plan-review

name	plan-review
version	1.2.0
description	[Planning] Use when you need to auto-review a plan for validity, correctness, and best practices — recursive: review, validate findings with why-review, fix validated findings, full re-review until no findings.

[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: Block any plan from reaching implementation unless it is hallucination-free (every existing-code claim proven at file:line) and implementation-ready (every step concrete, small enough to code from immediately) — by auto-reviewing implementation plans for validity, correctness, and best practices. Recursive: when any findings exist, validate findings with /why-review --validate-findings, fix only validated findings in plan files, and rerun the full plan review until no findings remain.

Summary: AI self-review (automatic, NOT a user interview like /plan-validate) that gates a plan before implementation.

• Purpose: review as a SKEPTIC, not validator — every existing-code claim needs file:line proof (Anti-Hallucination Gate); every phase must clear the "Detailed & Small Enough" granularity gate (≤5 files, ≤3h, no planning verbs) — too vague → detail it, too big → break it.
• Main steps (run in order): Phase 0 detect plan type → Step 1 read plan.md + goal.md + all phase-*.md, extract requirements/steps/files/risks → Step 2 evaluate the 4 checklist groups: Validity (summary, requirements, steps, files) · Correctness (Granularity Gate + Anti-Hallucination/Code-Proof Gate + spec/TC coverage + Goal-Contract mapping) · Best Practices (YAGNI/KISS/DRY/architecture) · Completeness (risks, testing, success criteria, security, graph-dependency) → run the 11 Adversarial techniques + Anti-Bias Gate + 7 Plan Dimensions → graph-trace each modified file (when graph.db exists) → Step 3 score PASS/WARN/FAIL → Step 4 output result → Step 5 recursive validate-fix-re-review loop.
• Detect plan type FIRST (Phase 0) so the right focus applies — bugfix MANDATES the Behavioral Delta Matrix; security/performance/refactor/contract/infra/data-schema each add targeted checks.
• Findings are never fixed blindly: run the /why-review --validate-findings gate BEFORE editing any plan.md/phase-*.md, fix only validated findings at the smallest responsible location, then restart the FULL review with a fresh, zero-memory sub-agent — loop until a clean pass with zero findings.
• Round cap 5 — a ceiling, NEVER a target; a clean pass ends the loop immediately at ANY round (round 1 included). Escalate via AskUserQuestion when the same blocker survives 3 consecutive full re-reviews with no progress, when round 5 completes with findings still open, or when a finding needs product/owner judgment — cap exhaustion escalates, it NEVER becomes a PASS.

Workflow:

1. Resolve Plan — Use $ARGUMENTS path or active plan from ## Plan Context
2. Read Files — plan.md + all phase-*.md files, extract requirements/steps/files/risks
3. Evaluate Checklist — Validity (summary, requirements, steps, files), Correctness (specific, paths, no conflicts), Best Practices (YAGNI/KISS/DRY, architecture), Completeness (risks, testing, success, security)
4. Score & Classify — PASS (all Required + ≥50% Recommended), WARN (all Required + <50% Recommended), FAIL (any Required fails)
5. Output Result — Status, checks passed, issues, recommendations, verdict
6. If any findings remain — Run /why-review --validate-findings on the plan-review report first; fix only validated actionable issues in plan files, then re-review (loop back to step 2 until zero findings, unless the repeated-blocker rule or the 5-round cap applies)

Core Principle — Detailed & Small Enough:

• Too vague? → Detail it: add specific file paths, concrete actions, exact method names
• Too big to detail? → Break it: split into smaller phases/sub-plans until each is detailed
• A plan that can't be immediately coded from is NOT ready. Every step must be implementation-ready.

Key Rules:

• No hallucination: Every plan claim about existing source code must have file:line proof — unverified paths, class names, or behaviors = FAIL
• PASS: Proceed to implementation
• WARN: Proceed with caution, note gaps
• FAIL (any findings): Validate findings with /why-review --validate-findings, fix only validated plan issues, then re-run the FULL review from the start. Repeat this self-loop — no forced minimum, capped at 5 rounds MAX — until a complete pass finds ZERO findings.
• Bounded loop — two escalation triggers, neither a completion criterion: (a) no-progress safety — the SAME blocker surviving 3 consecutive full re-reviews with no progress; (b) round cap — round 5 completing with findings still open. Whichever trips first → STOP and escalate to user via AskUserQuestion, never a silent "good enough" PASS. A clean pass ends the loop immediately, even on round 1 — the cap is a ceiling, not a quota.
• Constructive: Focus on implementation-blocking issues, not pedantic details

Be skeptical. Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence percentages (Idea should be more than 80%).

First Principle — Easy to Change

The success metric of every coding decision is future change cost. DRY, SRP, abstraction, design patterns, naming, layering, tests — every technique exists to serve one goal: making the next change cheaper.

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

• Reject "best practices" raising change cost (premature abstraction, speculative generality, leaky indirection, ceremony without payoff).
• Name real enemies in findings: coupling, hidden state, duplicated knowledge, unclear intent, irreversible decisions exposed too early.
• Simpler design easy to change beats sophisticated design that isn't.

Apply this lens before invoking any specific rule, pattern, or checklist below — if a downstream rule raises change cost, this principle wins.

---

Adversarial Review Mindset (NON-NEGOTIABLE)

Default stance: SKEPTIC, not validator. Your job is to find what cannot work, not confirm what looks right.

Confirmation bias trap: After reading a well-structured plan, AI naturally finds reasons to agree. This section exists to break that loop before it produces a rubber-stamp approval.

Adversarial Techniques (apply ALL before concluding)

Techniques 1-6 stress whether the plan can be built (reality, effort, scope, dependencies). Techniques 7-10 stress whether the chosen design is the right one — the decision-quality lens shared with /why-review's rationale review. Apply both groups: a buildable plan built on the wrong decision is still a failed plan.

1. Implementation Reality Check For every phase, ask: "If a developer started implementing this right now, what is the first thing that would break?" Walk through the critical path concretely. Vague phases ("implement the service layer") that can't be traced to specific files/classes fail this check.

2. Assumption Stress Test List the top 3 implicit assumptions embedded in the plan. For each: "What if this assumption is wrong?" A valid plan survives at least 2 of its 3 assumptions being false. Common hidden assumptions: "existing code is in a known state," "no external API changes," "team has this domain knowledge."

3. Effort Reality Check For each phase marked with effort estimates: "Has similar work in this codebase been done in this timeframe? What slowed it down last time?" Plans that underestimate by 2x or more are not valid plans — they are optimistic guesses.

4. Pre-Mortem Assume the plan is implemented exactly as written and the feature is in production after 1 month. Write one concrete failure scenario that is plausible given the current plan. If you can't find one, you haven't looked hard enough.

5. Scope Creep Detector Identify any task in the plan that is NOT directly required to deliver the stated feature. "While we're here, let's also refactor X" is scope creep. Flag it.

6. Dependency Blindspot List 2-3 external dependencies (other services, APIs, data sources) the plan assumes are stable. For each: "What breaks in this plan if this dependency changes or is unavailable?" If a dependency failure is not addressed anywhere in the plan, it is a risk gap.

7. Steel-Man the Rejected Alternative For each design decision where the plan chose approach X over an alternative, argue FOR the rejected alternative as strongly as you can. Would a 10-year domain senior have chosen it? If yes, the plan's dismissal needs stronger proof than "we picked X." A decision that never names what it rejected has not been made — it has been assumed.

8. Why NOT? For every "chose X because Y" in the plan, ask what X sacrifices. Every choice has a cost; a plan that lists only the upsides of its chosen approach is hiding the trade-off, not avoiding it. Demand the named downside.

9. Unseen Alternatives Identify 1-2 viable approaches the plan does NOT mention at all. An alternative absent without exclusion reasoning is weak design coverage, not a settled decision. Name them and ask why they were not considered.

10. Pros/Cons Symmetry Count the chosen approach's stated pros vs cons. Pros outnumbering cons by more than 2:1 signals confirmation bias, not a clean design — demand the missing downsides before accepting the decision.

11. Contrarian Pass Before writing any verdict, generate at least 2 sentences arguing the OPPOSITE conclusion. If you're about to write PASS — argue for NEEDS WORK. If about to write NEEDS WORK — argue for PASS. Then decide which argument is stronger based on evidence.

Forbidden Patterns

• "Structure looks good" → Structure is NOT quality. Can it be implemented?
• "Phases are well-defined" → Presence of phases is NOT correctness. What's in them?
• "Alternatives were considered" → Were they real alternatives or strawmen set up to fail?
• "Risk is managed" → Mitigation of "monitor closely" is NOT a mitigation. What action, by whom, triggered by what?
• "Looks achievable" without tracing the critical path → Not a valid assessment.

Anti-Bias Gate (MANDATORY before finalizing verdict)

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

• run Implementation Reality Check on the highest-risk phase
• identify 3 implicit assumptions and stress-test them
• check effort estimates against codebase complexity
• run pre-mortem (one concrete production failure scenario)
• scan for scope creep (tasks not required for stated feature)
• verify dependency blindspots are addressed
• steel-man at least one rejected design alternative (argue FOR it)
• name at least 1 viable alternative the plan does not mention
• check pros/cons symmetry on the plan's primary design decision

If any check is incomplete → you have NOT completed the adversarial review. Go back.

Why-review relationship: Techniques 7-10 + these gate checks are the rationale lens applied DURING the review pass (does the plan's design hold up?). The separate /why-review --validate-findings gate runs AFTER findings exist (are the findings themselves correct before we fix them?). Both stay — they validate different things and must not be collapsed.

Plan Dimension Thinking Framework

After plan-type detection (Phase 0), evaluate each dimension below using this reasoning pattern:

For each dimension: (1) Understand its role in the plan's domain, (2) Read the plan's claims about it, (3) Derive the actual concerns from first principles — what could go wrong if this dimension is weak? (4) Apply your knowledge of the plan's tech stack to find stack-specific gaps.

Dimension 1: Scope Integrity

Think: Does the plan's scope match the stated goal exactly — not broader, not narrower?

• What's the minimal set of changes needed to deliver the stated goal?
• What does the plan add that's NOT in the goal? → Scope creep.
• What's in the goal that the plan doesn't address? → Scope gap.
• Stress test: "If we skip phase X, does the feature still work?" → If yes, that phase is out of scope.

Dimension 2: Data Flow Correctness

Think: Can I trace how data moves through every phase of this plan?

• Where does data originate? Where does it end up?
• What transforms it in between? Are those transforms described in the plan?
• What happens to data at system boundaries (API, message bus, storage, UI)? Does the plan address each boundary?
• What data states are invalid? Does the plan guard against them?

Dimension 3: Dependency Chain Completeness

Think: Does the plan account for everything its changes affect?

• Every file/module the plan touches: what imports it? what calls it? what depends on its contract?
• If the plan changes an interface/contract, are ALL consumers listed?
• External dependencies (third-party services, shared infra): are they stable? If they break, what's the fallback?
• Run graph trace if graph.db exists — compare plan's file list against downstream impact.

Dimension 4: Failure Mode Coverage

Think: What does the plan say about when things go wrong?

• For each external call, async operation, or state change: what's the error behavior?
• Does the plan include a rollback strategy for irreversible operations?
• What's the partial failure state? (half-migrated, half-deployed, race condition) Is it addressable?
• Is there a monitoring/alerting plan for the new code paths?

Dimension 5: Test Observability

Think: How will a developer know if this plan's implementation is correct?

• Can the stated acceptance criteria be mechanically verified by a test?
• Are there behaviors that are only observable via logs/traces (not unit tests)?
• Which phase introduces the risk? Does a test exist in that phase?
• "Tests pass" is NOT a success criterion — name the specific behaviors being tested.
• Spec-Loop scheduling (test-quality gate). The plan MUST schedule the spec-loop, not just "add tests": (1) every [HARD] §4 rule / §5 invariant gets a universally-quantified property test spec plus a boundary counter-case — not example tests only; (2) changed core logic is gated by a MUTATION-SCORE quality bar (a surviving mutant = a missing invariant ⇒ a killing test owed), NOT a line-coverage % target; (3) a dual-feedback + re-review step exists so each behavior-changing finding enriches BOTH the spec AND the tests and the package is re-reviewed to zero new gaps. FAIL a plan that targets a line-coverage % instead of a mutation-score bar, or that omits property/invariant test specs for its [HARD]/§5 rules.

Dimension 6: Knowledge Prerequisites

Think: Does implementing this plan require knowledge the plan doesn't surface?

• Domain knowledge: Are business rules spelled out, or does the implementer need to already know them?
• System knowledge: Are integration points documented, or does the implementer need tribal knowledge?
• Tooling knowledge: Does the plan assume setup steps that aren't listed?
• If any prerequisite is unstated → the plan is not implementation-ready.

Dimension 7: Estimation Drift

Think: Does the frontmatter estimation still match the finalized plan, or did scope-locking change the cost?

• Pre-completion estimates anchor on rough scope guesses; finalized phases reveal true cost. Re-derive bottom_up_hours = Σ phase_hours from each phase file's locked tasks/TCs and compare to current frontmatter man_days_traditional / story_points.
• Recompute likely_days, risk_margin_pct, min-max range per SYNC:estimation-framework. Did unknowns resolve (margin should drop) or new risks surface (margin should rise)?
• If |delta| > 20% → frontmatter MUST be updated with reestimate_delta_pct: <signed> + 1-line reestimate_reason. Missing update = FAIL.
• If |delta| > 50% → flag SHOULD-RESCOPE in review verdict; the plan must surface the rescope decision to the user before implementation begins.
• Watch for hidden inflation: phases added during planning, TCs not counted in original estimate, integration work discovered late.

Use these dimensions to generate targeted, evidence-backed questions — not generic "add more detail" suggestions.

---

Your mission

Perform automatic self-review of implementation plan — ensure valid, correct, follows best practices; identify anything needing fixes before proceeding.

Key distinction: AI self-review (automatic), NOT user interview like /plan-validate.

Plan Resolution

1. If $ARGUMENTS provided -> Use that path
2. Else check ## Plan Context section -> Use active plan path
3. If no plan found -> Error: "No plan to review. Run /plan first."

Workflow

Phase 0: Detect Plan Type

Before applying any checklist, read plan.md and classify the plan:

Signal in plan	Type	Additional review focus
"fix", "bug", "regression", "defect" in title/description	Bugfix	Behavioral Delta Matrix (MANDATORY), preservation inventory, regression tests
"migrate", "schema", "database", "index"	Data/Schema	Rollback path, zero-downtime strategy, data preservation, migration idempotency
"auth", "permission", "security", "encrypt", "token", "RBAC"	Security	Threat modeling, attack surface, trust boundary changes, sub-agent: security-auditor
"performance", "latency", "cache", "N+1", "throughput"	Performance	Baseline metrics, regression risk, measurement strategy, sub-agent: performance-optimizer
"refactor", "extract", "rename", "restructure"	Refactor	Behavior preservation, blast radius, dangling references
"API", "contract", "endpoint", "consumer", "event"	Contract/Integration	Backward compatibility, consumer impact, versioning strategy
"infra", "CI", "pipeline", "deploy"	Infrastructure/DevOps	Rollback plan, environment parity, secrets handling
None of the above	Feature	Standard checklist, acceptance criteria mapping, YAGNI

If multiple signals match, list all types and apply ALL their focus areas.

Plan type drives:

• Which sub-agent type to use (see "Subagent Type Selection" above)
• Which sections of the Adversarial Review Mindset to emphasize
• Whether Behavioral Delta Matrix is mandatory (bugfix only)

---

Step 1: Read Plan Files

Read the plan directory:

• plan.md - Overview, phases list, frontmatter
• goal.md - Goal Contract (when present): Original Request, Purpose, Success Criteria (required vs optional), Constraints
• phase-*.md - All phase files
• Extract: requirements, implementation steps, file listings, risks

If {plan-dir}/goal.md is missing, resolve plans/goals/{YYMMDD-HHmm}-{slug}/goal.md; if no Goal Contract exists at all, record No active goal — plan reviewed against plan.md requirements only.

Step 2: Evaluate Against Checklist

Validity (Required - all must pass)

#	Check	Presence	Quality Depth
1	Has executive summary — clear 1-2 sentence description	Does a summary section exist?	Is it accurate? Does it scope the work or conceal complexity?
2	Has defined requirements section — explicit requirements listed	Does a requirements section exist?	Are requirements concrete user needs or vague technical goals?
3	Has implementation steps — actionable tasks	Are implementation steps present?	Are steps specific (file names, method names) or vague actions?
4	Has files to create/modify listing — file inventory present	Is a file listing present?	Are file paths real (verified via glob/grep)? Do they follow project conventions?

Correctness (Required - all must pass)

• Granularity Gate — "Detailed & Small Enough" — FAIL if ANY phase fails ANY criterion below. A plan you can't immediately code from is NOT ready.

Decision tree — apply to EACH phase:

Phase too vague? (no file paths, planning verbs, unclear actions)
  → YES → DETAIL IT: add specific file paths, exact method names, concrete actions
  → NO ↓
Phase too big? (>5 files OR >3h effort OR single step is a mini-project)
  → YES → BREAK IT: split into smaller sibling phases until each meets limits
  → NO → PASS this phase

5-Point Criteria (all must pass per phase):

#	Criterion	PASS example	FAIL example
1	Steps name specific files	"Modify {source-root}/auth/login"	"Implement authentication"
2	No planning verbs	"Add validateToken() method"	"Determine the best auth approach"
3	Each step ≤30 min effort	"Add error handler to endpoint"	"Build the entire auth module"
4	Phase ≤5 files AND ≤3h	3 files, 2h	12 files, 8h
5	No unresolved decisions	All approaches decided	"TBD: which library to use"

Planning verbs that trigger FAIL: "research", "determine", "figure out", "decide", "evaluate", "explore", "investigate" — these belong in investigation, not implementation plans.

Action on failure (after Findings Validation Gate passes):

Do not apply these refinements until /why-review --validate-findings returns CLEAN for the current plan-review report.

• Too vague → Refine in-place: expand steps with file paths, method names, concrete actions
• Too big (≤9 files) → Split phase into sibling phases (Phase 2A, 2B, 2C)
• Too big (10+ files) → Create sub-plan: {plan-dir}/sub-plans/phase-{XX}-{name}/plan.md

Worked example: FAILS: "Phase 2: Data Layer — Set up database models, Create repositories, Implement data access patterns. Effort: 4h, Files: ~8" PASSES after split: "Phase 2A: Data Schema (1h, 3 files) — Create {source-root}/models/user-entity, Create {source-root}/models/session-entity, Create {migration-root}/create-users-sessions" + "Phase 2B: Repository Layer (1.5h, 3 files) — Create {source-root}/repositories/user-repository, Create {source-root}/repositories/session-repository, Register in {composition-root}"

• File paths follow project patterns
• No conflicting or duplicate steps
• Dependencies between steps are clear
• Anti-Hallucination & Code-Proof Gate — FAIL if ANY plan claim about existing source code lacks file:line proof.

Claim type	Required proof
File path	File exists (glob/read)
Class/method name	Symbol grep → file:line
Behavior ("X calls Y")	Code evidence file:line
Base class / interface	Inheritance verified (grep/graph)

FAIL triggers: unread file paths, ungrepped method names, "should be"/"probably"/"typically" language about existing code, behaviors assumed from similar projects instead of THIS codebase. Greenfield-only plans (no existing code refs) → PASS.

• New Tech/Lib Gate: If plan introduces new packages/libraries/frameworks not in the project, verify alternatives were evaluated (top 3 compared) and user confirmed the choice. FAIL if new tech is added without evaluation.
• Test spec coverage — Every phase has ## Test Specifications section with TC mappings. "TBD" is valid for TDD-first mode.
• TC-requirement mapping — Every functional requirement maps to ≥1 TC (or explicit "TBD" with rationale)
• Behavior preservation — Behavior-changing phases name expected behavior, unchanged behavior to preserve, and TC/test proof.
• Docs/spec/test sync — Relevant phases include canonical spec/doc/test updates or explicit N/A evidence.
• Artifact freshness — AI-extracted specs/TCs are marked reference-only until accepted; generated mirror sync is included for shared workflow/skill/tooling changes.
• Goal Contract mapping — When an active goal.md exists: every saved required success criterion is covered by ≥1 phase, and each phase's success criteria trace to saved criteria (or are marked supporting work with reason). FAIL if a saved required criterion has no covering phase, or the plan delivers work the Goal Contract never asked for without recorded justification. Skip with No active goal evidence when no Goal Contract exists.

Best Practices (Required - all must pass)

#	Check	Presence	Quality Depth
1	YAGNI — No unnecessary features or over-engineering	Is every planned component traceable to a stated requirement?	Flag anything described as "might be useful" or added for future flexibility without a current requirement.
2	KISS — Simplest viable solution chosen	Is there a stated approach for each major step?	Could any planned abstraction be simpler with the same effect? Are there unnecessary layers, indirections, or framework choices?
3	DRY — No planned duplication of logic	Are there similar patterns described more than once?	Does the plan introduce new patterns when existing ones work? Are there repeated steps that suggest duplication at implementation time?
4	Architecture — Follows project patterns from .claude/docs/	Does the plan reference or align with .claude/docs/ patterns?	Does it follow established patterns or deviate? Any deviations need explicit justification with rationale.

Completeness (Recommended - ≥50% should pass)

#	Check	Presence	Quality Depth
1	Risk assessment present with mitigations — risks identified with responses	Is there a risk section with at least one item?	Are mitigations specific actions (who, when, triggered by what) or vague intentions ("monitor closely")?
2	Testing strategy defined — test approach outlined	Is there a testing section or test references per phase?	Does it cover unit, integration, and edge case paths, or just "write tests"? Is the approach traceable to acceptance criteria?
3	Success criteria per phase — measurable outcomes defined	Does each phase have stated success criteria?	Are criteria measurable? Would failing them trigger a rollback, or are they aspirational targets?
4	Security considerations addressed — security concerns noted	Is there a security section or inline security notes?	Are security concerns specific to this feature's attack surface, or generic boilerplate (e.g., "use HTTPS", "validate inputs")?
5	Graph dependency check — importers of modified files are checked	If .code-graph/graph.db exists: are importers_of queries run for each modified file?	Are ALL importers checked, not just direct callers? Is the graph.db prerequisite explicitly stated? Are missed dependents flagged?

Step 3: Score and Classify

Status	Criteria	Action
PASS	All Required pass, ≥50% Recommended	Proceed to implementation
WARN	All Required pass, <50% Recommended	Proceed with caution, note gaps
FAIL	Any Required check fails	STOP - must fix before proceeding

Step 4: Output Result

## Plan Review Result

**Status:** PASS | WARN | FAIL
**Reviewed:** {plan-path}
**Date:** {current-date}

### Summary

{1-2 sentence summary of plan quality}

### Checks Passed ({X}/{Y})

#### Required ({X}/{Y})

- ✅ Check 1
- ✅ Check 2
- ❌ Check 3 (if failed)

#### Recommended ({X}/{Y})

- ✅ Check 1
- ⚠️ Check 2 (missing)

### Issues Found

- ❌ FAIL: {critical issue requiring fix}
- ⚠️ WARN: {minor issue, can proceed}

### Recommendations

1. {specific fix 1}
2. {specific fix 2}

### Verdict

{PROCEED | REVISE_FIRST | BLOCKED}

Graph-Trace for Plan Coverage

When graph DB is available, verify the plan covers all affected files:

• For each file in the plan's "files to modify" list, run python .claude/scripts/code_graph trace <file> --direction downstream --json
• Flag any downstream file NOT listed in the plan as "potentially missed"
• This catches cross-service impact (MESSAGE_BUS consumers, event handlers) that the plan author may have overlooked

Recursive Fix-and-Review Protocol (CRITICAL)

Protocol: SYNC:double-round-trip-review + SYNC:fresh-context-review + SYNC:review-protocol-injection (all inlined above in this file).

When the review results in FAIL, WARN, or any non-zero findings, plan-review MUST run the Findings Validation Gate before editing any plan file. Only findings validated by /why-review --validate-findings may be fixed. After fixing validated actionable findings, rerun the full plan-review protocol from the first review step over the current plan. Do not spawn a fresh sub-agent just to re-review known findings before fixing them. If the restarted full review uses a sub-agent, it uses the canonical Agent template from SYNC:review-protocol-injection below and re-reads ALL plan files from scratch with ZERO memory of prior fixes.

Findings Validation Gate (MANDATORY before fixing plan findings)

Trigger this gate whenever the plan-review output contains any finding: FAIL, WARN, recommendation requiring a plan edit, missing evidence, unresolved risk, or implementation-blocking ambiguity. Skip this gate only when the completed review pass has zero findings.

1. Finalize the plan-review report with every finding and enough evidence for another reviewer to validate it.
2. Call /why-review --validate-findings against that report in the main review flow before editing plan files.
3. If why-review returns CLEAN, fix only the validated actionable findings at the smallest responsible plan location.
4. If why-review challenges, rejects, or narrows findings, reconcile the plan-review report first, then rerun /why-review --validate-findings before any fix.
5. If a finding is valid but needs product/owner judgment, stop and ask the user instead of editing around the uncertainty.

NEVER edit plan.md or phase-*.md to fix review findings before this gate passes. This gate validates findings; the fresh full plan-review happens only after the validated fix cycle.

When constructing the Agent call prompt for Round N (N≥2):

1. Copy the Agent call shape from the SYNC:review-protocol-injection template verbatim
2. Use subagent_type: "general-purpose" (this is a plan review, not a code review)
3. Embed the full verbatim body of these SYNC blocks (inlined above in this skill file): SYNC:evidence-based-reasoning, SYNC:rationalization-prevention, SYNC:graph-assisted-investigation, SYNC:understand-code-first (omit code-specific protocols like SYNC:bug-detection, SYNC:test-spec-verification which are not applicable to plan files)
4. Set the Task as "Review plan files under {plan-dir}. Validate structural completeness, code-proof anti-hallucination (every file:line claim about existing source code must exist), and adversarial simulation (imagine implementing each phase right now — what fails first?)."
5. Set Target Files as "read plan.md and all phase-*.md files under {plan-dir}"
6. Set report path as plans/reports/plan-review-round{N}-{date}.md

After the sub-agent returns:

1. Read the sub-agent's report
2. Integrate findings as ## Re-Review {N} Findings in the main report — DO NOT filter or override
3. If FAIL, WARN, or any findings remain: run the Findings Validation Gate, fix only validated actionable findings in plan files, then restart the full plan-review protocol from the first review step
4. Repeated blocker cap: if the same blocker repeats across 3 full invocations with no progress, escalate via AskUserQuestion
5. Final verdict must incorporate findings from ALL review passes that actually ran

Flow

┌──────────────────────────────────┐
│  Round 1: Main-session review    │
│  (structural checklist + basic   │
│   code-proof trace)              │
│  Output: PASS / WARN / FAIL      │
└──────────────┬───────────────────┘
               │
        ┌──────▼──────┐
        │ ZERO        │
        │ FINDINGS?   │──YES──→ Proceed to next workflow step
        └──────┬──────┘
               │ NO
        ┌──────▼──────────────────────────────────┐
        │  VALIDATE: Run /why-review              │
        │  --validate-findings on the report.     │
        │  Only validated findings may be fixed.  │
        └──────┬──────────────────────────────────┘
               │
        ┌──────▼──────────────────────────────────┐
        │  FIX: Modify plan files to resolve       │
        │  validated actionable findings           │
        │  (plan.md/phase-*)                       │
        └──────┬──────────────────────────────────┘
               │
        ┌──────▼──────────────────────────────────┐
        │  Round 2+: FULL PLAN RE-REVIEW          │
        │  Re-run the complete plan-review        │
        │  protocol from the first review step.   │
        │  If the protocol uses agents, spawn     │
        │  new agents for that restarted pass.    │
        └──────┬──────────────────────────────────┘
               │
               └──→ Loop until zero findings, repeated-blocker rule, or 5-round cap

Iteration Rules

1. Repeated blocker cap — continue until a complete full review pass has zero findings; if the same blocker repeats across 3 full invocations with no progress, STOP and escalate to user via AskUserQuestion
2. Track round count — log "Plan review Round N (full re-review)" at the start of each cycle
3. Zero findings = exit — proceed only when a complete plan-review pass has no findings. WARN remains a finding unless it is explicitly accepted as non-actionable by the user/owner.
4. Diminishing scope — each round should find FEWER issues. If Round N finds MORE than Round N-1, STOP and escalate
5. Fix scope — fix only why-review-validated actionable findings at the smallest responsible plan location. Do NOT rewrite the plan.
6. Fix approach:
   • Vague steps → expand with specific file paths, concrete actions
   • Missing sections → add them (risks, testing strategy, success criteria)
   • Conflicting steps → resolve conflicts, document rationale
   • Over-engineering → simplify, remove unnecessary complexity
   • Missing TC mappings → add TC references or "TBD" with rationale
7. After each validated fix cycle — rerun the full plan-review protocol from the first review step; when that restarted protocol uses agents, spawn NEW Agent calls and never reuse prior agents
8. No silent fallback — if the same blocker repeats across 3 full invocations with no progress, escalate via AskUserQuestion. NEVER fall back to any prior protocol.

Next Steps

• If PASS with zero findings: Announce "Plan review complete. Proceeding with next workflow step."
• If WARN or other findings remain: Run the Findings Validation Gate; fix only validated actionable findings in plan files, or ask the user to explicitly accept non-actionable risk before proceeding.
• If FAIL: Run the Findings Validation Gate, fix only validated actionable findings in plan files, then rerun the full plan-review protocol recursively.
• If repeated blocker cap is reached: List remaining issues. STOP. Ask user to fix or regenerate plan via AskUserQuestion.

Important Notes

• Be constructive, not pedantic — focus on issues that would cause implementation problems
• WARN is not an automatic exit condition; fix it when actionable, or document explicit non-actionable acceptance before proceeding.
• FAIL remains for genuinely missing required content; lower-severity findings still remain tracked until resolved or explicitly accepted.
• NEVER do a quick review — even "simple" plans had 13 bugs in real testing. Always run the complete declared review protocol; do not stop because of an arbitrary round count.

---

Skill Interconnection (Standalone: MUST ATTENTION ask user via AskUserQuestion. Skip if inside workflow.)

MANDATORY — NO EXCEPTIONS after completing this skill, you MUST use AskUserQuestion to present these options. Do NOT skip because the task seems "simple" or "obvious" — the user decides:

• "Proceed with full workflow (Recommended)" — I'll detect the best workflow to continue from here (plan reviewed). This ensures validation, implementation, testing, and docs steps aren't skipped.
• "/plan-validate" — Interview user to confirm plan assumptions
• "/feature-implement" or "/plan-execute" — If plan is approved and ready for implementation
• "Skip, continue manually" — user decides

[BLOCKING] This is a validation gate. MUST ATTENTION use AskUserQuestion to present review findings and get user confirmation. Completing without asking at least one question is a violation.

[IMPORTANT] Use TaskCreate to break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting — including tasks for each file read. This prevents context loss from long files. For simple tasks, AI must ask user whether to skip.

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

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

OOP & DRY Enforcement: MANDATORY — flag duplicated patterns that should be extracted to a base class, generic, or helper. Classes in the same group (same suffix, same lifecycle, same purpose) must share a common base (even if empty now — enables future shared logic and child overrides). Verify project has code linting/analyzer configured for the stack.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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)

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.

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

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

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

Critical Thinking Mindset — Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination: Never present guess as fact — cite sources for every claim, admit uncertainty freely, self-check output for errors, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence — certainty without evidence root of all hallucination.

Sequential Thinking Protocol — Structured multi-step reasoning for complex/ambiguous work. Use when planning, reviewing, debugging, or refining ideas where one-shot reasoning is unsafe.

Trigger when: complex problem decomposition · adaptive plans needing revision · analysis with course correction · unclear/emerging scope · multi-step solutions · hypothesis-driven debugging · cross-cutting trade-off evaluation.

Format (explicit mode — visible thought trail):

1. Thought N/M: [aspect] — one aspect per thought, state assumptions/uncertainty
2. Thought N/M [REVISION of Thought K]: ... — when prior reasoning invalidated; state Original / Why revised / Impact
3. Thought N/M [BRANCH A from Thought K]: ... — explore alternative; converge with decision rationale
4. Thought N/M [HYPOTHESIS]: ... then [VERIFICATION]: ... — test before acting
5. Thought N/N [FINAL] — only when verified, all critical aspects addressed, confidence >80%

Mandatory closers: Confidence % stated · Assumptions listed · Open questions surfaced · Next action concrete.

Stop conditions: confidence <80% on any critical decision → escalate 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).

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.

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. — why: long context drifts from the file; the file is ground truth
7. NEVER invent new patterns when existing ones work — match exactly or document deviation. — why: divergent patterns fragment the codebase and slow every future reader

BLOCKED until: - [ ] Read target files - [ ] Grep 3+ patterns - [ ] Graph trace (if graph.db exists) - [ ] Assumptions verified with evidence

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.

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.

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.

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.