workflow-review-changes-loop

name	workflow-review-changes-loop
description	[Workflow] Use when you need to run /workflow-review-changes repeatedly in an outer convergence loop until a complete whole-workflow run applies zero fixes — recursive re-review of a fixed scope (branch-diff + current changes) until a clean no-op pass.

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.

[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: Converge a review scope to a clean no-op pass by re-running the ENTIRE $workflow-review-changes workflow INLINE, round after round, over a fixed scope combined with the fixes accumulated so far — stopping only when a complete round applies zero fixes.

Summary:

• Steps (in order): (0) resolve scope + Goal Contract → (0b) bind the convergence loop (protocol loop primary + optional /goal accelerator) → (1) round loop { run $workflow-review-changes INLINE → detect fixes-applied → log iteration } → (2) converge on a zero-fix round OR escalate on non-progress → (3) recap.
• Convergence: stop ONLY when a whole round applies zero fixes (its fix cycle skipped, working tree unchanged, reviews clean) — not merely one clean review.
• Inline invariant: run $workflow-review-changes via the skill invocation, NEVER the spawn_agent tool — it self-binds its own review-loop obligation (owning the session Stop hook for its /goal gate WHEN available), which a sub-agent cannot own or carry back to this loop.
• Bounded: round cap default 5; findings not shrinking across 2 rounds, or cap hit with fixes still landing → STOP & escalate by asking the user directly.

Why this skill exists (READ FIRST — it is the whole justification): $workflow-review-changes already converges internally to a clean pass, BUT its inner loop does NOT re-run the 7 specialist reviewers from scratch. Per .claude/skills/workflow-review-changes/SKILL.md:258, the step-14 inline re-review re-runs only $changes-review's own BE/FE/SCSS/UI dimensions plus scoped re-runs of the specific specialist that raised a finding — $architecture-review, $performance-review, $security-review, $integration-test-review, $production-readiness-review, $domain-entities-review fire ONCE (steps 3–9). Only a fresh full re-invocation re-runs ALL specialists over the now-fixed code — catching second-order defects the fixes themselves introduced and killing whole-workflow confirmation bias. Without this outer loop those regressions ship unreviewed.

Workflow: resolve scope + Goal Contract → bind the convergence loop (protocol loop + optional /goal accelerator) → round loop { run $workflow-review-changes INLINE → detect fixes-applied → log iteration } → converge when a round applies zero fixes → recap.

Key Rules:

• MUST run INLINE in the main session — NEVER dispatch $workflow-review-changes as a sub-agent. It self-binds its own review-loop obligation (owning the session Stop hook for its /goal gate when available); as a sub-agent that in-session guarantee is silently lost (workflow-review-changes/SKILL.md:318-322). This loop skill therefore also runs inline.
• Convergence = a whole round applied ZERO fixes (its fix cycle, steps 11–14, was skipped because reviews passed clean). That, not "one clean review", ends the loop.
• Scope base is FIXED across rounds; the working tree grows. Recompute the scope each round as branch-diff base ∪ current uncommitted changes — the diff base never moves, so convergence is measured against a stable target.
• Round cap (default 5) and findings-increasing → STOP & escalate by asking the user directly. NEVER loop open-ended.

---

First Principle — Convergence, Not Motion

A round that changes files is progress only if the next round finds fewer things to fix. The loop exists to reach a fixed point (zero fixes), not to keep churning the diff. If findings stop shrinking, that is a signal to escalate, not to spin another round.

---

Step 0 — Resolve Scope + Goal Contract (FIRST ACTION)

1. Parse the review scope from the user prompt into a stable, reusable scope string. It has two parts UNIONed:
   • Branch-diff base — a branch-to-branch or PR diff, e.g. fix/timelog-org-business-timezone into develop. Capture it as git diff develop...HEAD (three-dot: changes on the feature branch since it forked from develop) so the base is a fixed merge-base, not a moving target.
   • Current changes — the uncommitted working-tree changes (git status --porcelain, git diff + git diff --staged).
   • Scope string (recompute each round): {branch-diff base} ∪ {current uncommitted changes}. The base commit is fixed for the whole loop; the uncommitted set legitimately grows as fixes land.
   • If the prompt names no branch diff (pure "current changes" review), the scope is just the working-tree changes — the loop still applies.
2. Resolve/create the Goal Contract per SYNC:goal-contract-satisfaction-loop (plans/goals/{YYMMDD-HHmm}-{slug}/goal.md, template .claude/templates/goal-contract-template.md). Its single required Success Criterion:

   A complete $workflow-review-changes run over {scope} applies zero fixes (a clean no-op pass — no validated findings, no $plan-execute file changes). Record the round cap (default 5) and the scope string in Constraints.

Step 0b — Bind the Convergence Loop (protocol-first; /goal is an optional accelerator)

The convergence loop is bound by TWO layers. The protocol loop (Steps 1–2) is the BINDING mechanism and MUST be self-driven by you, the running agent, on every host — with or without any command or hook. The /goal command is an OPTIONAL accelerator layered on top; it is never the primary mechanism, and its absence NEVER weakens the loop. This mirrors the project rule that hooks/trackers are accelerators only — correctness must not depend on them.

1. Protocol loop — ALWAYS binding (hook/command-independent). You 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:

Repeatedly run $workflow-review-changes INLINE over {scope} (branch-diff base ∪ current uncommitted changes, recomputed each round). After each round, detect whether it applied any fix. Do NOT stop while the last round still applied fixes. Converge ONLY when a full round applies ZERO fixes (reviews clean, $plan-execute changed no files). Cap at {N=5} rounds; if findings do not shrink across 2 consecutive rounds, or the cap is hit with fixes still landing → STOP and escalate by asking the user directly. Never loop open-ended.

Treat this as a standing obligation you re-read at every Step 2 checkpoint — NOT a one-time note you can rationalize away after the first round. The Goal Contract's required Success Criterion (Step 0) is its durable, host-independent record.

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 tool/command call, NOT a paraphrase, NOT a Goal Contract file substituted for it) with the SAME condition, so a session Stop hook mechanically enforces the loop:

/goal review-changes convergence loop: repeatedly run $workflow-review-changes INLINE over {scope} (branch-diff base ∪ current uncommitted changes, recomputed each round). After each round, detect whether it applied any fix; if fixes>0 → run another round; if a full round applied ZERO fixes (reviews clean, $plan-execute changed no files) → CONVERGED, clear the gate. Do NOT stop while the last round still applied fixes. Cap at {N=5} rounds; if findings do not shrink across 2 consecutive rounds, or the round cap is hit with fixes still landing → STOP and escalate by asking the user directly. Never loop open-ended.

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 in the Goal Contract — /goal accelerator unavailable — loop bound by protocol (Steps 1–2) + this Goal Contract — and proceed. The protocol loop above plus the Goal Contract are the same gate, enforced by discipline instead of a hook.

Nested gates (by design, safe): each inner $workflow-review-changes round self-binds its OWN Step 0 review-loop obligation (and installs its own /goal gate WHEN available) that clears when that round reaches its internal clean pass. This OUTER loop persists across rounds and subsumes the inner ones (a converged loop implies every inner round ended clean). All self-clear on satisfaction — no orphaned gate. Do NOT tell the user to clear either.

Step 1 — Round Loop (run → detect → log)

For each round R (starting at 1), do ALL of:

1. Snapshot before: record the working-tree fingerprint — git status --porcelain + git diff --stat (or git rev-parse of git stash create for an exact hash). This is the fixes-applied baseline for the round.
2. Run the workflow INLINE: invoke $workflow-review-changes via the skill invocation (NEVER the spawn_agent tool) with the recomputed {scope} as its prompt. Let it run its full 18-step sequence including its own internal fix→re-review loop.
3. Detect fixes-applied (objective): compare the working tree after the round to the before-snapshot AND read the workflow's own result:
   • Fixes applied (>0) if the working tree changed during the round OR the workflow reported its fix cycle (steps 11–14) ran / $plan-execute modified files.
   • Zero fixes if the working tree is byte-identical to the before-snapshot AND the workflow reported all reviews PASS with no validated findings (fix cycle skipped).
4. Append an Iteration Log entry to the Goal Contract: round number, files changed this round (file:line), fixes-applied count, the review verdict, and remaining gaps.

Step 2 — Convergence & Escalation Gate

Evaluate after every round:

Condition	Action
Round applied ZERO fixes (clean no-op pass)	CONVERGED → mark the required criterion PASS in the Goal Satisfaction matrix → clear the /goal gate → go to Step 3.
Round applied fixes AND round < N AND findings shrank vs prior round	Recompute {scope}, run round R+1.
Findings did not shrink across 2 consecutive rounds (same/increasing count)	STOP & escalate by asking the user directly — a non-converging loop is a signal, not a reason to spin.
Round cap N hit with fixes still landing	STOP & escalate by asking the user directly — report the still-open findings; do not silently continue.

Increasing findings = STOP. If round R surfaces MORE findings than round R-1, the fixes are regressing the code — STOP and escalate immediately (mirrors workflow-review-changes/SKILL.md:279). Never trade one fix for two new findings across rounds.

Step 3 — Recap

Emit a concise convergence recap: rounds run, total fixes applied per round (the shrinking sequence), the final clean-pass evidence, and the Goal Satisfaction matrix (required criterion PASS). Point to each round's report under plans/reports/ and the Goal Contract Iteration Log. Do NOT commit or push unless the user explicitly asks.

---

Convergence Detection — Why Two Conditions

A round counts as converged ONLY when both hold: (a) the working tree is unchanged by the round, AND (b) the reviews reported clean with no validated findings. Both are required because:

• Working-tree-unchanged alone is ambiguous — a round can make no changes because a finding was unfixable/escalated, not because it was clean. That is escalation, not convergence.
• Reviews-clean alone is insufficient — an orchestrator can rationalize a "clean" verdict; the objective git-diff comparison is the backstop that proves no fix actually landed.

When (a) is true but (b) is false → escalate (a real finding the loop cannot close). When (b) is true but (a) is false → the round DID fix things → run another round to re-prove clean.

---

IMPORTANT MANDATORY sequence: Step 0 (scope + Goal Contract) → Step 0b (bind the convergence loop: protocol loop primary + optional /goal accelerator) → Step 1 (round loop: run $workflow-review-changes INLINE → detect fixes → log) → Step 2 (converge on zero-fix round / escalate on non-progress) → Step 3 (recap).

Goal Contract Satisfaction Loop — Persist the user goal in an external file, execute against it, and loop review/fix until every saved required criterion passes or a blocker escalates. Bounded closed loop — NEVER open-ended autonomous exploration.

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

Blocked until: active goal resolved (or skip reason recorded) · saved success criteria read before edits · iteration evidence appended after execution · Goal Satisfaction matrix emitted before any PASS verdict.

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.

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.

Trade-Off Interrogation Gate — ALWAYS ask these THREE questions before ANY verdict, score, finding, or recommendation — about the thing under review AND about every recommendation YOU make. — why: naming a benefit without its price is an endorsement, not a review; the costliest trade-offs are the ones nobody wrote down.

1. Is there any trade-off? Name what it SACRIFICES. "None" / "pure win" is an unfinished analysis, NOT an answer — to claim none, state which dimensions you checked and why each is unaffected: future change cost · complexity · performance/latency · memory/cost · coupling · reversibility · migration burden · operational load · blast radius · security posture · testability · team skill/ramp · delivery time · UX.
2. Is it worth it? Weigh gain against sacrifice EXPLICITLY — what is gained (with a metric) · what it costs · WHO pays · WHEN it comes due — then emit WORTH IT / NOT WORTH IT / UNCLEAR. "Better" with no metric and no cost FAILS this question. NOT WORTH IT → withdraw or replace the recommendation, never keep it as-is.
3. Is the trade-off material enough to CONFIRM WITH THE USER? A material trade-off is the user's call, never yours. MATERIAL when ANY holds: irreversible / one-way door (data migration, public contract, storage format, vendor lock-in) · cost shifted onto someone else (another team, ops/on-call, future maintainer, end user) · one quality attribute traded for another (correctness↔speed, security↔convenience, latency↔cost, simplicity↔flexibility) · a boundary crossed (client↔server tier, service contract, event contract, shared library) · a high-consequence path (auth, money, data integrity, breaking change, High/Medium residual risk) · the worth-it verdict is UNCLEAR.

MATERIAL → STOP and confirm by asking the user directly BEFORE the verdict stands — state the trade-off, both options, what each sacrifices, and your recommendation. NOT material → record it inline with a one-line justification and proceed.

Non-asking execution contexts — ESCALATE BY HANDOFF, never by silence. ask the user directly reaches only the main interactive agent: a sub-agent cannot ask the user, and a terminal/verdict-only mode asks nothing by design. When you are running in such a context, the obligation is redirected, never waived — do ALL of: (a) complete questions 1 and 2 normally; (b) decide materiality and record it in the Trade-Off Assessment row with confirmed? = NO — cannot ask from this context; (c) name the unconfirmed MATERIAL trade-off explicitly in your returned summary/verdict so the CALLER (or parent orchestrator) escalates it by asking the user directly on your behalf — a material trade-off mentioned only inside a report file on disk is NOT a handoff; (d) do not emit an unqualified PASS — mark the verdict as carrying an unconfirmed material trade-off, so the caller's gate stays closed until the user answers. The caller inherits the escalation duty the moment it reads your return.

This carve-out is about reachability, not convenience: it applies ONLY where the tool genuinely cannot reach the user (spawned sub-agent, terminal validate/verdict-only mode, non-interactive/headless run). It is NEVER a licence to skip the question, to self-approve a one-way door, or to downgrade materiality because asking is inconvenient — if you CAN ask, you MUST ask.

Emit a Trade-Off Assessment row per reviewed decision and per recommendation: | decision | sacrifices | gain (metric) | who pays, when | WORTH IT/NOT/UNCLEAR | material? | confirmed? |.

BLOCKED until: trade-off named (or dimensions-checked justification given) · worth-it verdict emitted · materiality decided · every MATERIAL trade-off either confirmed with the user OR — in a non-asking context — handed off in the returned verdict for the caller to confirm. A MATERIAL trade-off that is neither confirmed nor handed off can NEVER be PASS, and NEVER gets buried as a Low-severity note.

NEVER answer "no trade-off" without checking · decide a material trade-off silently on the user's behalf · let convergence/delivery pressure authorize walking through a one-way door · bundle several material trade-offs into one vague "proceed?".

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

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.

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.

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

Closing Reminders

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Goal: Re-run the WHOLE $workflow-review-changes inline, round after round, over a fixed scope ∪ accumulated fixes, until a complete round applies zero fixes.

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION main steps (in order): (0) resolve scope + Goal Contract → (0b) bind the convergence loop (protocol loop primary + optional /goal accelerator) → (1) round loop: run $workflow-review-changes INLINE → detect fixes-applied → append Iteration Log → (2) converge on a zero-fix round / escalate on non-progress → (3) recap.

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION [BLOCKING] plan the detailed todo tasks FIRST — before running the loop. Before the first round, create a detailed todo-task plan that enumerates every planned step and every planned round; a round MUST NOT start until that round's fresh todo-task plan exists. On EVERY re-run (each new round), REGENERATE a fresh loop todo-task plan — NEVER reuse the prior round's task list — so each round's work is explicitly planned before it executes.

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION the convergence loop is bound by the AI-driven protocol loop (Steps 1–2) — that is the primary, host-independent mechanism you MUST self-drive whether or not any command exists. The /goal command is an OPTIONAL accelerator: invoke it (a real call) ONLY when available and permitted; if it is absent/unregistered/not-permitted, record one line in the Goal Contract and proceed — NEVER error, block, or fake a gate. Correctness must not depend on /goal. IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION run $workflow-review-changes INLINE via the skill invocation — NEVER as a sub-agent (it self-binds its own review-loop obligation + a session /goal gate when available). IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION convergence = a whole round applied ZERO fixes (fix cycle skipped, working tree unchanged, reviews clean) — not merely one clean review. IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION the outer loop's value is the fresh full specialist sweep the inner loop never re-runs (workflow-review-changes/SKILL.md:258) — that is why this skill exists. IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION keep the diff base fixed across rounds; recompute {scope} = branch-diff base ∪ current uncommitted changes each round. IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION enforce the round cap (default 5); findings not shrinking across 2 rounds, or cap hit with fixes still landing → STOP & escalate by asking the user directly. NEVER loop open-ended. IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION do NOT commit or push unless the user explicitly asks.

Hookless 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

[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. 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. 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. 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 → adjudicate WHO is at fault (source vs test) before forcing green. A green-again suite is not the goal; the correct verdict on what was actually wrong is. Root-cause first, then triangulate the failure against the governing spec (docs/specs/** if one exists) AND the source: SOURCE-WRONG → fix code at the owning layer and keep/strengthen the test; TEST-WRONG → fix the stale assertion/setup at its root. NEVER weaken an assertion, add a skip, or relax a timeout to force green, and never change source to satisfy a broken test. Spec silent or ambiguous about which side is correct → STOP and ask the user.
• 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. Pattern-matching as "wrong" skips context. Before changing any constant/limit/flag: read comments, git blame, surrounding code.
• 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.
• 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.