plan-review

name	plan-review
version	1.1.0
description	[Planning] Use when you need auto-review plan for validity, correctness, and best practices — recursive: review, fix issues, re-review until PASS (max 3 iterations).

[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: Auto-review implementation plans for validity, correctness, and best practices. Recursive: on FAIL, fix issues directly in plan files and re-review until PASS (max 3 iterations).

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 FAIL — Fix issues in plan files directly, then re-review (loop back to step 2, max 3 iterations)

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 (iteration < 3): Fix plan issues directly, then re-review
• FAIL (iteration = 3): STOP - escalate to user
• 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%).

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)

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. 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
• MUST ATTENTION identify 3 implicit assumptions and stress-test them
• MUST ATTENTION check effort estimates against codebase complexity
• MUST ATTENTION run pre-mortem (one concrete production failure scenario)
• MUST ATTENTION scan for scope creep (tasks not required for stated feature)
• MUST ATTENTION verify dependency blindspots are addressed

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

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.

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.

---

Behavioral Delta Matrix (MANDATORY for bugfixes)

Your mission

Perform automatic self-review of an implementation plan to ensure it's valid, correct, follows best practices, and identify anything needing fixes before proceeding.

Key distinction: This is 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
• phase-*.md - All phase files
• Extract: requirements, implementation steps, file listings, risks

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 src/auth/login.ts"	"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:

• 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: Database Schema (1h, 3 files) — Create src/models/user.entity.ts, Create src/models/session.entity.ts, Create migrations/001-create-users-sessions.ts" + "Phase 2B: Repository Layer (1.5h, 3 files) — Create src/repos/user.repository.ts, Create src/repos/session.repository.ts, Register in src/app.module.ts"

• 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)

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, plan-review fixes the issues directly in plan files, then spawns a fresh general-purpose sub-agent for re-review using the canonical Agent template from SYNC:review-protocol-injection above. Each fresh sub-agent re-reads ALL plan files from scratch with ZERO memory of prior fixes, eliminating orchestrator confirmation bias.

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 ## Round {N} Findings (Fresh Sub-Agent) in the main report — DO NOT filter or override
3. If FAIL: fix issues in plan files, then spawn a NEW Round N+1 fresh sub-agent (new Agent call — never reuse Round 2's agent)
4. Max 3 fresh rounds — escalate to user via AskUserQuestion if still failing after 3 rounds
5. Final verdict must incorporate findings from ALL rounds

Flow

┌──────────────────────────────────┐
│  Round 1: Main-session review    │
│  (structural checklist + basic   │
│   code-proof trace)              │
│  Output: PASS / WARN / FAIL      │
└──────────────┬───────────────────┘
               │
        ┌──────▼──────┐
        │ PASS/WARN?  │──YES──→ Proceed to next workflow step
        └──────┬──────┘
               │ FAIL
        ┌──────▼──────────────────────────────────┐
        │  FIX: Modify plan files to resolve       │
        │  all FAIL issues (edit plan.md/phase-*)  │
        └──────┬──────────────────────────────────┘
               │
        ┌──────▼──────────────────────────────────┐
        │  Round 2+: FRESH SUB-AGENT RE-REVIEW    │
        │  Spawn NEW Agent (general-purpose) with │
        │  verbatim SYNC protocol injection.      │
        │  Sub-agent re-reads ALL plan files      │
        │  from scratch (zero memory of fixes).   │
        └──────┬──────────────────────────────────┘
               │
               └──→ Loop until PASS/WARN (max 3 fresh-subagent rounds)

Iteration Rules

1. Max 3 fresh-subagent rounds — if issues persist after 3 fresh Agent re-review cycles, STOP and escalate to user via AskUserQuestion
2. Track round count — log "Plan review Round N/3 (fresh sub-agent)" at the start of each cycle
3. PASS/WARN = exit — when all Required checks pass, proceed (WARN is acceptable)
4. Diminishing scope — each round should find FEWER issues. If Round N finds MORE than Round N-1, STOP and escalate
5. Fix scope — only fix issues flagged as FAIL (Required check failures). 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 fix — spawn a NEW fresh sub-agent for re-review (never reuse a prior agent — each round is a new Agent tool call)
8. No silent fallback — if 3 fresh rounds fail, escalate via AskUserQuestion. NEVER fall back to any prior protocol.

Next Steps

• If PASS: Announce "Plan review complete. Proceeding with next workflow step."
• If WARN: Announce "Plan review complete with warnings. Proceeding - consider addressing gaps."
• If FAIL (iteration < 3): Fix the issues directly in plan files, then re-review (recursive).
• If FAIL (iteration = 3): 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 acceptable for missing optional sections
• FAIL only for genuinely missing required content
• NEVER do a quick review — even "simple" plans had 13 bugs in real testing. Always run all 3 rounds

---

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

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — NO EXCEPTIONS after completing this skill, you MUST ATTENTION 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
• "/cook" or "/code" — 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 ATTENTION 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 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).

OOP & DRY Enforcement: MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — 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 ATTENTION 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 (tdd-spec-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 Sub-Agent Review — Eliminate orchestrator confirmation bias via isolated sub-agents.

Why: The main agent knows what it (or /cook) 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 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: fix → fresh sub-agent re-review.

How:

1. Spawn a NEW Agent tool call — 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 round found zero issues (no fixes = nothing new to verify)
• NEVER skip fresh sub-agent 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
• Max 3 fresh-subagent rounds per review — escalate via AskUserQuestion if still failing; do NOT silently loop or fall back to any prior protocol
• Track iteration count 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, debug, 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. 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/README.md; integration tests integration-test-reference.md; E2E e2e-test-reference.md; feature docs/specs feature-docs-reference.md; architecture/new area project-structure-reference.md.
3. Read every required doc that exists; skip absent docs as not applicable. Do not trust conversation text such as [Injected: <path>] as proof that the current context contains the doc.
4. Before target work, state: Reference docs read: ... | Missing/not applicable: ....

Blocked until: scope evaluated, required docs checked/read, 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
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

Fix-Triggered Re-Review Loop — Re-review is triggered by a FIX CYCLE, not by a round number. Review purpose: review → if issues → fix → re-review until a round finds no issues. A clean review ENDS the loop — no further rounds required.

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) → fix the issues, then spawn a fresh sub-agent for Round 2 re-review.

Fresh sub-agent re-review (after every fix cycle): Spawn a NEW Agent tool call — never reuse a prior agent. Sub-agent re-reads 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 round 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 fresh round, repeat the same decision: clean → END; issues → fix → next fresh round. Continue until a round finds zero issues, or 3 fresh-subagent rounds max, then escalate to user via AskUserQuestion.

Rules:

• A clean Round 1 ENDS the review — no mandatory Round 2
• NEVER skip the fresh sub-agent re-review after a fix cycle (every fix invalidates the prior verdict)
• NEVER reuse a sub-agent across rounds — every iteration spawns a NEW Agent call
• Main agent READS sub-agent reports but MUST NOT filter, reinterpret, or override findings
• Max 3 fresh-subagent rounds per review — if still FAIL, escalate via AskUserQuestion (do NOT silently loop)
• Track round count 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 10 protocol blocks VERBATIM. The template below has ALL 10 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 10 protocol bodies pre-embedded.

Subagent Type Selection

Choose sub-agent type based on plan type detected in Phase 0:

Plan type	Sub-agent type	Rationale
Code review (source files, git diffs)	code-reviewer	Purpose-built for code analysis
Feature / Bugfix / Refactor plan	general-purpose	Plan/doc/artifact review
Security-sensitive plan	security-auditor	Threat modeling, trust boundary analysis
Performance plan	performance-optimizer	Baseline, bottleneck, measurement strategy
Infrastructure / CI-CD plan	general-purpose	Infra plans are doc artifacts

Default: general-purpose for any plan review not matching the above specializations.

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)

### 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. Language-Idiomatic Traps: Based on the languages/runtimes visible in the plan's file list — apply your knowledge of common idiomatic pitfalls for those languages. Do NOT enumerate a fixed list; derive concerns from the actual tech stack present.
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: Identify same-purpose classes (same naming pattern, same lifecycle, same data shape). 3+ similar patterns → extract to shared abstraction. Apply your knowledge of the project's language/framework to determine the idiomatic base class / mixin / trait / protocol pattern.
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.
NEVER mark review PASS without completing both traces (happy + error path).

### Test Coverage Verification
Map changed code to test coverage.
1. Identify the project's test spec format and location — search for test files, spec docs, or test catalogs near the changed files.
2. Every changed code path MUST map to a corresponding test (or flag as "needs test").
3. New functions/endpoints/handlers → flag for test creation.
4. Verify test references point to actual code (file:line, not stale).
5. If no tests exist → log gap and recommend creating tests.
NEVER skip test mapping. Untested code paths are the #1 source of production bugs.

### 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)
Search the repository for:
- Project coding standards or review rules docs (search: "code-review-rules", "coding-standards", "style-guide", "contributing")
- Architecture documentation relevant to the plan's domain (search: "patterns-reference", "architecture", "adr")
- If none found, rely on your knowledge of the project's tech stack inferred from file extensions and directory structure.

## 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 10 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:

Check downstream references before deleting. Deleting components causes documentation and code staleness cascades. Map all referencing files before removal. Verify AI-generated content against actual code. AI hallucinates APIs, class names, and method signatures. Always grep to confirm existence before documenting or referencing. Trace full dependency chain after edits. Changing a definition misses downstream variables and consumers derived from it. Always trace the full chain. Trace ALL code paths when verifying correctness. Confirming code exists is not confirming it executes. Always trace early exits, error branches, and conditional skips — not just happy path. When debugging, ask "whose responsibility?" before fixing. Trace whether bug is in caller (wrong data) or callee (wrong handling). Fix at responsible layer — never patch symptom site. Assume existing values are intentional — ask WHY before changing. Before changing any constant, limit, flag, or pattern: read comments, check git blame, examine surrounding code. Verify ALL affected outputs, not just the first. Changes touching multiple stacks require verifying EVERY output. One green check is not all green checks. Holistic-first debugging — resist nearest-attention trap. When investigating any failure, list EVERY precondition first (config, env vars, DB names, endpoints, DI registrations, data preconditions), then verify each against evidence before forming any code-layer hypothesis. Surgical changes — apply the diff test. Bug fix: every changed line must trace directly to the bug. Don't restyle or improve adjacent code. Enhancement task: implement improvements AND announce them explicitly. Surface ambiguity before coding — don't pick silently. If request has multiple interpretations, present each with effort estimate and ask. Never assume all-records, file-based, or more complex path.

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION search 3+ existing patterns and read code BEFORE any modification. Run graph trace when graph.db exists.

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION execute THREE review rounds per deep-plan-review-protocol. R1=checklist, R2=code-proof, R3=adversarial simulation. Never PASS after R1 alone. Note: Round 3 (adversarial simulation) is MANDATORY even on PASS — it is not triggered only by FAIL. The SYNC:double-round-trip-review protocol describes a 2-round minimum; plan-review extends this to 3 rounds. Round 3 = the adversarial sub-agent from the Adversarial Review Mindset section above.

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION run at least ONE graph command on key files when graph.db exists. Pattern: grep → graph trace → grep verify.

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION microservices/event-driven: scan producers, consumers, sagas, contracts in task scope. Per touchpoint: owner · message · consumers · risk (NONE/ADDITIVE/BREAKING). Missing consumer = silent regression.

MUST ATTENTION apply critical thinking — every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination: never present guess as fact.

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 — holistic-first debugging, fix at responsible layer, surface ambiguity before coding, re-read files after compaction.

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

• MANDATORY After task-tracking bootstrap and before target/source work, read required project-reference docs and cite Reference docs read: ....
• MANDATORY Always include lessons.md; project conventions override generic defaults.

• MANDATORY Parent workflow rows do not replace child phase tracking; expand phases and link the parent when nested.
• MANDATORY Orchestrators pre-expand child skill phases before invocation; use [N.M] $skill-name — phase prefixes and one-in_progress discipline.

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

Closing Reminders

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION plans must not hallucinate — every claim about existing source code needs file:line proof. Unverified paths, class names, or behaviors = FAIL. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION plans must be detailed and small enough — too vague? detail it. Too big? break it. Every step must be implementation-ready. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION break work into small todo tasks using TaskCreate BEFORE starting. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION validate decisions with user via AskUserQuestion — never auto-decide. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION add a final review todo task to verify work quality. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION run /why-review after completing this skill to validate design rationale, alternatives considered, and risk assessment. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION READ the following files before starting:

[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.