workflow-review-changes

name	workflow-review-changes
version	4.0.0
description	[Workflow] Use when activating the Review Current Changes workflow for review, fix, and re-review recursively until all issues resolved.

[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: Review all uncommitted changes, fix issues found, then spawn a fresh code-reviewer sub-agent for unbiased re-review — repeat until clean.

Sequence: /review-changes → [parallel batch] /review-architecture + /review-domain-entities (if entity changes) + /performance + /integration-test-review + /security → /code-simplifier → /code-review → /integration-test-verify → /plan → /plan-validate → /why-review → /cook → fresh sub-agent re-review gate → /docs-update → /watzup → /workflow-end

Key Rules:

• After /cook applies fixes → spawn fresh code-reviewer sub-agent per SYNC:fresh-context-review → integrate findings → fix → spawn NEW sub-agent → repeat
• Main-agent re-review (with knowledge of its own fixes) is NOT sufficient — orchestrator-level confirmation bias
• PASS = a fresh sub-agent round finds ZERO Critical/High issues WITHOUT needing any fixes
• Max 3 fresh-subagent rounds per conversation (tracked in conversation context)

---

Mandatory Task Creation (ZERO TOLERANCE)

Create one task per row in the table below — source of truth is workflows.json → review-changes.sequence (currently 17 steps; verify count matches if you suspect drift):

#	Task Subject	Conditional?
1	[Workflow] /review-changes — Surface detection + dimensional review tasks (BE/FE/SCSS/Synthesis/General) + integration test sync check + multilingual translation sync check	No
2	[Workflow] /review-architecture — Architecture compliance review ⚡ PARALLEL BATCH	No — run as sub-agent in parallel with steps 3/4/5/6
3	[Workflow] /review-domain-entities — DDD quality review of changed domain entity files ⚡ PARALLEL BATCH	Yes — skip if no domain entity files (Domain/, Entities/, ValueObjects/) in git diff
4	[Workflow] /performance — Performance analysis ⚡ PARALLEL BATCH	No — run as sub-agent in parallel with steps 2/3/5/6
5	[Workflow] /integration-test-review — Integration test quality review ⚡ PARALLEL BATCH	No — run as sub-agent in parallel with steps 2/3/4/6
6	[Workflow] /security — Security vulnerability review ⚡ PARALLEL BATCH	No — run as sub-agent in parallel with steps 2/3/4/5
7	[Workflow] /code-simplifier — Simplify and refine code	No — runs AFTER parallel batch (modifies code; batch reviews pre-simplification state)
8	[Workflow] /code-review — Comprehensive code review	No — runs AFTER code-simplifier (reviews simplified code)
9	[Workflow] /integration-test-verify — Verify integration tests pass	No — runs AFTER code-simplifier (verifies simplified code)
10	[Workflow] /plan — Consolidate review findings into fix plan	Skip if all reviews PASS
11	[Workflow] /plan-validate — Critical questions on fix plan	Skip if all reviews PASS
12	[Workflow] /why-review — Sanity-check that proposed fixes are warranted	Skip if all reviews PASS
13	[Workflow] /cook — Implement fixes from plan	Skip if all reviews PASS
14	[Workflow] Fresh sub-agent re-review gate — spawn new Agent per SYNC:fresh-context-review	Skip if all reviews PASS
15	[Workflow] /docs-update — Update impacted documentation	Always run — /docs-update triages internally (fast-exits when only config/tool files changed)
16	[Workflow] /watzup — Wrap up and summarize	No
17	[Workflow] /workflow-end — End workflow	No

NEVER consolidate, rename, or omit steps. If reviews PASS, mark conditional tasks completed with note "Skipped — all reviews passed".

Integration Test Sync: The /review-changes skill (task #1) includes a mandatory integration test coverage check for changed command/query/handler files. When gaps are found, the skill uses AskUserQuestion to surface them — NOT purely advisory. The user must explicitly choose to run /integration-test or confirm tests are already written. No silent skip.

Translation Sync: The /review-changes skill (task #1) includes a mandatory multilingual UI translation-sync check. When UI text changes in multilingual projects without locale updates, the skill uses AskUserQuestion for an explicit user decision — NOT purely advisory.

Docs Update: /docs-update MUST run after EVERY review — it performs Phase 0 triage and fast-exits automatically when only non-business-code files changed (.claude/**, config). When business code is in the changeset, it WILL invoke: Phase 2 /feature-docs (business feature doc update), Phase 2.5 /spec-discovery update (engineering spec sync — if docs/specs/ bundle exists; note: dirs may be app buckets or flat system folders — probe ls docs/specs/{name}/ to find a specific service), Phase 3 /tdd-spec (test spec sync), Phase 4 /tdd-spec [direction=sync] (dashboard sync). Never skip based on review PASS status alone.

---

Parallel Review Phase (Steps 2–6) — EXECUTION PROTOCOL

Note: Steps 2–6 are ARCHITECTURAL/SECURITY reviewers (architecture compliance, DDD entities, performance, integration test quality, security vulnerabilities). They are separate from the DIMENSIONAL review (BE/FE/SCSS/Synthesis) that runs inside Step 1 (/review-changes). Both operate in parallel — Steps 2–6 as explicit workflow parallel sub-agents; dimensional agents inside Step 1 as its internal parallel batch. No overlap in responsibility.

Steps 2–6 (/review-architecture, /review-domain-entities, /performance, /integration-test-review, /security) are read-only and independent — no shared mutable state, no ordering dependency between them. Run them as parallel sub-agents to preserve main session context budget and reduce wall-clock time.

Why parallel?

Each reviewer reads the git diff independently and analyzes one concern. Sequential execution would burn 50K+ tokens in the main session absorbing all five inline. The stepMeta in workflows.json marks all five as executionMode: subagent, contextBudget: high — the workflow-step-tracker.cjs hook outputs 💡 [SUB-AGENT RECOMMENDED] as each step becomes active.

Execution: spawn in one message

After step 1 (/review-changes) completes, spawn all active parallel reviewers in a single response with multiple Agent tool calls:

Agent(review-architecture, subagent_type="code-reviewer", ...)    ← all in ONE message
Agent(review-domain-entities, subagent_type="code-reviewer", ...)  ← only if entity files in diff
Agent(performance, subagent_type="code-reviewer", ...)
Agent(integration-test-review, subagent_type="code-reviewer", ...)
Agent(security, subagent_type="code-reviewer", ...)

Each sub-agent receives:

• The baseline summary from step 1 (what changed, integration test gaps found)
• Instruction to write report to plans/reports/{skill}-{date}-{slug}.md
• Full review protocols per SYNC:review-protocol-injection (verbatim in prompt — never by file reference)

State advancement after parallel batch

Agent tool calls do NOT trigger workflow-step-tracker.cjs (hook fires only on Skill completions). After all parallel sub-agents return:

1. TaskUpdate step 2 → completed
2. TaskUpdate step 3 → completed (or "Skipped — no entity files" if conditional)
3. TaskUpdate step 4 → completed
4. TaskUpdate step 5 → completed
5. TaskUpdate step 6 → completed
6. Read all sub-agent report files; synthesize findings into a combined review summary
7. Proceed to step 7 (/code-simplifier) sequentially

Consolidation before /code-simplifier

Before running /code-simplifier, synthesize all parallel sub-agent findings:

• List all Critical/High findings across all 5 reports
• Note any conflicts between reviewers (same file, different concerns)
• Pass this summary to /code-simplifier as context so simplification is informed by review findings

Surface Analysis from Step 1:

Step 1 (/review-changes) now emits a surface analysis summary in its report:

## Change Surface Analysis
BE files: {N}
FE-Logic files: {M}
SCSS files: {P}
Review Mode: [DIMENSIONAL | BE-ONLY | FE-ONLY | FE-SPLIT | TOOLING]

Include this surface analysis in the consolidation summary passed to /code-simplifier. This lets the simplifier focus attention on the dominant surface without re-analyzing the diff.

Dimensional agent reports (if mode = DIMENSIONAL):

• plans/reports/review-be-{date}.md — BE findings
• plans/reports/review-fe-logic-{date}.md — FE-Logic findings
• plans/reports/review-scss-{date}.md — SCSS findings (if spawned)
• plans/reports/synthesis-review-{date}.md — Cross-boundary findings

All four feed into the consolidation summary alongside steps 2–5 architectural findings.

What runs sequentially (never parallelize)

Step	Why sequential
review-changes (#1)	Establishes baseline — must run first
code-simplifier (#7)	Modifies code — batch reviews pre-simplification state
code-review (#8)	Must review simplified code (after #7)
integration-test-verify (#9)	Must run tests on simplified code (after #7)
plan → cook (#10–14)	Ordered fix cycle — each step depends on previous

---

Fresh Sub-Agent Re-Review Protocol (CRITICAL)

Decision Logic

Reviews (steps 1-7) → ALL PASS? AND integration-test-verify (step 9) passes?
  YES → skip steps 10-14, proceed to /docs-update → /watzup → /workflow-end → DONE
  NO  → /plan → /plan-validate → /why-review → /cook → FRESH SUB-AGENT RE-REVIEW GATE (step 14)
Note: /integration-test-verify (step 9) always runs — it is NOT conditional on review outcome.

Fresh Sub-Agent Re-Review Gate (Step 13) — After /cook Applies Fixes

1. DO NOT attempt main-agent re-review (main agent has confirmation bias from its own fixes)
2. DO spawn a NEW Agent tool call with subagent_type: "code-reviewer" using the canonical template from SYNC:review-protocol-injection in .claude/skills/shared/sync-inline-versions.md. Inject all 9 required SYNC protocol blocks verbatim (SYNC:evidence-based-reasoning, SYNC:bug-detection, SYNC:design-patterns-quality, SYNC:logic-and-intention-review, SYNC:test-spec-verification, SYNC:fix-layer-accountability, SYNC:rationalization-prevention, SYNC:graph-assisted-investigation, SYNC:understand-code-first). Target files = "run git diff to see all uncommitted changes". Report path = plans/reports/workflow-review-changes-round{N}-{date}.md.
3. DO increment fresh-subagent round count in conversation context
4. DO read the sub-agent's report and integrate findings — MUST NOT filter, reinterpret, or override
5. IF fresh sub-agent returns PASS (zero Critical/High) → proceed through /docs-update → /watzup → /workflow-end → DONE
6. IF fresh sub-agent returns FAIL and round count < 3 → run /plan + /cook again, then spawn a NEW Agent call (never reuse the previous sub-agent) for Round N+1
7. IF round count >= 3 → STOP and escalate via AskUserQuestion — do NOT silently loop or fall back to any prior protocol

Iteration Tracking (Conversation-Scoped)

Iteration count is tracked in conversation context only — no persistent files. Each new conversation starts fresh at round 0.

Rules:

• Max 3 fresh-subagent rounds — if fresh-subagent round count >= 3 and issues persist, STOP and escalate via AskUserQuestion (manual review required)
• PASS = done — proceed to commit
• Issue count increasing — if round N finds MORE issues than round N-1, STOP and escalate via AskUserQuestion

Flow Diagram

Main Session: Review → Issues? → Plan → Fix (/cook) → Spawn fresh sub-agent
                  │                                          │
                  │ (no issues)                              ↓
                  ↓                             Fresh sub-agent re-reads ALL
            /docs-update                        changed files from scratch with
            /watzup                             verbatim protocol injection
            /workflow-end                                    │
            DONE ✓                                           ↓
                                                  Report → PASS? → DONE ✓
                                                         → FAIL? → Fix → spawn
                                                                 NEW sub-agent
                                                                 (max 3 rounds)

---

IMPORTANT MANDATORY Steps: /review-changes -> /review-architecture -> /review-domain-entities -> /performance -> /integration-test-review -> /security -> /code-simplifier -> /code-review -> /integration-test-verify -> /plan -> /why-review -> /plan-validate -> /why-review -> /cook -> /workflow-review-changes -> /docs-update -> /watzup -> /workflow-end

[BLOCKING SEQUENCING] Step 1 /review-changes is SEQUENTIAL and MUST run FIRST — it produces the baseline (surface analysis + integration-test/translation gap detection) consumed by all downstream reviewers. Steps 2–6 (/review-architecture, /review-domain-entities, /performance, /integration-test-review, /security) form a PARALLEL BATCH — spawn all in ONE message via Agent tool calls (subagent_type: "code-reviewer"). Step 7 /code-simplifier is SEQUENTIAL and waits until ALL parallel batch sub-agents return + consolidation summary is built. Steps 8+ proceed sequentially as listed.

IMPORTANT MANDATORY Steps: /review-changes -> /review-architecture -> /review-domain-entities -> /performance -> /integration-test-review -> /security -> /code-simplifier -> /code-review -> /integration-test-verify -> /plan -> /why-review -> /plan-validate -> /why-review -> /cook -> /workflow-review-changes -> /docs-update -> /watzup -> /workflow-end

[BLOCKING SEQUENCING] Step 1 /review-changes is SEQUENTIAL and MUST run FIRST — it produces the baseline (surface analysis + integration-test/translation gap detection) consumed by all downstream reviewers. Steps 2–6 (/review-architecture, /review-domain-entities, /performance, /integration-test-review, /security) form a PARALLEL BATCH — spawn all in ONE message via Agent tool calls (subagent_type: "code-reviewer"). Step 7 /code-simplifier is SEQUENTIAL and waits until ALL parallel batch sub-agents return + consolidation summary is built. Steps 8+ proceed sequentially as listed.

[WORKFLOW-IN-WORKFLOW: MUST RUN AS SUB-AGENT when inside another workflow] This skill activates the full review-changes workflow (16 steps). When invoked as a step inside a parent workflow (e.g., feature, bugfix, refactor), it MUST execute via Agent tool (subagent_type: "code-reviewer") — NEVER as an inline Skill tool call. Inline execution absorbs 16 steps of context into the parent session.

Sub-agent prompt must include: current git diff, feature/task description, instruction to return SYNC:subagent-return-contract summary and write full findings to plans/reports/.

Standalone invocation (not inside a workflow): inline execution is fine — no sub-agent required.

[BLOCKING] Each step MUST ATTENTION invoke its Skill tool — marking a task completed without skill invocation is a workflow violation. NEVER batch-complete validation gates. [FRESH SUB-AGENT RE-REVIEW] After fixes in /cook, spawn a fresh sub-agent per SYNC:fresh-context-review for unbiased re-review. Max 3 fresh rounds per conversation. [ITERATION CAP] Max 3 fresh-subagent re-review rounds per conversation (tracked in conversation context, not persistent files). PASS = zero Critical/High without fixes.

Activate the review-changes workflow. Run /workflow-start review-changes with the user's prompt as context.

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)

Incremental Result Persistence — MANDATORY for all sub-agents or heavy inline steps processing >3 files.

1. Before starting: Create report file plans/reports/{skill}-{date}-{slug}.md
2. After each file/section reviewed: Append findings to report immediately — never hold in memory
3. Return to main agent: Summary only (per SYNC:subagent-return-contract) with Full report: path
4. Main agent: Reads report file only when resolving specific blockers

Why: Context cutoff mid-execution loses ALL in-memory findings. Each disk write survives compaction. Partial results are better than no results.

Report naming: plans/reports/{skill-name}-{YYMMDD}-{HHmm}-{slug}.md

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.

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. Business terminology in Application/Domain layers. Comments and naming in Application/Domain must stay business-oriented and technical-agnostic; avoid implementation terms (say background job, not Hangfire background job).

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.

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.

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

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION break work into small todo tasks using TaskCreate BEFORE starting — create ALL 16 tasks immediately IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION after fixes in /cook, spawn a NEW code-reviewer sub-agent via the Agent tool per SYNC:fresh-context-review — NEVER re-review with the main agent IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION track fresh-subagent round count in conversation context (session-scoped, no persistent files) — max 3 rounds, escalate via AskUserQuestion if exceeded IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION PASS means a fresh sub-agent round finds ZERO Critical/High issues WITHOUT needing fixes — only then are changes ready to commit IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION skip steps 9-13 when all reviews PASS and tests pass (no fixes needed) IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION each step MUST invoke its Skill tool — marking completed without invocation is a violation IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION treat multilingual UI translation gaps as mandatory user-decision gates — no silent pass when locale updates are missing

[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.