[Architecture] Use when designing solution architecture across backend, frontend, deployment, monitoring, testing, and code quality.
[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: Act as solution architect to deliver a complete, evidence-backed, user-validated architecture decision report covering ALL concerns (backend, frontend, design patterns, library ecosystem, testing strategy, CI/CD, deployment, monitoring, code quality, dependency management) — every concern researched with 3+ options, every recommendation carrying confidence % + cited evidence, every decision confirmed by the user — so implementation proceeds on sound, owned architectural choices.
Summary:
Decide mode FIRST (Step 1): greenfield researches every concern from scratch; brownfield reads reference docs + accepted ADRs and constrains research to the existing stack — NEVER re-litigate a settled ADR-recorded decision without a superseding-ADR rationale.
Drive the style choice with NUMBERS, not adjectives: quantify Step-2 quality-attribute scenarios (latency p95/p99, throughput, SLO, RPO/RTO, data growth, concurrency); any unknown target becomes an explicit , never a silent guess.
Unresolved question
Every concern needs 3+ researched options with cited evidence (stars, last release, downloads, CVE scan) + a confidence % — familiarity alone is never sufficient grounds for a recommendation.
Produce the two binding downstream contracts and you're done; skip either and the chain breaks: emit an ADR per hard-to-reverse decision (review-architecture Cat 9 enforces it) and the Scaffold Handoff tool-choices table (scaffold/harness-setup consume it), then run the MANDATORY Step-12 user-validation interview before confirming.
Generate Report — Full architecture decision report with all recommendations
User Validation — Present findings, ask 8-12 questions, confirm all decisions
Key Rules:
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION research minimum 3 options per architecture concern with web evidence
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION include confidence % with evidence for every recommendation
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION run user validation interview at end (never skip)
Delegate to solution-architect agent for complex architecture decisions
All claims must cite sources (URL, benchmark, case study, or codebase evidence)
Base every recommendation on evidence, never on familiarity alone
Be skeptical. Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence percentages (Idea should be more than 80%).
Inputs & Handoffs (consume vs produce)
Skill sits mid-workflow — consumes settled upstream decisions, produces artifacts downstream steps build on. Do NOT re-derive what upstream step already owns; do NOT leave downstream consumer without its needed artifact. — why: re-deriving settled decisions wastes effort and risks divergence from the recorded choice.
If upstream artifact missing, capture minimum needed here and note gap — NEVER silently re-run full upstream analysis. — why: a silent re-run hides the missing-input gap that the owning step should resolve.
Step 1: Load Context
Mode (decide first):Greenfield (new project, e.g. via workflow-greenfield-init) → research every concern from scratch, full 3-options-per-concern. Brownfield (large feature in existing codebase, e.g. workflow-big-feature) → FIRST read project reference docs + accepted ADRs, constrain research to existing stack/patterns, propose changes only where new requirement genuinely outgrows them — NEVER re-litigate settled ADR-recorded decision without superseding-ADR rationale. — why: re-deciding a recorded choice churns the codebase and breaks downstream conformance checks.
Read artifacts from prior workflow steps (search plans/ and team-artifacts/):
Domain model / ERD (complexity, bounded contexts, aggregate count)
Rich domain model, separation of domain from infra
Must
Cross-context events
Event-driven communication, eventual consistency
Must
Small team
Low ceremony, fewer layers, convention over configuration
Should
Compliance
Audit trail, immutable events, access control layers
Must
Real-time
Event sourcing or pub/sub, WebSocket/SSE support
Should
High integration complexity
Anti-corruption layers, adapter pattern, API gateway
Should
Quality-Attribute Scenarios (quantify — these drive the style choice)
Qualitative "Must/Should" cannot decide between, e.g., modular monolith vs microservices. Capture measurable targets; ask user for any unknown via AskUserQuestion (guess acceptable only when labelled an assumption with confidence %). These targets become ADR-recorded budgets review-architecture Category 9 later checks changes against. — why: a style chosen without numbers is a guess, not an enforceable decision.
Quality attribute
Scenario (stimulus → measurable response)
Target (fill in)
Latency
p95 / p99 response time for the hottest read and write paths
e.g. p99 < 300ms
Throughput
Sustained req/s and peak burst the system must absorb
Rule: any target left unknown is explicit Unresolved question (Step 11), NEVER a silent omission — an architecture chosen without scale numbers is a guess, not a decision.
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION validate derived requirements with user via AskUserQuestion before proceeding.
Step 3: Backend Architecture
3A: Architecture Styles
WebSearch top 3 backend architecture styles. Candidates:
Style
Best For
Research Focus
Clean Architecture
Complex domains, long-lived projects
Dependency rule, testability, flexibility
Hexagonal (Ports+Adapt)
Integration-heavy, multiple I/O adapters
Port contracts, adapter isolation
Vertical Slice
Feature-focused teams, rapid delivery
Slice isolation, code locality
Modular Monolith
Starting simple, eventual decomposition
Module boundaries, migration path
Microservices
Large teams, independent deployment
Service boundaries, operational overhead
CQRS + Event Sourcing
Audit-heavy, complex queries
Read/write separation, event store
Layered (N-Tier)
Simple CRUD, small teams
Layer responsibilities, coupling risk
3B: Backend Design Patterns
Evaluate applicability per layer:
Pattern
Layer
When to Apply
Repository
Data Access
Abstract data store, enable testing
CQRS
Application
Separate read/write models, complex queries
Mediator
Application
Decouple handlers from controllers
Strategy
Domain/App
Multiple interchangeable algorithms
Observer/Events
Domain
Cross-aggregate side effects
Factory
Domain
Complex object creation with invariants
Decorator
Cross-cutting
Add behavior without modifying (logging, caching)
Adapter
Infrastructure
Isolate external dependencies
Specification
Domain
Composable business rules, complex filtering
Unit of Work
Data Access
Transaction management across repositories
Saga/Orchestr.
Cross-service
Distributed transactions, compensating actions
Outbox
Messaging
Reliable event publishing with DB transactions
Circuit Breaker
Infrastructure
External service resilience
Per recommended pattern document: Apply to, Why, Example, Risk if skipped.
Step 4: Frontend Architecture
4A: Architecture Styles
WebSearch top 3 frontend architecture styles. Candidates:
Style
Best For
Research Focus
MVVM
Data-binding heavy, forms-over-data apps
ViewModel responsibility, two-way binding
MVC
Server-rendered, traditional web apps
Controller routing, view separation
Component Architecture
Configured SPA/component framework
Component isolation, props/events, reuse
Reactive Store (Redux)
Complex state, multi-component sync
Single source of truth, immutable state
Signal-based Reactivity
Fine-grained reactivity in frameworks that support signals
Granular updates without broad change detection
Micro Frontends
Multiple teams, independent deployment
Module federation, routing, shared state
Feature-based Modules
Large monolith SPA, lazy loading
Feature boundaries, route-level splitting
Server Components (RSC)
SEO, initial load performance
Server/client boundary, streaming
4B: Frontend Design Patterns
Pattern
Layer
When to Apply
Container/Presentational
Component
Separate logic from UI rendering
Reactive Store
State
Centralized state, cross-component communication
Facade Service
Service
Simplify complex API interactions
Adapter/Mapper
Data
Transform API response to view model
Observer (RxJS)
Async
Event streams, real-time data, debounce/throttle
Strategy (renderers)
UI
Conditional rendering strategies per entity type
Composite (components)
UI
Tree structures, recursive components
Command (undo/redo)
UX
Form wizards, canvas editors, undoable actions
Lazy Loading
Performance
Route/module-level code splitting
Virtual Scrolling
Performance
Large lists, infinite scroll
Step 4B: UI System Architecture
Skip if: Backend-only project, no frontend component.
Research, recommend project design system architecture. Use AskUserQuestion for each decision.
4B-1: Styling Approach
WebSearch top 3 styling approaches for confirmed frontend framework:
Common → Domain-Shared → Page (per ui-wireframe-protocol)
Standard 3-tier
Documentation
Storybook / Docusaurus / In-code only
Based on team size
4B-4: Responsive Strategy
Decision
Options
Default
Approach
Mobile-first / Desktop-first / Adaptive
Mobile-first
Breakpoints
320/768/1024/1280 / Custom
Standard
Grid system
CSS Grid / Flexbox / Framework grid
CSS Grid + Flexbox
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION validate all UI system decisions with user via AskUserQuestion before proceeding to Step 5.
Step 5: Library Ecosystem Research
Per concern below, WebSearch top 3 library options for confirmed tech stack. Evaluate: maturity, community, bundle size, maintenance activity, license, learning curve.
MUST ATTENTION never recommend a library from familiarity alone — every pick needs cited evidence (stars, release date, downloads, CVE scan). — why: familiarity bias ships unmaintained or insecure dependencies.
Library Concerns Checklist
Concern
What to Research
Evaluation Criteria
Validation
Input validation, schema validation, form validation
Type safety, composability, error messages
HTTP Client / API Layer
REST client, GraphQL client, API code generation
Interceptors, retry, caching, type generation
State Management
Global store, local state, server state caching
DevTools, SSR support, bundle size
Utilities / Helpers
Date/time, collections, deep clone, string manipulation
Research best testing tools, strategy for confirmed tech stack:
Testing Layer
What to Research
Top Candidates to Compare
Unit Testing
Test runner, assertion library, mocking framework
Repository's configured unit-test stack
Integration Testing
API testing, DB testing, service testing
Supertest, TestContainers, WebAppFactory
E2E Testing
Browser automation, BDD, visual regression
Playwright/Cypress/Selenium, SpecFlow
Performance Testing
Load testing, stress testing, benchmarking
k6/Artillery/JMeter/NBomber, BenchmarkDotNet
Contract Testing
API contract validation between services
Pact, Dredd, Spectral
Mutation Testing
Test quality validation
Stryker, PITest
Coverage
Code coverage collection, reporting, enforcement
Istanbul/Coverlet, SonarQube
Test Data
Factories, fixtures, seeders, fakers
Bogus/AutoFixture/Faker.js
Test Strategy Template
### Test Pyramid-**Unit (70%):** {framework} — {what to test}
-**Integration (20%):** {framework} — {what to test}
-**E2E (10%):** {framework} — {what to test}
### Test-Strength Targets- Line coverage (diagnostic only — NEVER fail the build on a coverage %): Unit: {X}% | Integration: {X}% | E2E: critical paths only
- Gate: mutation score ({tool}) in CI pipeline — fail build on surviving mutants / mutation-score regression, not on a line-coverage %
Scaffold Handoff (MANDATORY — consumed by /scaffold)
After code quality research, produce this handoff table in architecture report. /scaffold reads this table to generate actual config files — without it, scaffold cannot auto-configure quality tooling. — why: the handoff table is the only contract scaffold has for tool choices.
Also include: Error handling strategy (4-layer pattern), loading state approach (global vs per-component), Docker profile structure. Specific tool choices → docs/project-reference/ or project-config.json. The Arch rules / fitness row MUST encode Step-2 quality-attribute budgets and layer/dependency rules as executable checks — harness-setup wires these into CI so recorded ADR decisions stay enforced, not merely documented. — why: documented-but-unenforced budgets erode silently as code changes.
Step 10: Dependency Risk Assessment
Per recommended library/package, evaluate maintenance, obsolescence risk:
Package Health Scorecard
Criteria
Score (1-5)
How to Verify
Last Release Date
...
npm/NuGet page — stale if >12 months
Open Issues Ratio
...
GitHub issues open vs closed
Maintainer Count
...
Bus factor — single maintainer = high risk
Breaking Change Freq.
...
Changelog — frequent major versions = churn cost
Dependency Depth
...
npm ls --depth / dependency graph depth
Known Vulnerabilities
...
Snyk/npm audit/GitHub Dependabot
License Compatibility
...
SPDX identifier — check viral licenses (GPL)
Community Activity
...
Monthly commits, PR merge rate, Discord/forums
Migration Path
...
Can swap to alternative if abandoned?
Framework Alignment
...
Official recommendation by framework team?
Risk Categories
Risk Level
Criteria
Action
Low
Active, >3 maintainers, recent release, no CVEs
Use freely
Medium
1-2 maintainers, release <6mo, minor CVEs patched
Use with monitoring plan
High
Single maintainer, >12mo stale, open CVEs
Find alternative or plan exit strategy
Critical
Abandoned, unpatched CVEs, deprecated
DO NOT USE — find replacement
Dependency Maintenance Strategy
### Recommended Practices1.**Automated scanning:** {tool} (Dependabot/Renovate/Snyk) — weekly PR for updates
2.**Lock file strategy:** Commit lock files, pin major versions, allow patch auto-update
3.**Audit schedule:** Monthly `npm audit` / `dotnet list package --vulnerable`4.**Vendor policy:** Max {N} dependencies per concern, prefer well-maintained alternatives
5.**Exit strategy:** For each High-risk dependency, document migration path to alternative
Step 11: Generate Report
Write report to {plan-dir}/research/architecture-design.md with sections:
Executive summary (recommended architecture in 8-10 lines)
Architecture diagram (Mermaid — showing all layers and data flow)
Risk assessment for overall architecture
Unresolved questions
Emit ADRs for hard-to-reverse decisions (MANDATORY)
For each decision significant AND costly to reverse — backend/frontend style, persistence/consistency model, messaging approach, a Step-2 quality-attribute budget, a rejected-with-reason alternative — write one ADR to docs/adr/{NNNN}-{slug}.md following the repo's existing ADR format (Status, Date, Context, Decision, Consequences [Positive/Negative/Neutral], Alternatives Considered, Related; see docs/adr/0001-skill-lifecycle.md for canonical shape). Start Status: Proposed; promote to Accepted after Step-12 user validation confirms it. These ADRs are the binding record review-architecture Category 9 checks changed code against — a decision not written as an ADR cannot be enforced downstream. Route ADR authoring through the architect sub-agent for cross-service/security/performance impact analysis.
Complexity check — "This architecture has {N} concerns addressed. Appropriate for team size?"
Optional Deep-Dive Questions (pick 2-3)
"Should we use event sourcing or traditional state-based persistence?"
"Monolith-first or start with service boundaries?"
"Micro frontends or monolith SPA?"
"How important is framework independence for this repository or system?"
"Self-hosted observability or managed SaaS?"
"Strict lint rules from day 1 or gradual adoption?"
After user confirms, update report with final decisions, mark status: confirmed.
Best Practices Audit (applied across all steps)
Validate architecture against these principles — flag violations in report. — why: an unflagged SOLID/DRY violation compounds into rework once code lands on the flaw.
Principle
Check
Status
Single Responsibility (S)
Each class/module has one reason to change
✅/⚠️
Open/Closed (O)
Extensible without modifying existing code
✅/⚠️
Liskov Substitution (L)
Subtypes substitutable for base types
✅/⚠️
Interface Segregation (I)
No forced dependency on unused interfaces
✅/⚠️
Dependency Inversion (D)
High-level modules depend on abstractions, not concretions
✅/⚠️
DRY
No duplicated business logic across layers
✅/⚠️
KISS
Simplest architecture that meets requirements
✅/⚠️
YAGNI
No speculative layers or patterns for future needs
✅/⚠️
Separation of Concerns
Clear boundaries between domain, application, infra
✅/⚠️
IoC / Dependency Injection
All dependencies injected, no new in business logic
✅/⚠️
Technical Agnosticism
Domain layer has zero framework/infra dependencies
✅/⚠️
Testability
Architecture supports unit + integration testing
✅/⚠️
12-Factor App
Config in env, stateless processes, port binding
✅/⚠️
Fail-Fast
Validate early, fail with clear errors
✅/⚠️
Output
{plan-dir}/research/architecture-design.md # Full architecture analysis report
{plan-dir}/phase-02b-architecture.md # Confirmed architecture decisions
docs/adr/{NNNN}-{slug}.md # One ADR per hard-to-reverse decision (see Step 11)
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION break work into small todo tasks using TaskCreate BEFORE starting.
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION validate EVERY architecture recommendation with user via AskUserQuestion — never auto-decide.
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION include confidence % and evidence citations for all claims.
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION add a final review todo task to verify work quality.
Next Steps
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — NO EXCEPTIONS after completing this skill, you MUST ATTENTION use AskUserQuestion to present these options. NEVER skip because the task seems "simple" or "obvious" — the user decides:
"/plan (Recommended)" — Create implementation plan from architecture design
"/refine" — If need to create PBIs first
"Skip, continue manually" — user decides
Council escalation (always-offer, second prompt)
After the existing ## Next Steps prompt above resolves, present a second, independent AskUserQuestion call (NEVER merge into the first):
"Skip council — proceed (Recommended)" — Continue with the architecture decision as-is. Recommended default.
"Escalate to /llm-council" — Run 11 sub-agent council (5 advisors + 5 reviewers + chairman). Use when this architecture pick is hard to reverse and you need adversarial framing. Cheaper alternatives: /why-review, /plan-validate (run these first if you haven't).
Prompt-Enhance Closing Anchors
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION follow declared step order for this skill; NEVER skip, reorder, or merge steps without explicit user approval
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION for every step/sub-skill call: set in_progress before execution, set completed after execution
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION every skipped step MUST include explicit reason; every completed step MUST include concise evidence
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION if Task tools unavailable, maintain an equivalent step-by-step plan tracker with synchronized statuses
Anti-Rationalization (reject these excuses)
Excuse the model tells itself
Reality
"I know this stack — skip the 3-options research"
Familiarity ≠ evidence. Research 3+ options with cited proof per concern, every time.
"The architecture is obvious — skip user validation"
Step 12 is MANDATORY. The user owns hard-to-reverse decisions; never auto-decide.
"No scale numbers given, I'll just pick a style"
Missing target = explicit Unresolved question, never a silent guess. Quantify via Step-2 first.
"It's a small feature — skip the ADR"
If a decision is significant AND costly to reverse, it needs an ADR or it cannot be enforced.
"Brownfield, but my preferred style is better"
NEVER re-litigate a settled ADR-recorded decision without a superseding-ADR rationale.
"I'll document the budget, enforcement is optional"
Documented-but-unenforced budgets erode. Encode them as executable fitness checks for CI.
Closing Reminders
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Goal: Deliver a complete, evidence-backed, user-validated architecture decision report — every concern researched with 3+ options, every recommendation carrying confidence % + cited evidence, every decision confirmed by the user — so implementation proceeds on sound, owned architectural choices.
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — Protocols in force (concise digest of the SYNC/shared blocks this skill carries):
Critical Thinking: traced file:line proof per claim, confidence >80% to act.
Sequential Thinking: multi-step Thought N/M with REVISION/BRANCH/HYPOTHESIS, confidence closer.
AI Mistake Prevention: verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references, verify all affected outputs, re-read after context loss, surface ambiguity.
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION research min 3 options per architecture concern with cited web evidence (stars, last release, downloads, CVE scan) — NEVER recommend from familiarity alone — why: familiarity bias ships unmaintained or insecure dependencies.
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION validate decisions with user via AskUserQuestion (Step 12) — NEVER auto-decide a hard-to-reverse choice — why: the user owns hard-to-reverse decisions; the architect proposes, the user confirms.
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION quantify Step-2 quality-attribute scenarios (latency p95/p99, throughput, SLO, RPO/RTO, growth, concurrency) — any unknown target becomes an explicit Unresolved question, NEVER a silent guess — why: a style chosen without numbers is a guess, not an enforceable decision.
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION brownfield: FIRST read project reference docs + accepted ADRs, constrain research to the existing stack, and NEVER re-litigate a settled ADR-recorded decision without a superseding-ADR rationale — why: re-deciding a recorded choice churns the codebase and breaks downstream conformance checks.
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION search 3+ existing patterns/ADRs before proposing any new style or pattern; cite file:line (or URL/benchmark) evidence and a confidence % for EVERY claim — confidence >80% to recommend, <60% DO NOT recommend — why: speculation without proof is forbidden output.
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION evaluate fit before copying a nearby pattern — closest example ≠ matching preconditions; verify the new context shares the same scale, constraints, and boundaries — why: a pattern lifted into a mismatched context fails silently.
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION produce the two binding downstream contracts — one ADR per hard-to-reverse decision (review-architecture Cat 9 enforces) AND the Scaffold Handoff tool-choices table (scaffold/harness-setup consume) — a decision not written as an ADR or encoded as an executable fitness check cannot be enforced downstream — why: documented-but-unenforced budgets erode silently as code changes.
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION break work into small todo tasks using TaskCreate BEFORE starting; mark one in_progress, mark completed immediately after evidence lands; add a final review todo — why: external task state survives context compaction; memory does not.
Anti-Rationalization (Closing — reject these excuses):
Excuse the model tells itself
Reality
"I know this stack — skip the 3-options research"
Familiarity ≠ evidence. Research 3+ options with cited proof per concern, every time.
"The architecture is obvious — skip user validation"
Step 12 is MANDATORY. The user owns hard-to-reverse decisions; never auto-decide.
"No scale numbers given, I'll just pick a style"
Missing target = explicit Unresolved question, never a silent guess. Quantify via Step-2 first.
"Small feature — skip the ADR / fitness check"
Significant AND costly-to-reverse → needs an ADR + executable fitness rule, or it cannot be enforced.
"Brownfield, but my preferred style is better"
NEVER re-litigate a settled ADR-recorded decision without a superseding-ADR rationale.
"Found a nearby pattern, just copy it"
Evaluate fit first — same scale/constraints/boundaries? Closest ≠ matching. Verify before reusing.
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.
Critical Thinking Mindset — Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act.
Anti-hallucination: Never present guess as fact — cite sources for every claim, admit uncertainty freely, self-check output for errors, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence — certainty without evidence root of all hallucination.
Sequential Thinking Protocol — Structured multi-step reasoning for complex/ambiguous work. Use when planning, reviewing, debugging, or refining ideas where one-shot reasoning is unsafe.
Thought N/M: [aspect] — one aspect per thought, state assumptions/uncertainty
Thought N/M [REVISION of Thought K]: ... — when prior reasoning invalidated; state Original / Why revised / Impact
Thought N/M [BRANCH A from Thought K]: ... — explore alternative; converge with decision rationale
Thought N/M [HYPOTHESIS]: ... then [VERIFICATION]: ... — test before acting
Thought N/N [FINAL] — only when verified, all critical aspects addressed, confidence >80%
Mandatory closers: Confidence % stated · Assumptions listed · Open questions surfaced · Next action concrete.
Stop conditions: confidence <80% on any critical decision → escalate via AskUserQuestion · ≥3 revisions on same thought → re-frame the problem · branch count >3 → split into sub-task.
Implicit mode: apply methodology internally without visible markers when adding markers would clutter the response (routine work where reasoning aids accuracy).
Deep-dive: see /sequential-thinking skill (.claude/skills/sequential-thinking/SKILL.md) for worked examples (API design, debugging, architecture), advanced techniques (spiral refinement, hypothesis testing, convergence), and meta-strategies (uncertainty handling, revision cascades).
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.
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION use TaskCreate to break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting.
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION use AskUserQuestion at EVERY decision point — never assume user preferences.
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION research top 3 options per architecture concern, compare with evidence, present report with recommendation + confidence %.
External Memory: For complex or lengthy work (research, analysis, scan, review), write intermediate findings and final results to a report file in plans/reports/ — prevents context loss and serves as deliverable.
Evidence Gate: MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — every claim, finding, and recommendation requires file:line proof or traced evidence with confidence percentage (>80% to act, <80% must verify first).
MUST ATTENTION apply sequential-thinking — multi-step Thought N/M, REVISION/BRANCH/HYPOTHESIS markers, confidence % closer; see /sequential-thinking skill.
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.
[TASK-PLANNING] Before acting, analyze task scope and systematically break it into small todo tasks and sub-tasks using TaskCreate.
[IMPORTANT] Analyze how big the task is and break it into many small todo tasks systematically before starting — this is very important.
