sre-review

name	sre-review
version	1.4.0
description	[Code Quality] Use when reviewing service-layer and API changes for production readiness.

[BLOCKING] Execute skill steps in declared order. NEVER skip, reorder, or merge steps without explicit user approval. [BLOCKING] Before each step or sub-skill call, update task tracking: set in_progress when step starts, set completed when step ends. [BLOCKING] Every completed/skipped step MUST include brief evidence or explicit skip reason. [BLOCKING] If Task tools are unavailable, create and maintain an equivalent step-by-step plan tracker with the same status transitions.

Quick Summary

Goal: Assess production readiness of service-layer and API changes — score observability, reliability, data integrity, and database performance.

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

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

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

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

Your Mission

$ARGUMENTS

Review Mindset (NON-NEGOTIABLE)

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

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

Scope Resolution

1. Arguments specify files/directories → review those
2. Else → review uncommitted changes (git diff --name-only)
3. Focus: *.cs in src/Services/, API controllers, service classes
4. Skip: frontend files, test files, documentation, config-only changes

Production Readiness Scoring

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

Observability (max 8)

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

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

Reliability (max 8)

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

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

Data Integrity (max 4)

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

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

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

Database Performance (max 4)

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

[IMPORTANT] Database Performance Protocol (MANDATORY):

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

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

Scoring

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

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

Structural Impact Analysis (RECOMMENDED if graph.db exists)

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

Round 2: Fresh Sub-Agent Review (MANDATORY)

When Round 1 finds issues, Round 2 MUST spawn a fresh sub-agent with ZERO Round 1 memory after fixing — NEVER re-review in the same session. A clean Round 1 ENDS the review.

Spawn via canonical template in SYNC:review-protocol-injection:

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

Round 2 focus (what Round 1 typically misses):

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

Final verdict = Round 1 + Round 2 combined.

Output Format

## SRE Review Results

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

### Observability ({X}/8)

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

### Reliability ({X}/8)

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

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

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

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

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

### Gaps to Address

- {specific actionable item}

### Recommendation

{Proceed / Address gaps first}

Important Notes

• Advisory (final VERDICT only) — score/verdict inform team but don't block commits; MANDATORY process steps (graph gate, Round 2, Database Performance Protocol) are NEVER advisory
• Evidence-based — cite file:line for every score; unprovable score = 0
• Proportional — small bug fixes need less rigor than new endpoints (applies to VERDICT interpretation, NOT to skipping MANDATORY steps)
• Check framework patterns — background job base handlers, base controller error handling

---

Workflow Recommendation

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

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

---

Next Steps

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — NO EXCEPTIONS — after completing, MUST ATTENTION use AskUserQuestion:

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

---

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

• docs/project-reference/domain-entities-reference.md — Domain entity catalog, relationships, cross-service sync (read when task involves business entities/models) (read directly when relevant; do not rely on hook-injected conversation text)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

### Actions Taken

- [file changed] [what changed]

### Blockers (if any)

- [blocker description]

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

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

Nested Task Expansion Contract — For workflow-step invocation, the [Workflow] ... row is only a parent container; the child skill still creates visible phase tasks.

1. Call TaskList first. If a matching active parent workflow row exists, set nested=true and record parentTaskId; otherwise run standalone.
2. Create one task per declared phase before phase work. When nested, prefix subjects [N.M] $skill-name — phase.
3. When nested, link the parent with TaskUpdate(parentTaskId, addBlockedBy: [childIds]).
4. Orchestrators must pre-expand a child skill's phase list and link the workflow row before invoking that child skill or sub-agent.
5. Mark exactly one child in_progress before work and completed immediately after evidence is written.
6. Complete the parent only after all child tasks are completed or explicitly cancelled with reason.

Blocked until: TaskList done, child phases created, parent linked when nested, first child marked in_progress.

Project Reference Docs Gate — Run after task-tracking bootstrap and before target/source file reads, grep, edits, or analysis. Project docs override generic framework assumptions.

1. Identify scope: file types, domain area, and operation.
2. 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.

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

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

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

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

Evidence-Based Reasoning — Speculation is FORBIDDEN. Every claim needs proof.

1. Cite file:line, grep results, or framework docs for EVERY claim
2. Declare confidence: >80% act freely, 60-80% verify first, <60% DO NOT recommend
3. Cross-service validation required for architectural changes
4. "I don't have enough evidence" is valid and expected output

BLOCKED until: - [ ] Evidence file path (file:line) - [ ] Grep search performed - [ ] 3+ similar patterns found - [ ] Confidence level stated

Forbidden without proof: "obviously", "I think", "should be", "probably", "this is because" If incomplete → output: "Insufficient evidence. Verified: [...]. Not verified: [...]."

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.

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)

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

• 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)

### 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: JS: === vs ==, typeof null. C#: async void, missing using, LINQ deferred execution.
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.
NEVER mark review PASS without completing both traces (happy + error path).

### Test Spec Verification
Map changed code to test specifications.
1. From changed files → find TC-{FEAT}-{NNN} in docs/business-features/{Service}/detailed-features/{Feature}.md Section 15.
2. Every changed code path MUST map to a corresponding TC (or flag as "needs TC").
3. New functions/endpoints/handlers → flag for test spec creation.
4. Verify TC evidence fields point to actual code (file:line, not stale references).
5. Auth changes → TC-{FEAT}-02x exist? Data changes → TC-{FEAT}-01x exist?
6. If no specs exist → log gap and recommend /tdd-spec.
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)
- 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 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.

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION execute the review loop: review → if issues → fix → fresh sub-agent re-review. A round that finds zero issues ENDS the review.

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

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

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

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 break work into small todo tasks via TaskCreate BEFORE starting
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION when issues found, Round 2 MUST spawn fresh sub-agent with zero prior context. Clean Round 1 ENDS the review.
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION every score requires file:line evidence — unprovable score = 0
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION ALL list queries MUST use pagination; ALL filter fields MUST have indexes
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION run at least ONE graph command on key files before concluding (when graph.db exists)
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION validate decisions with user via AskUserQuestion — never auto-decide

Anti-Rationalization:

Evasion	Rebuttal
"Round 1 was thorough, skip Round 2"	NEVER — fresh sub-agent catches what you rationalized away
"Small change, skip graph gate"	HARD-GATE applies regardless of size — run one command
"No explicit paging but it looks fine"	Score 0 until proven with file:line. Assume worst without evidence
"Already checked observability"	Show file:line proof. No proof = no check
"VERDICT is advisory so skip MANDATORY steps"	Advisory = VERDICT only. Graph gate, Round 2, DB Protocol are NEVER advisory