production-readiness-review

name	production-readiness-review
version	1.6.0
description	[Code Quality] Use when reviewing service-layer and API changes for production readiness.

[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: Ensure service/API changes are production-ready for observability, reliability, data integrity, and database performance — scoring each of these dimensions on service-layer and API changes.

Summary:

• Main steps (in order): (1) Resolve scope — args else git diff --name-only uncommitted; backend service/API files only, skip frontend/tests/docs/config-only. (2) Score 12 criteria 0-2 across the 4 dimensions (/24). (3) Extended SRE Readiness gate — 8 pass/fail deploy-time + operate-time items; an unaccepted CRITICAL/HIGH fail blocks PASS regardless of the /24 score. Gating, NOT scored — does not change the /24 math. (4) Map score + gate → verdict. (5) Structural Impact Analysis — graph gate (blast-radius, tests_for, downstream trace) when graph.db exists. (6) Validated Fix + Full Re-Review loop on any finding. (7) Emit the SRE Review Results report — file:line evidence per score and per gate item. Execute in order; NEVER skip/merge a step — why: untracked steps get silently merged and gaps reach production.
• Score 12 criteria 0-2 across four dimensions (Observability/8, Reliability/8, Data Integrity/4, DB Performance/4) for a /24 PASS (19-24) / NEEDS WORK (13-18) / NOT READY (0-12) verdict — every score needs file:line evidence or it is 0.
• The DB Performance Protocol is MANDATORY and non-advisory: ALL list queries must paginate (no unbounded GetAll/ToList) and ALL filter fields, foreign keys, and sort columns must have matching indexes.
• VERDICT is advisory only; the graph gate, validated-fix full re-review, and DB Performance Protocol are NEVER skippable regardless of change size — and when batched (≥10 files), re-score all 12 criteria holistically from combined cross-batch evidence, never by averaging per-batch scores.
• After applying any fix, validate findings first, then rerun the FULL review (fresh sub-agent with zero prior-round memory); a clean pass ENDS the loop.

When to use: After implementing backend service or API changes, before committing. Frontend-only changes exempt.

Why: Working code that can't be debugged, monitored, or rolled back is technical debt in disguise.

Deployment context: Read docs/project-config.json → infrastructure section:

• containerization → check Dockerfiles, docker-compose
• orchestration → check K8s manifests, Helm charts
• cicd.tool → check pipeline configs

Your Mission

$ARGUMENTS

Review Mindset (NON-NEGOTIABLE)

Be skeptical. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80%.

• NEVER accept operational readiness at face value — verify by reading implementations
• Every score MUST have file:line evidence — unprovable score = 0
• Question: "Is this really handled?" → trace error/retry/timeout path to confirm
• Challenge: "Are ALL failure modes covered?" → check behavior when dependencies fail
• Verify: "Can we debug this in production?" → check logging, correlation, metrics

Scope Resolution

1. Arguments specify files/directories → review those
2. Else → review uncommitted changes (git diff --name-only)
3. Focus: backend source files under service root (per the project's structure reference / docs/project-config.json), API controllers, service classes
4. Skip: frontend files, test files, documentation, config-only changes

Production Readiness Scoring

Score each criterion 0-2: 0 = not addressed, 1 = partially, 2 = fully.

MANDATORY when batched (≥10 files, SYNC:systematic-review-batching active): score the 12 criteria holistically across the FULL cross-batch scope, NOT by merging or averaging per-batch scores. Several criteria are cross-file — e.g. "all query filter fields have indexes" can have the query in one batch, the migration in another; a per-batch score sees only its ≤8 files and false-flags 0 when the satisfying file lives in a different batch. The synthesis/reduce tier MUST therefore RE-SCORE each of the 12 criteria from combined cross-batch evidence (batch agents surface evidence per criterion; reducer assigns the score). If holistic re-score is infeasible, do NOT batch production-readiness-review — fall back to whole-scope serial scoring.

Observability (max 8)

Think: If this service errors at 3am, can on-call engineer diagnose root cause from logs alone — without reproducing?

#	Criterion	What to Check
1	Structured Logging	External API calls and critical operations log errors with context (request ID, user, parameters)
2	Error Context	Exceptions include enough context to diagnose without reproducing (entity IDs, operation type, input summary)
3	Metrics Awareness	Operations >100ms consider tracking duration. New endpoints consider latency monitoring
4	Correlation	Cross-service calls include or propagate correlation IDs for distributed tracing

Reliability (max 8)

Think: If the downstream dependency is down or slow, does this service degrade gracefully or cascade-fail?

#	Criterion	What to Check
5	Retry Strategy	Transient failures (HTTP, DB timeouts) have retry logic or documented reason for not retrying
6	Timeout Configuration	HTTP clients and external calls have explicit timeout (not relying on defaults)
7	Error Handling	Errors handled gracefully — no swallowed exceptions, no generic catch-all without logging
8	Fallback Behavior	Critical paths define behavior when dependencies fail (degraded mode, cached response, user-facing error)

Data Integrity (max 4)

Think: If database wiped and reseeded from scratch, does system still reach a valid state?

#	Criterion	What to Check
9	Seed vs Migration	Seed data (default records, system config) lives in startup data seeders, NOT in one-time migration executors
10	Seeder Idempotency	Data seeders use check-then-create pattern (query before insert) — safe for repeated runs on any environment

Decision test: "If the database is reset, does this data still need to exist?" Yes → must be in seeder. No → migration acceptable.

Database Performance (max 4)

Think: At 10x current data volume, do these queries still complete in <1s?

Database Performance Protocol (MANDATORY):

1. Paging Required — ALL list/collection queries use pagination. NEVER load all records into memory. Verify: no unbounded GetAll(), ToList(), or Find() without Skip/Take or cursor-based paging.
2. Index Required — ALL query filter fields, foreign keys, and sort columns have database indexes configured. Verify: entity expressions match index field order, database collections have index management methods, migrations include indexes for WHERE/JOIN/ORDER BY columns.

#	Criterion	What to Check
11	Pagination	List/collection queries use pagination (Skip/Take, cursor). No unbounded GetAll/ToList loading all records into memory
12	Database Indexes	Query filter fields, foreign keys, and sort columns have matching database indexes. Migrations include index creation

Spec-Loop Discipline for changed core logic (MANDATORY — gates the verdict, not a scored criterion):

1. Mutation bar, not coverage % — for changed service/API core logic the bar is the MUTATION-SCORE gate: a surviving mutant on a changed line is a release blocker (it proves an invariant the tests do not assert), NEVER a line-coverage-% question. A green coverage number over un-asserted behavior does not clear this gate.
2. Dual feedback — every production-readiness finding that changes behavior feeds BOTH the spec (NAME the contract/invariant in Section 8) AND a guarding test; a code-only fix is INCOMPLETE. A surviving mutant → add the killing test AND record the invariant it protects in the spec.

Extended SRE Readiness Gate (step-by-step, pass/fail — gating, NOT scored)

Runs as main step 3, after scoring, before verdict mapping. Deploy-time and operate-time SRE aspects the 12-criteria /24 model does NOT score. Check each item step by step; record pass / partial / fail with file:line evidence or explicit N/A — reason. Gate does not change /24 math — it overlays it: an unaccepted CRITICAL/HIGH fail blocks a PASS verdict regardless of score (per Severity Rubric — CRITICAL/HIGH must be resolved or owner-accepted before PASS). Read deployment context from docs/project-config.json → infrastructure (referenced above) to decide which items are N/A (e.g. no orchestration → readiness/liveness probes N/A with stated reason).

#	Gate Item	What to Check	Status	Evidence
G1	Rollout & Rollback	Deploy is staged/canary-able; a documented, fast rollback path exists (feature flag, versioned + reversible migration). No irreversible one-way change without a stated recovery plan.	pass/partial/fail	file:line or N/A — reason
G2	Health Checks	Readiness + liveness endpoints/probes exist and reflect real dependency health (not an always-200 stub).	pass/partial/fail	...
G3	Alerting & Runbook	New failure modes have an actionable alert (signal, not noise) and a runbook / escalation note.	pass/partial/fail	...
G4	SLO / Error-Budget	Change respects an SLO or names the latency/availability target it affects; no silent new failure mode against the budget.	pass/partial/fail	...
G5	Capacity & Resource Limits	Load ceilings, resource limits, autoscaling/back-pressure considered; no unbounded fan-out or unbounded in-memory growth.	pass/partial/fail	...
G6	Config & Secrets	Required config present in all envs and fails fast if missing; no secrets committed in the diff.	pass/partial/fail	...
G7	Graceful Shutdown/Startup	In-flight work drains on shutdown; startup waits for / degrades gracefully on unready dependencies.	pass/partial/fail	...
G8	Concurrency & Idempotency	Operations are safe under retry / at-least-once delivery; no race on shared state; idempotency keys where needed.	pass/partial/fail	...

Gate verdict: {n}/8 pass. Any CRITICAL/HIGH fail not explicitly owner-accepted ⇒ overall verdict cannot be PASS even at a 19-24 score.

Technique Applicability (advisory — NON-SCORING, NON-GATING)

Invoke SYNC:scale-technique-gate: derive the system's scale tier from evidence (users/RPS, SLO, data volume, tenancy, topology — cite file:line/config/infra + confidence), then emit the Technique Applicability Matrix (technique | tier-warranted? | present? | verdict | advice | evidence) across the 10 concern groups. Surface warranted-but-missing reliability/scale techniques (rate limiting, backups, DR, failover, graceful degradation) as advice; flag OVER-ENGINEERED techniques the tier does not warrant.

Advisory only — this matrix does NOT add a gate item, does NOT change the {n}/8 gate result, the /24 score, or the verdict. A MISSING-WARRANTED technique is guidance to consider at this tier, NOT a gate fail. N/A-by-scale for small systems is expected, never a failure. Full catalog → .claude/docs/scale-technique-catalog.md.

Scoring

Score	Verdict	Recommendation
19-24	PASS	Production-ready. Proceed to commit.
13-18	NEEDS WORK	Address gaps before deploying to production. OK for dev/staging.
0-12	NOT READY	Significant operational gaps. Review Operational Readiness rules in code-review-rules.md.

Run python .claude/scripts/code_graph connections <file> --json on service boundary files for cross-service impact.

Structural Impact Analysis (MANDATORY when graph.db exists)

• python .claude/scripts/code_graph graph-blast-radius --json → blast radius >20 nodes = high-risk deployment
• python .claude/scripts/code_graph query tests_for <function_name> --json → verify test coverage on changed functions
• python .claude/scripts/code_graph trace <service-file> --direction downstream --json → verify all downstream event handlers, bus consumers, cross-service calls have error handling

Why-Review Findings Validation Gate (MANDATORY when findings exist)

Purpose: Adversarial validation of own findings BEFORE any fix. Catches over-flagged criteria, false positives, and severity/score inflation at the source rather than letting them drive fixes or ship downstream.

Trigger: Any finding produced (any severity). Skip ONLY when the verdict is unconditional PASS with literally zero findings.

Protocol:

1. Read own finalized report from plans/reports/{skill}-{date}-{slug}.md
2. Invoke /why-review --validate-findings plans/reports/{skill}-{date}-{slug}.md — verify each finding has file:line proof, steel-man each rejected interpretation, and stress-test every severity/score classification (each finding must clear why-review's finding-survival bar to be kept)
3. Read the CLEAN / HAS-ISSUES verdict returned by why-review
4. If why-review demotes/removes any finding: UPDATE own report with revised severities, remove false positives, and add a ## Why-Review Validation Notes section citing what changed and why
5. If why-review confirms all findings: append a ## Why-Review Validation line stating "All N findings re-validated against actual code; no severity changes."

Skip conditions (record explicit reason if skipping): unconditional PASS with zero findings; why-review is itself the active context (avoid recursion).

Why this exists: SRE sub-agent reports inherit confirmation bias — the orchestrator absorbs severity claims as ground truth. Validate findings BEFORE the fix so no fix is ever driven by an inflated or false finding; this gate feeds the "Validated Fix + Full Re-Review" loop below.

Validated Fix + Full Re-Review (MANDATORY when fixes are applied)

When a review pass finds issues, validate findings before any fix. Do NOT spawn a fresh sub-agent only to re-review the same finding set before validation/fix. After validated SRE fixes applied, rerun the full SRE review. If that restarted review uses a sub-agent, spawn it with ZERO prior-round memory. A clean review pass ENDS the review.

When a fresh sub-agent is part of the restarted review, spawn via canonical template in SYNC:review-protocol-injection:

1. subagent_type: code-reviewer
2. Task: "SRE production readiness review after validated fixes — score all 12 criteria (0-2) for {files reviewed in the current full scope}"
3. Review mode: "Fresh full re-review after validated fixes. Zero memory of prior rounds. Re-read ALL target files from scratch."
4. Reference Docs: docs/project-reference/code-review-rules.md
5. Target Files: same files from Scope Resolution
6. Integrate sub-agent report findings — DO NOT filter or override

Fresh re-review focus (what prior rounds typically miss):

• Operational concerns spanning multiple services
• Subtle reliability gaps (retry, circuit breakers, timeout handling)
• Missing observability (structured logging, correlation IDs, metrics)
• Data-integrity edge cases under concurrent load

Final verdict = every review pass that actually ran, combined.

Output Format

## SRE Review Results

**Scope:** {files reviewed}
**Date:** {date}
**Score:** {X}/24
**Verdict:** PASS / NEEDS WORK / NOT READY

### Observability ({X}/8)

| #   | Criterion          | Score | Evidence                   |
| --- | ------------------ | ----- | -------------------------- |
| 1   | Structured Logging | 0/1/2 | {file:line or "not found"} |
| 2   | Error Context      | 0/1/2 | ...                        |
| 3   | Metrics Awareness  | 0/1/2 | ...                        |
| 4   | Correlation        | 0/1/2 | ...                        |

### Reliability ({X}/8)

| #   | Criterion         | Score | Evidence |
| --- | ----------------- | ----- | -------- |
| 5   | Retry Strategy    | 0/1/2 | ...      |
| 6   | Timeout Config    | 0/1/2 | ...      |
| 7   | Error Handling    | 0/1/2 | ...      |
| 8   | Fallback Behavior | 0/1/2 | ...      |

### Data Integrity ({X}/4)

| #   | Criterion          | Score | Evidence |
| --- | ------------------ | ----- | -------- |
| 9   | Seed vs Migration  | 0/1/2 | ...      |
| 10  | Seeder Idempotency | 0/1/2 | ...      |

### Database Performance ({X}/4)

| #   | Criterion        | Score | Evidence |
| --- | ---------------- | ----- | -------- |
| 11  | Pagination       | 0/1/2 | ...      |
| 12  | Database Indexes | 0/1/2 | ...      |

### Extended SRE Readiness ({n}/8 gate — pass/fail, does not change /24)

| #  | Gate Item                | Status            | Evidence          |
| -- | ------------------------ | ----------------- | ----------------- |
| G1 | Rollout & Rollback       | pass/partial/fail | `file:line` / N/A |
| G2 | Health Checks            | pass/partial/fail | ...               |
| G3 | Alerting & Runbook       | pass/partial/fail | ...               |
| G4 | SLO / Error-Budget       | pass/partial/fail | ...               |
| G5 | Capacity & Resource Limits | pass/partial/fail | ...             |
| G6 | Config & Secrets         | pass/partial/fail | ...               |
| G7 | Graceful Shutdown/Startup | pass/partial/fail | ...              |
| G8 | Concurrency & Idempotency | pass/partial/fail | ...              |

_Any unaccepted CRITICAL/HIGH `fail` above blocks a PASS verdict regardless of the /24 score._

### Gaps to Address

- {specific actionable item}

### Recommendation

{Proceed / Address gaps first}

Important Notes

• Advisory (final VERDICT only) — score/verdict inform team but don't block commits; MANDATORY process steps (graph gate, validated-fix full re-review, Database Performance Protocol) are NEVER advisory
• Evidence-based — cite file:line for every score; unprovable score = 0
• Proportional — small bug fixes need less rigor than new endpoints (applies to VERDICT interpretation, NOT to skipping MANDATORY steps)
• Extended SRE Readiness gate is pass/fail, NOT scored — does not change /24 math; but an unaccepted CRITICAL/HIGH gate fail blocks a PASS verdict (Severity Rubric). Use docs/project-config.json → infrastructure to mark items N/A with stated reason
• Check framework patterns — background-job base handlers, base-controller error handling

---

Workflow Recommendation

MANDATORY — NO EXCEPTIONS: If NOT already in workflow, use AskUserQuestion to ask user:

1. Activate workflow-feature workflow (Recommended) — scout → investigate → plan → feature-implement → review → production-readiness-review → test → docs
2. Execute /production-readiness-review directly — run standalone

---

Next Steps

MANDATORY — NO EXCEPTIONS — after completing, use AskUserQuestion:

• "/watzup (Recommended)" — wrap up + check doc staleness
• "/test" — run tests before wrapping up
• "Skip, continue manually" — user decides

Combined audit: For a whole-project architecture + compliance + production-readiness audit in one pass, run /architecture-review-full (or /start-workflow workflow-architecture-audit) — fans out this skill, architecture-review, architecture-scalability-review as parallel sub-agents and synthesizes one consolidated report.

---

[IMPORTANT] Use TaskCreate to break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting. For simple tasks, AI MUST ask user whether to skip.

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

Critical Purpose: Ensure quality — no flaws, no bugs, no missing updates, no stale content. Verify code AND documentation.

External Memory: Complex/lengthy work → write intermediate findings + final results to plans/reports/ — prevents context loss, serves as deliverable.

Evidence Gate: MANDATORY — every claim, finding, recommendation requires file:line proof or traced evidence with confidence percentage (>80% to act, <80% verify first).

Graph-Assisted Investigation — MANDATORY when .code-graph/graph.db exists.

HARD-GATE: MUST ATTENTION run at least ONE graph command on key files before concluding any investigation.

Pattern: Grep finds files → trace --direction both reveals full system flow → Grep verifies details

Task	Minimum Graph Action
Investigation/Scout	trace --direction both on 2-3 entry files
Fix/Debug	callers_of on buggy function + tests_for
Feature/Enhancement	connections on files to be modified
Code Review	tests_for on changed functions
Blast Radius	trace --direction downstream

CLI: python .claude/scripts/code_graph {command} --json. Use --node-mode file first (10-30x less noise), then --node-mode function for detail.

Sub-Agent Return Contract — When this skill spawns a sub-agent, the sub-agent MUST return ONLY this structure. Main agent reads only this summary — NEVER requests full sub-agent output inline.

## Sub-Agent Result: [skill-name]

Status: ✅ PASS | ⚠️ PARTIAL | ❌ FAIL
Confidence: [0-100]%

### Findings (Critical/High only — max 10 bullets)

- [severity] [file:line] [finding]

### Actions Taken

- [file changed] [what changed]

### Blockers (if any)

- [blocker description]

Full report: plans/reports/[skill-name]-[date]-[slug].md

Main agent reads Full report file ONLY when: (a) resolving a specific blocker, or (b) building a fix plan. Sub-agent writes full report incrementally (per SYNC:incremental-persistence) — not held in memory.

Context budget — the return payload is a SUMMARY, not a transcript: ≤10 finding bullets, no raw file contents / full diffs / verbatim logs inline, no re-pasted source. Everything beyond the summary lives in the Full report on disk. A sub-agent that would exceed the summary shape MUST write the detail to its report and return only the pointer — the orchestrator's context is the scarce resource the whole map-reduce protects.

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 TaskList 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: TaskList 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.

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.

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 via AskUserQuestion 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 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 via AskUserQuestion 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 Agent tool calls — use code-reviewer subagent_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 Agent call
• Continue until a complete full review pass has zero findings; if the same blocker repeats 3 times with no progress, escalate via AskUserQuestion
• 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)

Agent({
  description: "Fresh Round {N} review",
  subagent_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.
4. Acceptance Mapping: If plan context available, map every acceptance criterion to a code change.
5. Tests Verify Intent: For test/spec changes, verify tests name the protected business rule or invariant and would fail if that intent breaks.
6. Migration Test Exclusion: Do not write tests for migration code. Schema/data migrations are one-time execution paths, not core application logic.
NEVER mark review PASS without completing both traces (happy + error path).

### Test Spec Verification
Map changed code to test specifications.
1. Identify the project's test/spec format from existing docs, test-case files, BDD feature files, or spec folders.
2. Every changed code path MUST map to a corresponding test case/spec (or flag as "needs test case").
3. New functions/endpoints/handlers → flag for test spec creation.
4. Migration files are excluded from test/spec creation; schema/data migrations are one-time execution paths, not core application logic.
5. If spec evidence fields exist, verify they point to actual code (file:line, not stale references).
6. Verify each meaningful test case names the business intent/invariant; flag behavior-only cases that only mirror implementation details.
7. Auth/data changes → verify corresponding authorization and data-state test cases exist.
8. If no specs exist for a changed path → log the gap and recommend the project's test-spec workflow.
NEVER skip test mapping. Untested code paths are the #1 source of production bugs.

### Behavioral Delta Matrix
MANDATORY for any bugfix review. Produce input-state × pre-fix × post-fix × delta table BEFORE writing verdict.
- Minimum 3 rows; include at least one row OUTSIDE the original bug report.
- Any "REGRESSION" delta → review returns FAIL until a preservation test is added.
- Narrative descriptions do NOT substitute for the matrix.
Example rows (external-record sync fix):
| Input                 | Pre-fix | Post-fix                  | Delta      |
| --------------------- | ------- | ------------------------- | ---------- |
| Record exists (valid) | Reused  | Always recreated → orphan | REGRESSION |
| Record missing (404)  | Error   | Recreated                 | Fixed      |

### Fix-Layer Accountability
NEVER fix at the crash site. Trace the full flow, fix at the owning layer. The crash site is a SYMPTOM, not the cause.
MANDATORY before ANY fix:
1. Trace full data flow — Map the complete path from data origin to crash site across ALL layers (storage → backend → API → frontend → UI). Identify where bad state ENTERS, not where it CRASHES.
2. Identify the invariant owner — Which layer's contract guarantees this value is valid? Fix at the LOWEST layer that owns the invariant, not the highest layer that consumes it.
3. One fix, maximum protection — If fix requires touching 3+ files with defensive checks, you are at the wrong layer — go lower.
4. Verify no bypass paths — Confirm all data flows through the fix point. Check for direct construction skipping factories, clone/spread without re-validation, raw data not wrapped in domain models, mutations outside the model layer.
BLOCKED until: Full data flow traced (origin → crash); Invariant owner identified with file:line evidence; All access sites audited (grep count); Fix layer justified (lowest layer that protects most consumers).
Anti-patterns (REJECT): "Fix it where it crashes" (crash site ≠ cause site, trace upstream); "Add defensive checks at every consumer" (scattered defense = wrong layer); "Both fix is safer" (pick ONE authoritative layer).

### Rationalization Prevention
AI skips steps via these evasions. Recognize and reject:
- "Too simple for a plan" → Simple + wrong assumptions = wasted time. Plan anyway.
- "I'll test after" → RED before GREEN. Write/verify test first.
- "Already searched" → Show grep evidence with file:line. No proof = no search.
- "Just do it" → Still need TaskCreate. Skip depth, never skip tracking.
- "Just a small fix" → Small fix in wrong location cascades. Verify file:line first.
- "Code is self-explanatory" → Future readers need evidence trail. Document anyway.
- "Combine steps to save time" → Combined steps dilute focus. Each step has distinct purpose.

### Graph-Assisted Investigation
MANDATORY when .code-graph/graph.db exists.
HARD-GATE: MUST run at least ONE graph command on key files before concluding any investigation.
Pattern: Grep finds files → trace --direction both reveals full system flow → Grep verifies details.
- Investigation/Scout: trace --direction both on 2-3 entry files
- Fix/Debug: callers_of on buggy function + tests_for
- Feature/Enhancement: connections on files to be modified
- Code Review: tests_for on changed functions
- Blast Radius: trace --direction downstream
CLI: python .claude/scripts/code_graph {command} --json. Use --node-mode file first (10-30x less noise), then --node-mode function for detail.

### Understand Code First
HARD-GATE: Do NOT write, plan, or fix until you READ existing code.
1. Search 3+ similar patterns (grep/glob) — cite file:line evidence.
2. Read existing files in target area — understand structure, base classes, conventions.
3. Run python .claude/scripts/code_graph trace <file> --direction both --json when .code-graph/graph.db exists.
4. Map dependencies via connections or callers_of — know what depends on your target.
5. Write investigation to .ai/workspace/analysis/ for non-trivial tasks (3+ files).
6. Re-read analysis file before implementing — never work from memory alone.
7. NEVER invent new patterns when existing ones work — match exactly or document deviation.
BLOCKED until: Read target files; Grep 3+ patterns; Graph trace (if graph.db exists); Assumptions verified with evidence.

## Reference Docs (READ before reviewing)
- `.claude/docs/development-rules.md` — canonical development rules, code-quality guidelines, and pre-commit checklist
- docs/project-reference/code-review-rules.md
- {skill-specific reference docs — e.g., integration-test-reference.md for integration-test-review; backend-patterns-reference.md for backend reviews; frontend-patterns-reference.md for frontend reviews}

## Target Files
{explicit file list OR "run git diff to see uncommitted changes" OR "read all files under {plan-dir}"}

## Output
Write a structured report to plans/reports/{review-type}-round{N}-{date}.md with sections:
- Status: PASS | FAIL
- Issue Count: {number}
- Critical Issues (with file:line evidence)
- High Priority Issues (with file:line evidence)
- Medium / Low Issues
- Cross-cutting findings

Return the report path and status to the main agent.
Every finding MUST have file:line evidence. Speculation is forbidden.
`
})

Rules

• DO copy the template wholesale — including all 11 embedded protocol sections
• DO replace only the {placeholders} in Task / Round / Reference Docs / Target Files / Output sections with context-specific content
• DO choose code-reviewer subagent_type for code reviews and general-purpose for plan / doc / artifact reviews
• DO NOT paraphrase, summarize, or skip any protocol section
• DO NOT pass file contents inline — the sub-agent reads via its own tool calls so it has a fresh context
• DO NOT reference protocols by file path or tag name — the bodies are already embedded above
• DO NOT introduce placeholder markers for the protocols — they must stay literally expanded

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.

Systematic Review Batching (map-reduce) — When a changeset is large, do NOT review files one-by-one. Partition into size-capped batches, fire one specialized sub-agent per batch in parallel, then reduce. This bounds EVERY context — each batch agent AND the orchestrator — so coverage stays complete as file count grows.

Trigger ladder (one ordered escalation — not competing thresholds):

1. < 10 changed files → sequential per-file review (default; no batching).
2. ≥ 10 changed files → switch to systematic parallel mode. Announce: "Detected {N} changed files. Switching to systematic parallel review protocol." Then: categorize → size-capped batches → flat consolidation.
3. categories > 6 OR files > 40 → additionally insert the hierarchical synthesis tier (below). Everything from rung 2 still applies.

Step 1 — Categorize. Group changed files into logical categories derived from the project's actual structure (not forced). Category is the concern axis; orient with these examples, derive what fits the repository:

Category Type	Example Groupings
Agent/Tooling	AI scripts, hooks, skill definitions, workflow configs, linting rules
Root config/docs	Root README, project config, CI/CD pipeline configs
Reference docs	Architecture docs, patterns references, setup guides
Feature/domain docs	Business feature documentation, spec files, ADRs
Backend logic	Service/handler/controller source (infer from project structure)
Frontend logic	UI component/state/API source (infer from project structure)
Data/Schema	Migrations, schema files, seed data
Tests	Unit, integration, E2E test files
Infrastructure	Docker, k8s, CI/CD, cloud manifests

Step 2 — Size-capped batches. One sub-agent per batch of ≤8 files OR ≤2000 diff-lines, whichever hits first. Category stays the concern axis, but any category exceeding a cap splits into multiple size-capped batches (30 backend files → 4 batches). Size caps — not category caps — make "many files" safe: a category cap alone lets one giant category blow a single agent's context.

Step 2a — Sub-agent type per batch (match the batch's dominant concern):

• Code logic (any stack) → code-reviewer
• Security-sensitive changes → security-auditor
• Performance-critical paths → performance-optimizer
• Docs, plans, specs, configs, infra → general-purpose

Each batch sub-agent receives: its full file list; SYNC:category-review-thinking as its primary thinking model — derive each category's concerns from first principles, NOT a fixed checklist (if the consuming skill does not carry that block, apply category-first thinking directly); project reference docs relevant to its concern (discover via *patterns*, *conventions*, *style-guide*); cross-reference verification instructions (counts, tables, links). All batch agents run in parallel and write findings to plans/reports/ (per SYNC:task-tracking-external-report); reducers read from disk, never from memory.

Step 3 — Reduce.

• Flat reduction (rung 2, ≤6 categories AND ≤40 files): the orchestrator collects each batch report, cross-references counts/tables/contracts ACROSS batches, detects gaps visible only across categories (feature in code but missing from docs; new API endpoint with no client call), and consolidates into one categorized holistic report.
• Hierarchical reduction (rung 3, > 6 categories OR > 40 files): insert a mid-tier — each concern gets ONE synthesizer agent that reads only its own batch reports and emits a single concern-synthesis. The orchestrator reads the concern-syntheses (~5), never the raw batch reports — keeping the reducer's context O(#concerns), not O(#files).
  • Cross-concern interaction pass (mandatory at rung 3 — closes the synthesis-tier blind spot): concern-siloed synthesis can drop an interaction spanning two concerns AND two batches (tainted source in data-layer/batch 7 → sink in api/batch 3). So: (a) each concern-synthesizer MUST emit an explicit "cross-concern interaction candidates" list — entities/symbols/contracts it touched that plausibly bind to another concern (shared DTOs, event names, table/collection names, exported symbols); (b) the orchestrator MUST run the Step-3 cross-reference/gap step over those candidate lists across all concern-syntheses, not only within a batch, before concluding. Without this pass the tier trades completeness for context-bounding on exactly the large diffs it targets.

Step 4 — Holistic assessment. With all findings combined, judge: overall coherence as a unified intent; cross-category sync (docs match code? contracts match callers?); risk areas where categories interact; missing doc/spec updates for changed artifacts.

No silent truncation. If any cap forces sampling or a batch is dropped for budget, ANNOUNCE the dropped/sampled scope explicitly — bounded coverage must never read as complete coverage.

Severity Rubric — Classify every finding by consequence, not by how easy it is to fix. One scale across all reviews so a "High" means the same thing everywhere.

Severity	Action	Definition
CRITICAL	Block merge	Silent runtime failure, data corruption, validation bypass, security hole
HIGH	Must fix	Incorrect behavior, invariant gap, architectural violation
MEDIUM	Should fix	Design debt, maintainability, likely future bug
LOW	Nice to fix	Convention, documentation, minor clarity

Score-based skills map their numeric scale onto these tiers — do not invent a parallel vocabulary:

• 0-2 criterion scoring (e.g. production-readiness-review): 0 = CRITICAL/HIGH (criterion unmet, blocks production readiness), 1 = MEDIUM (partial, should fix), 2 = pass (no finding).
• Two-axis scoring (e.g. performance-review, impact × likelihood): map the resulting cell to the nearest tier — high-impact + high-likelihood → CRITICAL/HIGH; low-impact OR low-likelihood → MEDIUM/LOW.

A finding's tier drives the gate: CRITICAL/HIGH must be resolved or explicitly accepted by the owner before PASS; MEDIUM/LOW may ship with a tracked follow-up.

Category Review Thinking — A thinking framework for reviewing any category of changed files. NOT a fixed checklist — derive concerns from domain knowledge; the examples are starting points only. Your knowledge of the category exceeds any list here — trust it.

Step 1 — Understand the category's role. What is this category responsible for in the overall system? What invariants must it uphold? What are its consumer contracts (who depends on it, what do they expect)?

Step 2 — Read project conventions for this category. Search for reference docs, style guides, ADRs, or READMEs specific to this area. Grep 3+ existing similar files — extract naming conventions, structural patterns, shared base classes. If no docs exist, derive conventions empirically from existing code.

Step 3 — Derive concerns from first principles. Apply all that are relevant; expand beyond this list based on the actual category:

• Correctness: Does the logic match the intent? Trace happy path AND error path.
• Boundary contracts: Are interfaces/APIs/events/protocols honored? No implicit coupling introduced?
• Project conventions: Does new code follow the patterns found in Step 2? Evidence-confirmed, not assumed.
• Security: Auth enforced at every entry point? Input validated at boundaries? No secrets in the diff?
• Performance: Unbounded operations? N+1 patterns? Blocking calls in async context? Unindexed queries?
• Maintainability: DRY? Single responsibility? Complexity within reason? Names reveal intent?
• Test coverage: Are the changed paths covered by tests? Are existing tests still valid after the change?
• Documentation: Do related docs, specs, or READMEs reflect the changes?

Step 4 — Create sub-tasks and execute. For each identified concern: create a TaskCreate sub-task, work through it with file:line evidence, mark done. No findings without proof.

Illustrative concern examples by category type (not exhaustive — trust your knowledge beyond this):

• Server-side logic: handler/service structure conventions, validation layer placement, side-effect isolation, cross-service boundary enforcement, data-access layer separation, error propagation strategy
• Client-side logic: component lifecycle management, resource cleanup (subscriptions, listeners, timers), state management patterns, API integration layer separation, reactive stream composition
• Data/Schema: migration reversibility (rollback script), lock impact on table volume, backfill idempotency, index coverage for query patterns, deployment ordering
• Configuration: present in ALL environments? No secrets in diff? App fails fast if config missing (not silently null)? Documented in setup guide?
• Infrastructure: dev/prod parity? No hardcoded dev values (localhost, debug flags)? Pinned image/dependency versions? CI/CD secret requirements documented?
• Styles/Assets: follows project naming conventions? Uses design variables/tokens (no hardcoded magic values)? Correct scope (no global side effects from component styles)?
• Documentation: accurate? Links valid? Examples still match current code/behavior? Covers new scenarios?
• Tests: assertions verify specific outcomes (not just "no exception")? Idempotent (repeatable N times)? Covers edge cases, not just happy path?
• Security artifacts: all code paths reach the gate? Negative tests exist (unauthorized denied)? Both enforcement AND display control updated?
• Build/Tooling: rule changes apply consistently? No exceptions that silently swallow violations? Impact on CI runtime documented?

Scalability & Production-Readiness Technique Gate — CONDITIONAL, evidence-gated, scale-tiered. Judge which system-design techniques a system warrants at its scale — flag warranted-but-missing gaps AND advise AGAINST unwarranted heavyweight ones. ADVICE-ONLY: emit the matrix as guidance; NEVER mutate any score, verdict band, or gate pass/fail.

1. Derive the scale tier FIRST — from evidence, never assumed. Read users/RPS, SLO/latency targets, data volume, tenancy, topology from config/infra/specs; cite file:line + confidence. Tiers: T0 internal/single-instance · T1 small SaaS (<10k users) · T2 high-scale (10k–1M) · T3 massive/multi-region (millions+). Unknown tier → state assumption, do NOT default to T3.
2. Judge each concern group only at/above its warranting tier (member techniques → owning review skill for depth):
   • Traffic & Edge — Rate Limiting, Load Balancing, Reverse Proxy, API Gateway, CDN, Edge Caching, WAF, DDoS (T1+; CDN/WAF T2+) → security-review owns WAF/DDoS
   • Caching & Data Access — Caching, Cache Invalidation, DB Indexing, Query Optimization, N+1, Connection Pooling (T1+) → performance-review owns depth
   • Data Scaling & Consistency — Read Replicas, Sharding, Partitioning, Replication, CAP, Eventual Consistency, Locks, Leader Election (T2+; sharding/multi-region T3) → performance-review
   • Async & Messaging — Message Queues, Pub/Sub, Event-Driven, Saga, DLQ, Distributed Transactions, Backpressure, Webhooks, WebSockets/SSE (T2+)
   • Resilience — Circuit Breakers, Timeouts, Retries, Backoff, Idempotency, Health Checks, Liveness/Readiness, Failover, Graceful Degradation (T1+) → production-readiness-review
   • Scaling & Compute — Autoscaling, Horizontal/Vertical Scaling, Serverless Limits, Cold Starts, Cron Jobs, Thread Safety, GC/Memory Leaks (T1+; autoscaling T2+)
   • Deployment & Release — CI/CD, Docker, Kubernetes, Blue-Green/Canary/Rolling, Rollbacks, Feature Flags, IaC/Terraform/Helm, Build Caching (CI/CD T0+; K8s/canary T2+)
   • Observability — Monitoring, Logging, Distributed Tracing, Metrics, Alerting, SLOs/SLIs, Error Budgets (T1+; tracing/error-budgets T2+) → production-readiness-review
   • Security & Compliance — Secrets Management, IAM, OAuth, JWT Rotation, TLS, Encryption at Rest/Transit, CORS, CSRF, SQLi, XSS, SSRF (T0+) → security-review owns
   • DR & Infra — Backups, Disaster Recovery, Multi-Region, Chaos Engineering, Schema Versioning, DB Migrations, Cost Optimization (backups T1+; DR/multi-region/chaos T3) → production-readiness-review
3. Assign one of 4 verdicts per warranted technique: PRESENT · MISSING-WARRANTED (→ advise only — guidance, NOT a score/gate lever) · N/A-by-scale (below warranting tier) · OVER-ENGINEERED (present but unwarranted at this tier → advise AGAINST).
4. Anti-over-engineering guard (first-class): do NOT recommend K8s, sharding, multi-region, service mesh, event sourcing, or distributed transactions below their warranting tier. A correctly-lean small system is a PASS, never a gap.
5. Output — Technique Applicability Matrix: technique | tier-warranted? | present? | verdict | advice | evidence (file:line/config/infra). Full grouped catalog + per-tier baseline → .claude/docs/scale-technique-catalog.md. Hosting reviews surface this matrix WITHOUT changing any /20, /24, verdict band, or PASS/FAIL (per user decision 2026-07-06). Drift-guard: tier thresholds & per-technique warranting tiers are AUTHORITATIVE in .claude/docs/scale-technique-catalog.md — the inline tier summary above is a condensed pointer; on any tier/technique change, update the catalog FIRST, then re-run .claude/scripts/inject_scale_technique_gate.py to re-propagate this block.

BLOCKED until: - [ ] tier derived from evidence (not assumed) - [ ] matrix emitted - [ ] over-engineering guard applied - [ ] advisory-only (no score/verdict mutation) confirmed

Scenario Stress & Resilience Evaluation — CONDITIONAL, evidence-gated, business-criticality-aware. The top-down companion to SYNC:scale-technique-gate: instead of "is technique X present?", put the system UNDER concrete failure/load scenarios and judge whether it SURVIVES, SELF-HEALS, and whether its BUSINESS needs it to. ADVICE-ONLY: emit the Scenario Stress Matrix as guidance; NEVER mutate any score, verdict band, or gate pass/fail.

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

BLOCKED until: - [ ] scale tier + business-criticality (with criticality-signal floor) derived from evidence - [ ] in-scope scenarios selected - [ ] matrix emitted - [ ] over-hardening guard applied - [ ] advisory-only (no score/verdict mutation) confirmed

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION execute the review loop (aka Self-Review Convergence Loop): review → validate findings → fix validated findings → full re-review. A complete review pass with zero findings ENDS the review. Any newly produced output/judgment gets ≥1 self-review; any new judgment gets ≥1 /why-review --validate-findings pass before it is treated as final.
• MANDATORY enforce the round cap of 5 — a ceiling, NEVER a target: a clean pass ends the loop immediately at any round (round 1 included), and round 5 completing with validated findings still open → STOP & escalate via AskUserQuestion, never a silent PASS. The 3-repeated-no-progress blocker rule is an earlier exit — escalate at whichever trips first. NEVER loop open-ended.

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION run at least ONE graph command on key files before concluding (when graph.db exists).

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION cite file:line evidence for every claim. Confidence >80% to act, <60% do NOT recommend.

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 Bootstrap task tracking before target work; transition one task at a time.
• MANDATORY Persist plan/review findings to plans/reports/ incrementally and synthesize from disk.

• MANDATORY Before investigating, planning, or coding, read docs/project-config.json (the project map: modules/paths, run-commands, conventions, architecture/workflow rules) + the required project-reference docs, and cite Reference docs read: ....
• MANDATORY Always include lessons.md; project config + conventions override generic framework defaults.
• MANDATORY If project config, root instruction files, or any required reference doc is missing or stale, auto-run /project-init or the narrow lower-level route before ordinary project-specific work.