NEVER spawns a sub-agent; full mode may call itself ONCE in validate-findings mode. Non-negotiable guard. — why: any of these from terminal mode loops infinitely.
• STEP 2 — FULL-MODE FIRST ACTION → bind the self-recursive review loop: the protocol loop is the primary, host-independent binding (you self-drive review → validate → reconcile → full re-review until CLEAN with no new findings; max 2 re-dos, then escalate), and a /goal gate is an optional accelerator invoked WHEN available (its absence never weakens the loop) — NEVER bind it in terminal mode; "self-fix" = reconcile this review's OWN findings set, not code. THEN Task Bootstrap: create phase tasks + the MANDATORY Findings Validation Gate closing task.
• STEP 3 — RESOLVE TARGET TYPE before any review (commit/PR/diff → code-change; PBI/spec/doc → artifact; "no active plan" ONLY for an unresolved plan-rationale request — NEVER silently convert), read the active Goal Contract, then route by concern (code-reviewer / security-auditor / performance-optimizer / general-purpose).
• STEP 4 — REVIEW as SKEPTIC → complete ALL 7 Anti-Bias Gate boxes (steel-man rejected alt · unseen alternative · args against · stressed assumptions · pre-mortem · pros/cons symmetry · Trade-Off Interrogation Gate) + Validation Checklist (presence AND quality depth) + Round 2 re-review; triangulate spec↔tests↔code — any disagreeing face is a finding, presence is NEVER a pass.
• TRADE-OFF GATE — ALWAYS ASK, on every decision AND every recommendation YOU make: (1) is there any trade-off? name the sacrifice — "none" is an unfinished analysis, so state the dimensions checked; (2) is it worth it? gain vs cost, who pays, when → WORTH IT / NOT WORTH IT / UNCLEAR; (3) is it material enough to confirm with the user? irreversible · cost shifted elsewhere · quality attribute traded · boundary crossed · high-consequence path · UNCLEAR → STOP and confirm by asking the user directly BEFORE the verdict. Emit the Trade-Off Assessment table; a material trade-off unconfirmed = NEVER PASS.
• STEP 5 — FINDINGS VALIDATION GATE on your OWN findings (any severity): re-invoke terminal --validate-findings, reconcile, RE-DO the full review until CLEAN with no new findings (max 2), then ask next step by asking the user directly (+ conditional $llm-council). Dual-feedback: a behavior-changing finding needs BOTH a spec-drift verdict (CODE-WRONG / SPEC-STALE / AMBIGUOUS / SPEC-SILENT / in-sync) AND a test-feedback action; SPEC-SILENT also REQUIRES §4 BR/§3 AC + §8 TC enrichment — a missing axis is HAS-ISSUES, never clean.

Workflow: Detect mode/target → (full mode only) bind the self-recursive review loop (protocol-primary; optional /goal accelerator when available) → route path/docs/graph/sub-agent focus → review dimensions/adversarial gates/Easy-to-Change → validate findings via terminal --validate-findings → reconcile + holistic full re-review until CLEAN with no new findings (max 2 re-dos) → ask next step in full mode.

Key Rules: MUST ATTENTION resolve target type BEFORE review. MUST ATTENTION every finding needs file:line, severity, confidence, best-practice rationale. MUST ATTENTION ask the 3 trade-off questions on every decision AND every recommendation (trade-off? worth it? material → confirm with user); NEVER accept "no trade-off" unexamined, NEVER decide a material trade-off silently. NEVER say "No active plan" except unresolved plan-rationale request. NEVER call $why-review from validate-findings. MUST ATTENTION judge by Easy-to-Change: lower future change cost or reject.

Your Mission

$ARGUMENTS

Review Mode (DETECT FIRST — recursion control)

Detect mode from $ARGUMENTS BEFORE any review work:

Mode	Trigger in $ARGUMENTS	What it runs	Recursion
full (default)	no validate-findings token	Full design-rationale review (Validation Checklist + Adversarial Rounds below), THEN the Findings Validation Gate closing task — which re-invokes THIS skill in validate-findings mode on its own findings.	May call itself ONCE in validate-findings mode (same session).
validate-findings	$ARGUMENTS contains --validate-findings / mode=validate-findings / validate findings in	ONLY the Findings Validation Routine against the supplied findings/report — verify each finding is correct, proof-backed, reasonable, best-practice; surface missed enhancements; emit a CLEAN / HAS-ISSUES verdict.	TERMINAL — NEVER calls $why-review, NEVER runs the gate, NEVER spawns a sub-agent. Stops recursion.

Recursion guard (NON-NEGOTIABLE): validate-findings terminates. MUST NOT invoke $why-review or validation gate — prevents infinite recursion. Re-do loop lives in CALLER, max 2 re-dos, SAME main-agent session, NEVER spawned sub-agent.

In validate-findings mode: skip full Validation Checklist, Adversarial Rounds, Task Bootstrap, Next-Steps council gate. Jump straight to Findings Validation Routine, emit verdict, return to caller.

Bind the Self-Recursive Review Loop (full mode — FIRST ACTION, after mode detection; protocol-first, /goal optional)

MUST ATTENTION: In full mode only, the FIRST action after mode detection — before Task Bootstrap, before any review work — binds this skill's self-recursive review loop so you cannot stop until this review's own findings are all validated and a holistic re-review surfaces nothing new (or a bounded escalation fires). The loop is bound by TWO layers: the protocol loop (primary, host-independent) and an optional /goal accelerator. Correctness rides on the protocol loop — the project rule is that hooks/commands are accelerators only, so /goal's absence NEVER weakens the loop.

Entry gate:

• Run in full mode (no validate-findings token).
• SKIP in validate-findings terminal mode — that mode only returns a verdict to its caller and MUST NOT bind a loop, install a goal, create a closing task, or loop (recursion guard). Record nothing.

1. Protocol loop — ALWAYS binding (hook/command-independent). You, the running agent, are personally responsible for not stopping until the loop converges or bounded-escalates. This binds Claude, Codex, and Copilot equally, whether or not /goal exists:

Run the full adversarial review (Validation Checklist + both Adversarial Rounds) over the whole target → run $why-review --validate-findings on the findings → reconcile (drop unproven/inflated findings, fix proof gaps, ADD surfaced findings/enhancements) → re-run the FULL review over the WHOLE target combined with the reconciled findings (not just re-checking the changed findings) → loop until a complete pass yields zero new findings and validation returns CLEAN, or a bounded blocker escalates. Max 2 re-do rounds, then escalate by asking the user directly. Do not stop while a finding is unvalidated or a re-review would surface new findings.

Treat this as a standing obligation you re-read at the Findings Validation Gate — NOT a one-time note you can rationalize away after the first pass.

2. /goal command — invoke as an accelerator WHEN AVAILABLE. If a /goal command exists and you are permitted to run it in this environment, ALSO invoke it (a real command call, NOT a paraphrase, NOT a Goal Contract file substituted for it) with a condition encoding THIS skill's self-recursive loop, so a session Stop hook mechanically enforces it:

/goal why-review self-recursive loop: run the full adversarial review (Validation Checklist + both Adversarial Rounds) over the whole target → run $why-review --validate-findings on the findings → reconcile (drop unproven/inflated findings, fix proof gaps, ADD surfaced findings/enhancements) → re-run the FULL review over the WHOLE target combined with the reconciled findings (not just re-checking the changed findings) → loop until a complete pass yields zero new findings and validation returns CLEAN, or a bounded blocker escalates. Max 2 re-do rounds, then escalate by asking the user directly. Do not stop while a finding is unvalidated or a re-review would surface new findings.

The /goal Stop hook blocks stopping until the condition holds and auto-clears when met — do not tell the user to clear it.

If /goal is unavailable, unregistered, or not permitted (e.g. Codex/Copilot, or a Claude run without the command): DO NOT error, DO NOT block, and DO NOT invent a stand-in gate. Record ONE line where you track the review (the closing Findings Validation Gate task, or the active Goal Contract if one exists) — /goal accelerator unavailable — review loop bound by protocol (above) — and proceed. The protocol loop IS the gate, enforced by discipline instead of a hook.

why-review fixes its OWN findings set, not code. "Self-fix" here = reconcile the findings report so every surviving finding is correct, proof-backed, reasonable, best-practice, and nothing is missed — the same loop the Findings Validation Gate runs, now made unabandonable by the goal gate. Code/spec/test fixes remain the caller's job; this skill is review-only.

Task Bootstrap (full mode — do at skill START)

Before review work, task tracking phase tasks AND required closing task:

• [Why-Review] Bind self-recursive review loop — protocol-primary; optional /goal accelerator when available (full mode only) — in_progress (MANDATORY FIRST TASK — skip in validate-findings mode)
• [Why-Review] Findings Validation Gate — if ANY findings exist, run $why-review --validate-findings on them; re-do until CLEAN (max 2) — pending (MANDATORY CLOSING TASK)

Create at START. Keep the closing task pending until findings exist; then execute before skill completes. In validate-findings mode, do NOT create either task.

First Principle — Easy to Change

Success metric: future change cost. DRY, SRP, abstraction, design patterns, naming, layering, tests exist to make next change cheaper.

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

• Reject "best practices" raising change cost: premature abstraction, speculative generality, leaky indirection, ceremony without payoff.
• Name real enemies in findings: coupling, hidden state, duplicated knowledge, unclear intent, irreversible decisions exposed too early.
• Prefer simple design easy to change over sophisticated design hard to change.

Apply before any rule/checklist below; if downstream rule raises change cost, this principle wins.

---

Adversarial Review Mindset (NON-NEGOTIABLE)

Default stance: SKEPTIC, not validator. Your job is to find what's wrong, not confirm what's right.

Confirmation bias trap: After reading a coherent plan, AI naturally finds reasons to agree. Current context (post-plan, post-fix) amplifies this — you already saw the reasoning and rationalized it. This section breaks that loop. — why: a reviewer who already endorsed the reasoning cannot also be its skeptic without a forced reset.

Adversarial Techniques (apply ALL before concluding)

Technique	Think
Steel-Man	Argue FOR rejected alternative. Would a 10-year domain senior choose it? If yes, dismissal needs stronger proof.
Why NOT?	For every "chose X because Y", ask what X sacrifices.
Assumption Stress Test	List top 3 assumptions; ask impact if wrong. Strong plan survives 2/3 false.
Pre-Mortem	Assume 3-month production failure; write one plausible scenario.
Unseen Alternatives	Identify 1-2 approaches not mentioned; absence without exclusion reasoning = weak coverage.
Pros/Cons Symmetry	Count chosen-approach pros/cons. Pros > cons by 2:1 means likely bias.
Contrarian Pass	Before finding/verdict, argue opposite conclusion in 2 sentences; choose stronger argument.
Trade-Off Interrogation	Ask the 3 questions (below): is there a trade-off? · is it worth it? · is it material enough to confirm with the user?

Forbidden Patterns

Forbidden pattern	Required correction
"Looks good because..."	Lead with challenges first.
Presence = quality	Test quality depth; real alternatives, causal rationale.
Vague rationale	Demand metric + cost: better at what cost?
Asymmetric trade-offs	Treat 3 pros / 1 con as incomplete analysis.
"Looks fine"	Provide adversarial challenge evidence.
"No trade-off" / "pure win"	Name the dimensions checked and why each is unaffected; unexamined ≠ absent.
Material trade-off decided silently	Escalate to the user by asking the user directly; a one-way door is never yours to walk through.

Anti-Bias Gate (MANDATORY before finalizing verdict)

Complete ALL 7 checks before writing the final verdict (MUST ATTENTION):

• steel-man at least one rejected alternative (argue FOR it)
• identify at least 1 alternative NOT in the plan
• list 2-3 arguments AGAINST the chosen approach
• surface 2-3 hidden assumptions with stress tests
• run the pre-mortem (one concrete failure scenario)
• check pros/cons symmetry
• run the Trade-Off Interrogation Gate below (trade-off named · worth-it verdict · materiality escalation decided)

Any check incomplete → adversarial review NOT complete. Go back.

Trade-Off Interrogation Gate (MANDATORY — no verdict, no finding, no recommendation without it)

[BLOCKING] Ask these THREE questions EVERY time — about the decision under review AND about every recommendation YOU make. — why: a review that names benefits without naming their price is an endorsement, not a review; and the biggest trade-offs are the ones nobody wrote down.

1. Is there any trade-off? Name what this decision/recommendation SACRIFICES. Every choice buys something with something. "None" is NOT an acceptable answer — it is an unfinished analysis. To claim no material trade-off, state which dimensions you checked and why each is unaffected:

future change cost · complexity · performance/latency · memory/cost · coupling · reversibility · migration burden · operational/ops 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 · what it costs · who pays · when it comes due — then emit one verdict: WORTH IT / NOT WORTH IT / UNCLEAR. Anchor on Easy-to-Change: a trade-off raising future change cost needs a proportionate, named payoff, not a vague one. "Better" without a metric and a cost FAILS this question.

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 row below holds:

Material when the trade-off…	Examples
Is irreversible — a one-way door	data migration, public API/contract shape, storage format, framework/vendor lock-in
Shifts cost onto someone else	another team, ops/on-call, the future maintainer, the end user
Trades one quality attribute for another	correctness↔speed, security↔convenience, latency↔cost, simplicity↔flexibility
Crosses a boundary	client↔server tier seam, service contract, event contract, shared library
Sits on a high-consequence path	auth, money, data integrity, breaking change, High/Medium residual risk
Cannot be evidenced (worth-it verdict = UNCLEAR)	gain or cost unquantifiable from available evidence

• MATERIAL → STOP and confirm by asking the user directly BEFORE the verdict stands: state the trade-off, both options, what each sacrifices, your recommendation. NEVER resolve a material trade-off silently on the user's behalf, and NEVER bury it as a Low-severity note.
• NOT material → record it inline in the Trade-Off Assessment table with a one-line justification and proceed; no escalation needed.
• In validate-findings terminal mode: assess and record, do NOT escalate — that mode asks nothing (see Next Steps exemption); flag the unescalated material trade-off in the verdict so the CALLER escalates it.

Output: every review emits the Trade-Off Assessment table (see Output Format) — one row per reviewed decision and per recommendation you make. An empty table with findings present is an incomplete review.

Target Resolution (DO THIS BEFORE REVIEW)

Analyze user request, not only literal argument shape. Determine target, then choose matching path.

User request / evidence	Review path	Required target work
Explicit plan directory, plan.md, phase files	Plan-rationale review	Read plan.md and all phase-*.md files.
PBI/story/spec planning artifact, rationale request	PBI/artifact rationale review	Read the named artifact and related acceptance/design/risk sections; if it references plan files, read those too.
Commit SHA, Commit: ..., PR/merge commit, git diff	Code-change review	Establish the diff range, read changed files, run graph impact when available, and apply code-review/adversarial review protocols.
Branch comparison or uncommitted changes	Code-change review	Use the requested branch/diff or git diff; read changed files and tests/docs touched by the diff.
Docs/spec/report/findings path	Artifact review	Read the target artifact and verify claims against source evidence; use rationale checklist only where the artifact is a plan/PBI.
Ambiguous request	Infer from evidence; ask if unsafe	Prefer a reasonable target from the request and repo evidence. Ask only when two plausible review paths would produce different work.

Important defaults:

1. Commit hash / Commit: block => code-change review, not "no active plan."
2. PBI file => review that PBI/artifact; no plans/**/plan.md wrapper required.
3. "No active plan found. Run $plan first." valid ONLY for unresolved plan-rationale requests.
4. MUST ATTENTION record target type, evidence, confidence; NEVER silently convert target types.

Active-goal read (BEFORE judging rationale): Resolve active Goal Contract per goal-contract-satisfaction-loop protocol (active plan goal.md → plans/goals/{YYMMDD-HHmm}-{slug}/goal.md). When one exists, review artifact's rationale AGAINST saved Original Request, Purpose, Success Criteria — flag rationale justifying work the saved goal never asked for, and saved required criteria the artifact's reasoning never addresses. When none exists, record No active goal — rationale reviewed against the current request only. Full mode only; --validate-findings terminal mode skips this read.

Review Focus Routing

Detected concern	Primary focus / sub-agent route
Source code / diff	code-reviewer + embedded code-review protocols.
Auth, secrets, permissions, data	security-auditor if available; otherwise code-reviewer with explicit security pass.
Latency, scale, memory, queries	performance-optimizer if available; otherwise code-reviewer with explicit performance pass.
Plan / PBI / doc / spec	general-purpose with rationale/artifact dimensions.
Mixed target	Split focused passes by concern; aggregate findings after all passes.

Code-Change Review Path

When target is code changes:

1. Resolve the diff source:
   • Commit SHA: use git show --name-status and diff against its first parent.
   • Merge commit: default to first-parent diff unless the user specifies another parent/range.
   • Branch/range: use the user-supplied range.
   • Uncommitted changes: use git diff plus staged diff if relevant.
2. Comprehend change context + trace full pipeline across BOTH boundaries (MANDATORY for code-change targets; N/A for pure plan/PBI/doc targets). Before deep file judging, write a one-line Change Context (what · intent · originating tier · main affected flow), then apply BOTH inlined blocks below: SYNC:cross-stack-impact-trace for the client↔server tier seam (BE→FE forward, FE→BE backward) and SYNC:cross-service-check for the microservice / event / external / loosely-coupled boundary. Classify each seam/touchpoint NONE / ADDITIVE / BREAKING; a BREAKING seam whose other-side consumer is un-updated in the same diff is a HIGH-min finding. State Single-tier / monolith — N/A when no cross-boundary seam exists.
3. Read the changed files and any nearby tests/docs required to prove behavior.
4. Read project reference docs based on changed file types before judging patterns.
5. If .code-graph/graph.db exists, run graph blast-radius or trace on key changed files before concluding.
6. Apply embedded code-review protocols by serial focused pass: bug detection, design patterns quality, logic/intention, test/spec verification, graph investigation, Easy-to-Change.
7. Output findings first, with file:line evidence, severity, confidence, and tests/docs gaps.

Rationale / Artifact Review Dimensions

Run one focused pass per applicable dimension; do NOT scan all dimensions simultaneously.

Dimension	Think
Target fit	Did we resolve what user asked, with evidence and confidence?
Goal alignment	Does the rationale serve the saved Goal Contract's purpose and success criteria — or drift past them?
Rationale depth	Are alternatives real, causal, symmetric, assumption-aware?
Trade-off honesty	What does this SACRIFICE, is it worth it, and is the trade-off material enough to confirm with the user? An unpriced benefit is a rationale gap.
Behavioral risk	What breaks in happy, error, edge, and rollback paths?
Cross-boundary impact	Does a changed contract break a consumer on the other client↔server tier (BE↔FE), or a loosely-coupled/external service or event consumer? (tier seam + service/event)
Test/spec/doc sync	Does evidence prove tests/specs/docs protect the intended invariant and avoid stale claims?
Future change cost	Does recommendation reduce coupling, hidden state, duplication, unclear intent?

Validation Checklist

For plan/PBI/artifact rationale reviews, read resolved target first. If plan directory, read plan.md and all phase-*.md files. Check presence AND quality depth.

For code-change reviews, use Code-Change Review Path instead of forcing plan checklist. Still include adversarial analysis, pre-mortem, assumptions, evidence, findings validation.

Rule: Presence alone is NOT a pass. A section that exists but contains weak, asymmetric, or unverified reasoning FAILS quality depth.

Required Sections (in plan.md or phase files)

#	Section	Presence Check	Quality Depth Check (adversarial)
1	Problem Statement	2-3 sentences describing the problem	Is the problem scoped correctly? Could it be framed differently to lead to a different solution? Are symptoms confused with root cause?
2	Alternatives Considered	Minimum 2 alternatives listed with pros/cons	Are alternatives real (not strawmen)? Would a domain expert seriously consider each? Are the cons of the CHOSEN approach listed, not just cons of the others?
3	Design Rationale	Explicit reasoning linking decision to trade-offs	Is reasoning causal (X leads to Y) or just descriptive (X is better)? Are hidden assumptions surfaced? Does it address failure modes, not just success modes?
4	Risk Assessment	At least 1 risk per phase	Are risks ranked by severity? Are mitigations concrete actions or vague intentions ("monitor closely")? Is there at least one risk about the approach itself (not just execution)?
5	Ownership	Clear who maintains code post-merge	Implicit OK (author owns), explicit better

Residual Risk Gate

• Challenge over-broad scope, weak rejected alternatives, and any High/Medium residual risk.
• High/Medium risks must be fixed, reduced, or explicitly accepted by user/owner before PASS.
• AI-extracted specs/TCs are not accepted evidence unless the canonical owner/review gate accepted them.

Optional (Flag if Missing, Don't Fail)

#	Section	When Required	Quality Depth Check
6	Operational Impact	Service-layer or API changes	Are rollback steps defined? What breaks if this is reverted?
7	Cross-Service Impact	Changes touching multiple microservices	Are all downstream consumers identified? Who needs to be notified?
8	Migration Strategy	Database schema or data changes	Is there a rollback plan? Is it tested on a data sample?

Output Format

## Why-Review Results

**Plan:** {plan path}
**Target Type:** {plan/PBI/code changes/docs/spec/report/artifact}
**Target:** {path, commit, branch range, or artifact}
**Date:** {date}
**Verdict:** PASS / NEEDS WORK

### Checklist

| #   | Check                   | Presence | Quality Depth | Notes                            |
| --- | ----------------------- | -------- | ------------- | -------------------------------- |
| 1   | Problem Statement       | ✅/❌    | ✅/⚠️/❌      | {what's strong / what's weak}    |
| 2   | Alternatives Considered | ✅/❌    | ✅/⚠️/❌      | {are they real or strawmen?}     |
| 3   | Design Rationale        | ✅/❌    | ✅/⚠️/❌      | {causal or just descriptive?}    |
| 4   | Risk Assessment         | ✅/❌    | ✅/⚠️/❌      | {concrete mitigations or vague?} |
| 5   | Ownership               | ✅/❌    | ✅/⚠️/❌      | {details}                        |
| 6   | Bugfix Debugger Trace   | ✅/❌/N/A | ✅/⚠️/❌     | {final state, feeder paths, hypothesis matrix, owner, forward proof} |
| 7   | Trade-Off Gate          | ✅/❌    | ✅/⚠️/❌      | {trade-off named? worth-it verdict? material → user confirmed?}  |

> ✅ Strong ⚠️ Weak/Partial ❌ Missing

### Adversarial Analysis

**Strongest arguments AGAINST the chosen approach:**

1. {argument 1 — cite specific plan text that weakens under this pressure}
2. {argument 2}
3. {argument 3 if applicable}

**Unexamined alternatives** (not mentioned in the plan):

- {alternative A} — why it might be worth considering
- {alternative B if applicable}

**Weakest assumptions** (if wrong, the plan breaks):

1. {assumption} — impact if false: {consequence}
2. {assumption} — impact if false: {consequence}

**Bugfix trace challenge** (required for bugfix, failed verification, stale/incorrect final output, regression, or behavior-changing fix plans):

- Observed final state and final reader proven? {yes/no/N/A}
- All feeder paths enumerated or explicitly bounded? {yes/no/N/A}
- Hypothesis matrix includes ruled-out and latent causes, not only the chosen cause? {yes/no/N/A}
- Owning fix layer protects all downstream consumers? {yes/no/N/A}
- Forward convergence proof and tests/proof mapping make the symptom impossible or detect recurrence? {yes/no/N/A}

**Pre-mortem** (assume it ships and fails in 3 months):

> {One concrete, plausible failure scenario based on the plan's approach}

**Pros/Cons symmetry:** Pros listed: {N} | Cons listed: {N} | Bias: {balanced / leans toward pros / leans toward cons}

### Trade-Off Assessment (MANDATORY — one row per reviewed decision AND per recommendation you make)

| # | Decision / recommendation | Trade-off — what it sacrifices | Gain (metric) | Who pays, when | Worth it? | Material? | Confirmed with user? |
| - | ------------------------- | ------------------------------ | ------------- | -------------- | --------- | --------- | -------------------- |
| 1 | {decision or my recommendation} | {sacrifice — or dimensions checked + why unaffected} | {gain + metric} | {payer / when due} | WORTH IT / NOT WORTH IT / UNCLEAR | YES / NO ({which materiality row}) | asked / N/A (not material) |

> Material trade-off with `Confirmed with user? = no` → verdict CANNOT be PASS. Escalate by asking the user directly first.

**Cross-Boundary Impact:** (code-change targets) {per client↔server seam AND per service/event/external touchpoint: NONE / ADDITIVE / BREAKING with routed fix; or `Single-tier / monolith — N/A`}

### Missing Items (if any)

- {specific item to add before implementation}

### Recommendation

{Proceed to $feature-implement | Add missing sections first | Add adversarial analysis to plan/PBI | Fix code findings | Update docs/specs | Continue manually}

Round 2: Adversarial Re-Review (MANDATORY)

Protocol: Deep Multi-Round Review (inlined via SYNC:double-round-trip-review above)

After Round 1, execute second full adversarial round:

1. Assume Round 1 was wrong — start with: "Round 1 missed something. Find it."
2. Challenge every PASS item from Round 1 — generate at least 2 sentences arguing the opposite for each
3. Complete the Anti-Bias Gate (all 7 boxes from Adversarial Review Mindset section, including the Trade-Off Interrogation Gate)
4. Populate Adversarial Analysis — MANDATORY:
   • At least 2 arguments against the chosen approach
   • At least 1 unexamined alternative
   • At least 2 hidden assumptions with failure consequences
   • Pre-mortem scenario
   • Pros/Cons symmetry count
   • Trade-Off Assessment table — every decision AND every recommendation of yours: trade-off named, worth-it verdict, materiality decided; re-ask the 3 questions on any trade-off Round 1 called "none" — why: Round 1's most common miss is an unpriced benefit.
5. Focus on Round-1 misses:
   • Alternatives that are strawmen (too easy to dismiss)
   • Risks stated vaguely without concrete mitigations
   • Assumptions embedded in the problem statement itself
   • Scope creep disguised as "related improvements"
6. Update verdict if Round 2 found new issues
7. Final verdict incorporates BOTH rounds + Adversarial Analysis

Scope

• Applies to: Features, refactors, architectural changes, commits/diffs/code changes, docs/spec/report reviews
• Exempt from plan-rationale advisory only: trivial config changes, tiny single-file tweaks when active workflow permits documented skip
• Enforcement: Advisory (soft warning) — does not block implementation

Important Notes

• Review only — do NOT modify target files or implement changes
• Keep output concise — actionable in <2 minutes
• Simple plans still require Anti-Bias Gate; findings may be brief, but gate cannot be skipped

---

Findings Validation Gate (full mode — MANDATORY CLOSING TASK when findings exist)

Purpose: Before handoff, re-validate THIS review's OWN findings: correct, proof-backed, reasonable, best-practice. Catch finding issues and missed enhancements.

Trigger: Full mode with ANY finding, weakness, missing item, or NEEDS WORK verdict — of ANY severity (Critical, High, Medium, OR Low). A Medium or Low severity NEVER exempts a finding from validation; even one low-severity nit triggers the gate. Skip ONLY unconditional PASS with a literally empty finding set (zero findings/missing items of any severity); record skip reason. NEVER run in validate-findings mode. — why: "it's only Low" is itself a severity claim the validation pass must confirm, not a reason to skip it.

Caller-side re-do loop (bounded — owned HERE, not by validate mode):

1. Ensure findings written to a report (plans/reports/why-review-{date}.md).
2. Invoke $why-review --validate-findings plans/reports/why-review-{date}.md in SAME main-agent session, NOT sub-agent. Returns CLEAN / HAS-ISSUES. Each call terminal.
3. CLEAN → append ## Findings Validation line to report ("All N findings re-validated; correct, proof-backed, reasonable, best-practice; no changes."), gate PASSES, exit loop.
4. HAS ISSUES → reconcile: drop/demote unproven or inflated findings (including any finding below the ≥85% finding-survival bar — see the Findings Validation Routine's Confidence bar), fix proof gaps, add surfaced findings/enhancements, re-derive verdict, record ## Findings Validation Notes citing what changed and why.
5. RE-DO holistically — because the reconciled findings changed the picture, re-run the FULL review (Validation Checklist + both Adversarial Rounds) over the WHOLE target combined with the reconciled findings — NOT just re-validate the changed findings in isolation — then re-invoke $why-review --validate-findings on the UPDATED report. Repeat until CLEAN with no new findings surfaced, or max 2 re-do rounds. Still not CLEAN → record unresolved state, mark the goal-gate blocker, and escalate by asking the user directly in ## Next Steps.

Findings Validation Routine (validate-findings mode body — TERMINAL)

Executed ONLY in validate-findings mode. TERMINAL: do NOT call $why-review, do NOT run gate, do NOT spawn sub-agent, do NOT create closing task. Validate, emit verdict, return.

Read supplied findings/report (path from $ARGUMENTS). For EACH finding, weakness, missing item, adversarial argument, assumption, verify ALL four:

• Correct — re-trace cited plan text / file:line; finding actually holds (not a misread or stale reference).
• Proof-backed — concrete file:line or quoted plan/report section present; reject "probably / should be / I think".
• Reasonable — severity/weight proportionate, not inflated; steel-man of opposing view does not dissolve it.
• Best-practice — recommendation reflects project conventions and Easy-to-Change metric (lowers future change cost), not preference or speculative generality.
• Trade-off priced — the finding's recommendation names what it SACRIFICES, carries a WORTH IT / NOT WORTH IT / UNCLEAR verdict, and has its materiality decided (per the Trade-Off Interrogation Gate). A recommendation presented as a pure win, or with Trade-off: none and no dimensions-checked justification, is a validation FAIL — flag HAS-ISSUES naming the unpriced recommendation. A material trade-off left unconfirmed with the user is HAS-ISSUES: name it so the CALLER escalates (terminal mode assesses, never asks). NOT WORTH IT → the finding is dropped or its recommendation replaced, never kept as-is. — why: a fix that costs more than the bug it removes is a finding the review should have withdrawn.
• Dual-feedback (behavior-changing findings only) — if ANY finding changes observable behavior, confirm that BOTH halves of the feedback are present for it: (1) a spec-drift verdict — CODE-WRONG / SPEC-STALE / AMBIGUOUS / SPEC-SILENT / in-sync (per SYNC:spec-drift-adjudication) — AND (2) a concrete test-feedback action (regression/preservation TC via $spec [mode=tests], or covering test via $integration-test). A behavior-changing finding missing EITHER half is a validation FAIL — flag it as HAS-ISSUES and name the missing axis (spec verdict absent or test feedback absent). A SPEC-SILENT verdict (code correctly enforces an invariant no spec artifact states) REQUIRES a spec-enrichment action on the spec axis — add the §4 BR/§3 AC + a §8 TC via $spec [update] + $spec [mode=tests]; a SPEC-SILENT finding with no spec-enrichment action is HAS-ISSUES, same as a blank dual-feedback axis. A code-only fix with no spec verdict and no owed TC is an incomplete finding, not a clean one.
• Confidence bar (distinct from the >80% act-gate) — a finding survives ONLY if its own stated confidence that it is a real issue is ≥85%. This is a HIGHER bar than the generic >80% act-gate, and a DIFFERENT question: the act-gate asks "may I act on this evidence?"; this bar asks "is this reported finding strong enough to KEEP?". A finding at 80-84% is demoted or dropped, not kept. The ≥85% must rest on the Proof-backed check above (a cited file:line + a traced failure path); confidence resting on inference alone caps below the bar.

Then sweep for misses — apply Adversarial Techniques once more: unexamined alternative, hidden assumption, enhancement opportunity?

Emit a verdict to plans/reports/why-review-validate-{date}.md:

• CLEAN — every finding passes all four checks AND nothing new surfaced.
• HAS ISSUES — list each finding to drop/demote/fix (reason + file:line) and each newly surfaced finding/enhancement (file:line).

Return verdict path + status. Caller owns reconciliation and bounded re-do; routine does NOT modify caller report and does NOT loop.

---

Next Steps

EXEMPT in validate-findings mode: terminal mode returns verdict; skip ## Next Steps, ask the user directly, council gate.

MANDATORY — FULL MODE: after review, use ask the user directly; user owns next step.

[BLOCKING] Material trade-off confirmation comes FIRST. Any trade-off the Trade-Off Interrogation Gate marked MATERIAL (irreversible · shifts cost to someone else · trades one quality attribute for another · crosses a boundary · high-consequence path · worth-it verdict UNCLEAR) MUST be confirmed with the user via its OWN ask the user directly — stating the trade-off, both options, what each sacrifices, and your recommendation — BEFORE the next-step question and BEFORE any PASS verdict. Multiple material trade-offs → ask the highest-consequence ones first (cap 3 questions per call), never bundle them into one vague "proceed?". — why: a one-way door walked through silently cannot be un-walked, and the user is the only one who owns that call.

• "$feature-implement (Recommended)" — Begin implementation after design rationale is validated
• "$plan-execute" — If implementing a simpler change
• "Skip, continue manually" — user decides

Additionally — conditional $llm-council escalation

After first next-step question, evaluate gate:

1. Workflow suppression first: read plans/.workflow-state.json or equivalent workflowId. Suppress council for workflow-refactor, workflow-bugfix, and test-*. Rationale: council costs 11 LLM calls; these workflows are routine/reversible/test-only enough for $why-review. Matches .claude/skills/llm-council/SKILL.md "Workflow Integration".
2. Frontmatter gate: read active plan.md or PBI frontmatter. Gate fires when ANY true: cross_service_impact != NONE; breaking_changes; complexity in {high, critical} or story_points >= 13; new_framework; irreversible; security_critical; performance_critical; cost_high.
3. Override/defaults: absent fields default no-fire; council_suppress: true skips prompt and logs reason.

If suppressed or no-fire, do NOT mention $llm-council. If gate fires, ask a SECOND separate follow-up question:

• "Escalate to $llm-council (Recommended)" — Gate fired (high-stakes signal detected). Run 11 sub-agent council (5 advisors + 5 reviewers + chairman). Use when $why-review alone is insufficient. Cheaper alternatives already exhausted at this point: $plan-validate is the prior rung.
• "Skip — proceed without council" — Acknowledge the gate; proceed with current decision anyway.

[BLOCKING — full mode only] MUST ATTENTION ask at least one user question before completing. validate-findings asks nothing because it only returns verdict. [IMPORTANT] Use task tracking before work, including file-read tasks; simple tasks need documented skip decision. Critical Purpose: Ensure quality: no flaws, bugs, missing updates, or stale content. Verify code AND documentation. External Memory: Long reviews write intermediate + final results to plans/reports/. Evidence Gate: MANDATORY every claim/finding/recommendation requires file:line proof or trace with confidence (>80% act, <80% verify). OOP & DRY Enforcement: MANDATORY flag 3+ duplicated patterns for extraction; same-group/suffix classes (*Entity, *Dto, *Service) should share a base when it lowers future change cost.

End-to-Start Debugger Trace — For non-trivial bugs, failed verification, regression fixes, behavior-changing code, or unclear code flow, start from the observed final state and walk backward before proposing a fix.

1. Frame 0: observed end state — Name the exact user-visible output, failing assertion, log line, persisted value, API response, rendered UI, or aggregate bucket. Record the reader/query/renderer that produced it with file:line evidence.
2. Walk backward one hop at a time — Trace final reader -> projection/cache/storage -> writer -> consumer/handler/job -> producer/caller -> original trigger. At every hop record: input, transformation, output, owner, and evidence.
3. Enumerate all feeder paths — Find every upstream producer/caller/event/job that can write into the final path, including retry, async, cache, background, and alternate UI/API paths. Mark each path verified, ruled out, or still unknown.
4. Build the hypothesis matrix — For each plausible cause, list evidence for, evidence against, how to reproduce/verify, blast radius, and status (primary, contributing, ruled out, latent). Do not fix until competing causes are explicitly resolved or bounded.
5. Choose the owning fix layer — Identify the invariant owner and the lowest shared point that protects all downstream consumers. A fix at the symptom site is rejected unless the symptom site owns the invariant.
6. Prove convergence forward — After choosing the fix, walk start -> end again and show how the corrected state reaches the observed final output. Map each root cause to a fix part and each fix part to a test/proof.

BLOCKED until: final state named · backward trace written · all feeder paths enumerated · hypothesis matrix completed · owning fix layer justified · forward convergence proof mapped to tests.

NEVER: Start at the first suspicious code path. Collapse multiple producers into one "flow". Treat duplicate symptoms as duplicate records without proving the read model. Skip ruled-out hypotheses.

Behavioral Delta Matrix — MANDATORY for bugfix reviews. Produce this table BEFORE PASS/FAIL verdict. Narrative descriptions don't substitute.

Input state	Pre-fix behavior	Post-fix behavior	Delta
{condition}	{current behavior}	{fixed behavior}	Preserved ✓ / Fixed ✓ / REGRESSION ✗

Rules: ≥3 rows · ≥1 row the bug report did NOT mention · REGRESSION delta → FAIL until a preservation test covers it (spec-tests-template.md#preservation-tests-mandatory-for-bugfix-specs)

BLOCKED until: ≥3 rows · ≥1 row outside bug report · no unmitigated REGRESSION

Nested Task Expansion Contract — For workflow-step invocation, the [Workflow] ... row is only a parent container; the child skill still creates visible phase tasks.

1. Call the current task list first. If a matching active parent workflow row exists, set nested=true and record parentTaskId; otherwise run standalone.
2. Create one task per declared phase before phase work. When nested, prefix subjects [N.M] $skill-name — phase.
3. When nested, link the parent with TaskUpdate(parentTaskId, addBlockedBy: [childIds]).
4. Orchestrators must pre-expand a child skill's phase list and link the workflow row before invoking that child skill or sub-agent.
5. Mark exactly one child in_progress before work and completed immediately after evidence is written.
6. Complete the parent only after all child tasks are completed or explicitly cancelled with reason.

Blocked until: the current task list done, child phases created, parent linked when nested, first child marked in_progress.

Project Reference Docs Gate — Run after task-tracking bootstrap and before target/source file reads, grep, edits, or analysis. Project docs override generic framework assumptions.

1. Identify scope: file types, domain area, and operation.
2. Read docs/project-config.json first — the project's machine-readable map. It is the single source of truth for THIS repo (modules/paths, framework + search keywords, test/E2E/integration run-commands, design system, architecture rules, workflow patterns); ground exact paths, run-commands, and conventions on it before investigating, planning, or coding — never assume framework defaults (CLAUDE.md + reference docs are derived from it). If it — or the docs index, lessons.md, CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, or any required reference doc — is missing or stale, auto-run $project-init or the narrow route ($project-config, $docs-init, $scan-all, $scan --target=<key>, $claude-md-init) first; if Codex mirrors or AGENTS.md are stale, ask the user to run $sync-codex (never auto-run it).
3. Required docs by trigger: always docs/project-reference/lessons.md; doc lookup docs-index-reference.md; review code-review-rules.md; backend/CQRS/API backend-patterns-reference.md; domain/entity domain-entities-reference.md; frontend/UI frontend-patterns-reference.md; styles/design scss-styling-guide.md + design-system/design-system-canonical.md; integration tests integration-test-reference.md; E2E e2e-test-reference.md; feature docs/specs feature-spec-reference.md + spec-system-reference.md + spec-principles.md; behavior/public-contract/spec-test-code sync workflow-spec-test-code-cycle-reference.md; derived spec index/ERD/reimplementation guides spec-system-reference.md + source Feature Specs under docs/specs/; architecture/new area project-structure-reference.md.
4. Read every required doc, then before target work state: Reference docs read: ... | Not applicable: ....

Ready when: scope evaluated, docs/project-config.json consulted, required docs checked/read or setup route completed, lessons.md confirmed, citation emitted.

Cross-Stack Impact Trace — FIRST review action: comprehend change holistically, THEN judge files. Every reviewed diff: note change context, trace full pipeline of main affected area end-to-end across client↔server seam, so a change on one tier can never silently break the other. (Distinct from SYNC:cross-service-check, which owns service-to-service / event boundary — this owns client↔server tier seam inside one app; pair both for full-pipeline coverage.)

1. Comprehend context FIRST — before file-by-file review, write short Change Context note: what changed, intent (why), originating tier (frontend / backend / shared / infra), main affected feature/flow. Do before flagging anything.
2. Identify cross-stack seam(s) — for main affected area, locate contract seam(s) between client and server: API route/endpoint + verb, request/response DTO or payload shape, shared type/schema, event/message contract, query/route params. Infer tier layout from docs/project-config.json and project conventions.
3. Trace full pipeline end-to-end, in change's direction:
   • Backend change → trace FORWARD to every frontend consumer: handler/controller → response DTO/serializer → API client/service → store/state → component/template rendering or submitting it.
   • Frontend change → trace BACKWARD to backend contract: component/form → API client call → route/endpoint → request DTO/validation → handler/domain.
   • When .code-graph/graph.db exists, use $graph-connect-api and python .claude/scripts/code_graph trace <file> --direction both --json to map connection; otherwise grep route path, DTO/type name, each field name across BOTH tiers.
4. Verify BOTH sides still agree — for every changed seam confirm other tier matches: route path & verb, field names & types, nullability/optionality, required vs optional params, enum values, auth/permission, error/status shape. Any mismatch = BREAKING finding (backend change breaks a frontend consumer, or frontend now sends what backend rejects).
5. Classify each seam: NONE (no contract change) / ADDITIVE (backward-compatible) / BREAKING (consumer on other tier must change too). BREAKING seam whose other-tier consumer NOT updated in same diff = HIGH severity minimum (CRITICAL for auth/money/data-integrity paths).

Skip ONLY when change has no cross-tier seam — pure docs, pure styling with no data contract, or single-tier tooling. State explicitly: Single-tier change — no cross-stack seam. Backend-only or single-tier repo still traces internal consumers (SYNC:cross-service-check for service/event boundaries).

BLOCKED until: Change Context noted · seam(s) identified or explicit N/A · full pipeline traced in change direction · every changed seam classified NONE / ADDITIVE / BREAKING.

Cross-Service Check — Microservices/event-driven: MANDATORY before concluding investigation, plan, spec, or feature doc. Missing downstream consumer = silent regression.

Boundary	Grep terms
Event producers	Publish, Dispatch, Send, emit, EventBus, outbox, IntegrationEvent
Event consumers	Consumer, EventHandler, Subscribe, @EventListener, inbox
Sagas/orchestration	Saga, ProcessManager, Choreography, Workflow, Orchestrator
Sync service calls	HTTP/gRPC calls to/from other services
Shared contracts	OpenAPI spec, proto, shared DTO — flag breaking changes
Data ownership	Other service reads/writes same table/collection → Shared-DB anti-pattern

Per touchpoint: owner service · message name · consumers · risk (NONE / ADDITIVE / BREAKING).

BLOCKED until: Producers scanned · Consumers scanned · Sagas checked · Contracts reviewed · Breaking-change risk flagged

Task Tracking & External Report Persistence — Bootstrap this before execution; then run project-reference doc prefetch before target/source work.

1. Create a small task breakdown before target file reads, grep, edits, or analysis. On context loss, inspect the current task list first.
2. Mark one task in_progress before work and completed immediately after evidence; never batch transitions.
3. For plan/review work, create plans/reports/{skill}-{YYMMDD}-{HHmm}-{slug}.md before first finding.
4. Append findings after each file/section/decision and synthesize from the report file at the end.
5. Final output cites Full report: plans/reports/{filename}.

Blocked until: task breakdown exists, report path declared for plan/review work, first finding persisted before the next finding.

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.

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 by asking the user directly · ≥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).

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. Before changing a constant, limit, flag, wording, or pattern, read nearby context and history. Surface ambiguity before acting — don't pick silently. Multiple valid interpretations require an explicit question or stated assumption with risk. Keep shared guidance role-relevant. Universal guidance must help every receiving skill or agent; code-specific obligations belong only in code-specific protocols.

Evidence-Based Reasoning — Speculation is FORBIDDEN. Every claim needs proof.

1. Cite file:line, grep results, or framework docs for EVERY claim
2. Declare confidence: >80% act freely, 60-80% verify first, <60% DO NOT recommend
3. Cross-service validation required for architectural changes
4. "I don't have enough evidence" is valid and expected output

BLOCKED until: - [ ] Evidence file path (file:line) - [ ] Grep search performed - [ ] 3+ similar patterns found - [ ] Confidence level stated

Forbidden without proof: "obviously", "I think", "should be", "probably", "this is because" If incomplete → output: "Insufficient evidence. Verified: [...]. Not verified: [...]."

Validated-Finding Fix + Full Re-Review Loop — Re-review is triggered by a validated finding fix cycle, not by a round number. Review purpose: review → validate findings → fix validated findings → full re-review until a complete review pass finds no issues. A clean review ENDS the loop — no further rounds required.

aka Self-Review Convergence Loop. The name is historical — there is NO 2-round cap; "double-round-trip" only means a validated-finding fix cycle forces at least one fresh re-review. It runs until a clean pass, bounded by the 5-round ceiling below.

Round cap — 5 rounds MAX (a ceiling, NEVER a target). A clean pass ENDS the loop immediately at ANY round — round 1 included; the cap never obliges you to keep spinning. Hitting round 5 with validated findings still open → STOP and escalate by asking the user directly with the still-open findings listed; NEVER emit a silent "good enough" PASS on cap exhaustion, and NEVER let the cap substitute for the clean-review requirement. The 3-repeated-no-progress blocker rule stays an EARLIER exit — escalate at whichever trips first.

Universal scope (any new output/judgment): any newly produced output or judgment gets ≥1 self-review; any new judgment gets ≥1 $why-review --validate-findings pass; anything flagged to re-check is re-checked ≥1 time — before that output is treated as final. This loop is the default convergence contract for ANY work-producing skill, not review skills only.

Routing invariant (author-facing): a skill that validates findings MUST route them through $why-review --validate-findings (the terminal validator) — NEVER fork an inline finding-validation. Routing through why-review is what makes the finding-survival bar and this loop apply; the verify-review-validate-coverage sensor enforces this exact route mechanically.

Round 1: Main-session review. Read target files, build understanding, note issues. Output findings + verdict (PASS / FAIL).

Decision after Round 1:

• No issues found (PASS, zero findings) → review ENDS. Do NOT spawn a fresh sub-agent for confirmation.
• Issues found (FAIL, or any non-zero findings) → run the active review skill's findings-validation gate first; for review skills the default gate is $why-review --validate-findings <report-path>. Fix only validated findings, then restart the full review protocol from the beginning with a fresh task breakdown.

Fresh full re-review after every fix cycle: Re-run the whole review protocol over the current full target. When sub-agents are part of that protocol, spawn NEW spawn_agent calls — never reuse prior agents. Reviewers re-read ALL files from scratch with ZERO memory of prior rounds. See SYNC:fresh-context-review for the spawn mechanism and SYNC:review-protocol-injection for the canonical Agent prompt template. Each fresh full review must catch:

• Cross-cutting concerns missed in the prior round
• Interaction bugs between changed files
• Convention drift (new code vs existing patterns)
• Missing pieces that should exist but don't
• Subtle edge cases the prior round rationalized away
• Regressions introduced by the fixes themselves

Loop termination: After each full re-review, repeat the same decision: clean → END; issues → validate findings → fix → restart from the first review phase. Continue until a complete review pass finds zero issues, capped at 5 rounds. Escalate by asking the user directly at whichever comes first: the same validated finding repeats for 3 full invocations with no progress · a fix requires product/owner input · round 5 completes with validated findings still open. NEVER loop past 5 rounds, and NEVER convert cap exhaustion into a PASS.

Rules:

• A clean Round 1 ENDS the review — no mandatory Round 2
• NEVER fix unvalidated findings; validate first using the caller's validation gate
• Every surviving finding must additionally clear the finding-survival bar defined in why-review's Findings Validation Routine (a deliberately higher bar than the generic act-gate — "keep this finding?" is a stricter question than "act on this evidence?"); a finding below the bar is demoted or dropped, not kept
• NEVER skip the full re-review after a fix cycle (every fix invalidates the prior verdict)
• NEVER reuse a sub-agent across rounds — every iteration that uses sub-agents spawns NEW Agent calls
• Main agent READS sub-agent reports but MUST NOT filter, reinterpret, or override findings
• The 5-round cap NEVER replaces the clean-review requirement — it bounds runaway looping, it does not authorize shipping an un-clean review; a clean pass ends the loop early at any round, and cap exhaustion escalates rather than passes
• Enforce the round cap of 5 alongside the 3 repeated-no-progress blocker rule; both are escalation triggers, neither is a completion criterion
• Track recursive invocation count and repeated blockers in conversation context (session-scoped)
• Final verdict must incorporate ALL rounds executed

Report must include ## Round N Findings (Fresh Sub-Agent) for every round N≥2 that was executed.

Fresh Context Re-Review — Eliminate orchestrator confirmation bias after fixes by restarting the full review with isolated sub-agents where applicable.

Why: The main agent knows what it (or $feature-implement) just fixed and rationalizes findings accordingly. A fresh sub-agent has ZERO memory, re-reads from scratch, and catches what the main agent dismissed. Sub-agent bias is mitigated by (1) fresh context, (2) verbatim protocol injection, (3) main agent not filtering the report.

When: ONLY after a validated-finding fix cycle. A review round that finds zero issues ENDS the loop — do NOT spawn a confirmation sub-agent. A review round that finds issues triggers: validate findings → fix → full review restart from the first phase.

How:

1. Start a NEW full review invocation/task breakdown; when that protocol calls for agents, spawn NEW spawn_agent tool calls — use code-reviewer agent_type for code reviews, general-purpose for plan/doc/artifact reviews
2. Inject ALL required review protocols VERBATIM into the prompt — see SYNC:review-protocol-injection for the full list and template. Never reference protocols by file path; AI compliance drops behind file-read indirection (see SYNC:shared-protocol-duplication-policy)
3. Sub-agent re-reads ALL target files from scratch via its own tool calls — never pass file contents inline in the prompt
4. Sub-agent writes structured report to plans/reports/{review-type}-round{N}-{date}.md
5. Main agent reads the report, integrates findings into its own report, DOES NOT override or filter

Rules:

• SKIP fresh sub-agent when the prior full review found zero issues (no fixes = nothing new to verify)
• NEVER skip the full review restart after a fix cycle — every fix invalidates the prior verdict
• NEVER reuse a sub-agent across rounds — every fresh round spawns a NEW spawn_agent call
• Continue until a complete full review pass has zero findings; if the same blocker repeats 3 times with no progress, escalate by asking the user directly
• Track iteration count and repeated blockers in conversation context (session-scoped, no persistent files)

Review Protocol Injection — Every fresh sub-agent review prompt MUST embed 11 protocol blocks VERBATIM. The template below has ALL 11 bodies already expanded inline. Copy the template wholesale into the Agent call's prompt field at runtime, replacing only the {placeholders} in Task / Round / Reference Docs / Target Files / Output sections with context-specific values. Do NOT touch the embedded protocol sections.

Why inline expansion: Placeholder markers would force file-read indirection at runtime. AI compliance drops significantly behind indirection (see SYNC:shared-protocol-duplication-policy). Therefore the template carries all 11 protocol bodies pre-embedded.

Subagent Type Selection

• code-reviewer — for code reviews (reviewing source files, git diffs, implementation)
• general-purpose — for plan / doc / artifact reviews (reviewing markdown plans, docs, specs)

Canonical Agent Call Template (Copy Verbatim)

spawn_agent({
  description: "Fresh Round {N} review",
  agent_type: "code-reviewer",
  prompt: `
## Task
{review-specific task — e.g., "Review all uncommitted changes for code quality" | "Review plan files under {plan-dir}" | "Review integration tests in {path}"}

## Round
Round {N}. You have ZERO memory of prior rounds. Re-read all target files from scratch via your own tool calls. Do NOT trust anything from the main agent beyond this prompt.

## Protocols (follow VERBATIM — these are non-negotiable)

### Spec ↔ Tests ↔ Code Triangulation
DO THIS FIRST — before any per-protocol check below. The review target is the WHOLE PACKAGE, not the diff alone: load the behavior's spec (§3 ACs / §4 BRs / §8 TCs), its tests, and the changed code TOGETHER, and reason about their mutual consistency BEFORE judging any one in isolation.
1. Locate all three faces: the Feature Spec section(s) governing the changed behavior, the tests that guard it, and the production code that implements it. A missing face is itself a finding (SPEC-GAP / TEST-GAP / DEAD-SPEC).
2. Triangulate pairwise — every disagreement is a finding; classify which face is wrong:
   - code vs spec: behavior the code does that no §3/§4/§8 rule describes → CODE-EXTRA or SPEC-STALE; a [HARD] §4 rule or §5 invariant with no enforcing code path → CODE-WRONG.
   - tests vs spec: a §8 TC with no test, or a test asserting behavior no TC/rule names → TEST-GAP or SPEC-SILENT.
   - tests vs code: a changed code path with no covering test → TEST-GAP; a test that still passes against a deliberately broken invariant → WEAK-TEST (apply the mutation thinking in Bug Detection).
3. Hidden-rule capture: any invariant the code enforces but the spec never states (SPEC-SILENT) MUST be surfaced as a finding to add into §3/§4/§8 AND guarded with a test — the enrichment loop, never a silent pass.
4. Only after the three faces agree — or every disagreement is logged as a finding — proceed to the per-protocol checks below; when enrichment adds spec/test content, re-review the package against the enriched spec.
NEVER mark review PASS while any spec/test/code face disagrees without a logged finding. The diff is the entry point; the package is the unit of judgment.

### Evidence-Based Reasoning
Speculation is FORBIDDEN. Every claim needs proof.
1. Cite file:line, grep results, or framework docs for EVERY claim
2. Declare confidence: >80% act freely, 60-80% verify first, <60% DO NOT recommend
3. Cross-service validation required for architectural changes
4. "I don't have enough evidence" is valid and expected output
BLOCKED until: Evidence file path (file:line) provided; Grep search performed; 3+ similar patterns found; Confidence level stated.
Forbidden without proof: "obviously", "I think", "should be", "probably", "this is because".
If incomplete → output: "Insufficient evidence. Verified: [...]. Not verified: [...]."

### Bug Detection
MUST check categories 1-4 for EVERY review. Never skip.
1. Null Safety: Can params/returns be null? Are they guarded? Optional chaining gaps? .find() returns checked?
2. Boundary Conditions: Off-by-one (< vs <=)? Empty collections handled? Zero/negative values? Max limits?
3. Error Handling: Try-catch scope correct? Silent swallowed exceptions? Error types specific? Cleanup in finally?
4. Resource Management: Connections/streams closed? Subscriptions unsubscribed on destroy? Timers cleared? Memory bounded?
5. Concurrency (if async): Missing await? Race conditions on shared state? Stale closures? Retry storms?
6. Stack-Specific: Check the configured language/runtime pitfalls and framework-specific failure modes discovered from local code.
Classify: CRITICAL (crash/corrupt) → FAIL | HIGH (incorrect behavior) → FAIL | MEDIUM (edge case) → WARN | LOW (defensive) → INFO.

### Design Patterns Quality
Priority checks for every code change:
1. DRY via OOP: Same-suffix classes (*Entity, *Dto, *Service) MUST share base class. 3+ similar patterns → extract to shared abstraction.
2. Right Responsibility: Logic in LOWEST layer (Entity > Domain Service > Application Service > Controller). Never business logic in controllers.
3. SOLID: Single responsibility (one reason to change). Open-closed (extend, don't modify). Liskov (subtypes substitutable). Interface segregation (small interfaces). Dependency inversion (depend on abstractions).
4. After extraction/move/rename: Grep ENTIRE scope for dangling references. Zero tolerance.
5. YAGNI gate: NEVER recommend patterns unless 3+ occurrences exist. Don't extract for hypothetical future use.
Anti-patterns to flag: God Object, Copy-Paste inheritance, Circular Dependency, Leaky Abstraction.

### Logic & Intention Review
Verify WHAT code does matches WHY it was changed.
1. Change Intention Check: Every changed file MUST serve the stated purpose. Flag unrelated changes as scope creep.
2. Happy Path Trace: Walk through one complete success scenario through changed code.
3. Error Path Trace: Walk through one failure/edge case scenario through changed code.