build-awareness

name	build-awareness
description	Design-first quality awareness during implementation. Fires when Claude writes or edits source code. Challenges every addition against rule zero, design direction, and EIID traceability.
user-invocable	false

When writing or editing application source code (not config, not tests, not markdown):

If CLAUDE.md doesn't exist, stop. No context to check against.

1. Read CLAUDE.md for the EIID mapping and user need. Read .superskills/design-system.md for direction and signature (if it exists). Read reference/concepts.md for rule zero, experience patterns, and absence test.

2. Rule zero. Is this addition necessary? Does it trace to the EIID mapping and the user need? Is there a simpler way? Flag anything that doesn't earn its place:

   • A new screen for something that could be a section on an existing screen
   • A new table for data that could be derived or stored in an existing table
   • A new endpoint for an operation that could be part of an existing one
   • A new component that duplicates what an existing component does
   • A new dependency for something achievable with what's already installed

3. Feeling check. If the code produces anything a user perceives — UI, agent responses, prompt output, notifications, CLI messages, workflow status, error messages: read the target feeling from CLAUDE.md and experience patterns from .superskills/design-system.md. Does this code contribute to the target feeling or undermine it? Specifically:

   • Are experience patterns present? Feedback, pacing, voice consistency — appropriate for this modality?
   • Has the absence test been applied? Could any element the user perceives be removed without losing the feeling?
   • Does it carry the product's character? Same voice, same terminology, same personality as every other touchpoint. Flag output that feels generic, templated, or inconsistent with other surfaces.

4. EIID traceability. Which layer does this code serve? If none, and it's not supporting infrastructure (tests, types, config, shared utilities), flag: "This doesn't trace to the EIID mapping."

5. Implementation level match. Does the implementation match the classified level in CLAUDE.md? Flag mismatches: "via code" but uses an LLM call. "Via buy" but builds custom. "Via agent" but never iterates.

6. Prompt hygiene. If the code contains LLM prompts: are they in a discoverable location, not buried in a function? Do they have schema validation on output? Flag inline prompts in business logic.

One line per observation. Only when relevant. Not blocking. Challenge, don't lecture.