integration-test

name	integration-test
description	[Testing] Use when you need to generate or review integration tests.

Codex compatibility note:

• Invoke repository skills with $skill-name in Codex; this mirrored copy rewrites legacy Claude /skill-name references.
• Prefer the plan-hard skill for planning guidance in this Codex mirror.
• Task tracker mandate: BEFORE executing any workflow or skill step, create/update task tracking for all steps and keep it synchronized as progress changes.
• User-question prompts mean to ask the user directly in Codex.
• Ignore Claude-specific mode-switch instructions when they appear.
• Strict execution contract: when a user explicitly invokes a skill, execute that skill protocol as written.
• Subagent authorization: when a skill is user-invoked or AI-detected and its protocol requires subagents, that skill activation authorizes use of the required spawn_agent subagent(s) for that task.
• Do not skip, reorder, or merge protocol steps unless the user explicitly approves the deviation first.
• For workflow skills, execute each listed child-skill step explicitly and report step-by-step evidence.
• If a required step/tool cannot run in this environment, stop and ask the user before adapting.

Codex Project-Reference Loading (No Hooks)

Codex does not receive Claude hook-based doc injection. When coding, planning, debugging, testing, or reviewing, open project docs explicitly using this routing.

Always read:

• docs/project-config.json (project-specific paths, commands, modules, and workflow/test settings)
• docs/project-reference/docs-index-reference.md (routes to the full docs/project-reference/* catalog)
• docs/project-reference/lessons.md (always-on guardrails and anti-patterns)

Situation-based docs:

• Backend/CQRS/API/domain/entity changes: backend-patterns-reference.md, domain-entities-reference.md, project-structure-reference.md
• Frontend/UI/styling/design-system: frontend-patterns-reference.md, scss-styling-guide.md, design-system/README.md
• Spec/test-case planning or TC mapping: feature-docs-reference.md
• Integration test implementation/review: integration-test-reference.md
• E2E test implementation/review: e2e-test-reference.md
• Code review/audit work: code-review-rules.md plus domain docs above based on changed files

Do not read all docs blindly. Start from docs-index-reference.md, then open only relevant files for the task.

[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: Generate/review integration test files using real DI (no mocks). 5 modes: (1) from-changes · (2) from-prompt · (3) review · (4) diagnose · (5) verify-traceability.

Workflow: Detect mode → Find targets → Gather context → Execute → Report

Key Rules:

• NEVER write smoke-only tests — read handler/entity/event source first, assert specific field values
• ALWAYS wrap ALL DB assertions in async polling — no exceptions, not just async handlers
• NEVER create invalid test state by direct repository writes; use real use-case paths (commands, queries, production consumers/messages) or valid seeded fixtures
• MUST ATTENTION search existing patterns FIRST before generating any test
• MUST ATTENTION READ references/integration-test-patterns.md before writing
• Organize by domain feature NEVER by CQRS type — NEVER create Queries/ or Commands/ folders
• Every test method MUST have TC annotation — auto-create in Section 15 if missing
• Minimum 3 tests per command
• NEVER mark done until the relevant suite passes 3 consecutive $integration-test-verify runs without DB reset

---

Prerequisites — MUST ATTENTION READ before executing:

references/integration-test-patterns.md — canonical test templates: collection attributes, base class usage, TC annotation format, async polling helpers, unique name generators, DB assertion patterns. Read before writing ANY test.

docs/specs/ — existing TCs by module: read to verify test-to-spec traceability and get TC IDs before generating. (read directly when relevant; do not rely on hook-injected conversation text)

• references/integration-test-patterns.md — canonical test templates (MUST READ before writing any test)
• docs/project-reference/domain-entities-reference.md — domain entity catalog, relationships, cross-service sync (read directly when relevant; do not rely on hook-injected conversation text)
• docs/specs/ — existing TCs by module (read before generating tests; verify test-to-spec traceability)

CRITICAL: Search existing patterns FIRST. Before generating ANY test, grep existing integration test files in same service. Read ≥1 existing test file to match conventions (namespace, usings, collection name, base class, helper usage). NEVER generate tests contradicting established codebase patterns.

CRITICAL: NO Smoke/Fake/Useless Tests. Every test MUST execute actual commands/handlers and verify DB data state. NO DI-resolution-only tests. NO exception-check-only tests. Before writing assertions: READ handler/entity/event source — understand WHAT fields change, WHAT entities created/updated/deleted, WHAT event handlers fire. Assert specific field values.

CRITICAL: Async Polling for ALL Data Assertions. ALWAYS wrap data state assertions in async polling/retry helper. DEFAULT for ALL data verification — not just async handlers. Data persistence may be delayed by event handlers, message bus consumers, background jobs, DB write latency. Rule: If asserting data in DB → use async polling. No exceptions.

For test specifications and test case generation from PBIs, use $tdd-spec skill instead.

External Memory: Complex/lengthy work → write findings to plans/reports/ — prevents context loss.

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

Project Pattern Discovery

Before implementation, search codebase for patterns:

• Search: IntegrationTest, TestFixture, TestUserContext, IntegrationTestBase
• Look for: existing test projects, collection definitions, service-specific base classes

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION plan task to READ integration-test-reference.md for project-specific patterns and code examples. If not found, continue with search-based discovery.

Workflow:

1. Detect mode — See Mode Detection below
2. Find targets — Identify test/command/query files
3. Gather context — Read relevant files for detected mode
4. Execute — Generate, review, diagnose, or verify
5. Report — Build check (generate), quality report (review), root cause (diagnose)

Key Rules:

• MUST ATTENTION search existing test patterns in same service BEFORE generating
• MUST ATTENTION READ references/integration-test-patterns.md before writing any test
• Organize by domain feature, NEVER by type — command + query tests for same domain → same folder (e.g., Orders/OrderCommandIntegrationTests.*). NEVER create Queries/ or Commands/ folder.
• Use project's unique name generator for ALL string test data
• Use project's entity assertion helpers for DB verification with async polling
• CRITICAL MUST ATTENTION: Test setup MUST mirror real workflows. Do not create or edit domain data through repositories when a command/query/seeder path exists; invalid shortcut data is a test bug.
• CRITICAL MUST ATTENTION: ALWAYS wrap ALL DB assertions in async polling/retry — DEFAULT for ALL assertions, not just async handlers. If asserting data in DB → use async polling. No exceptions.
• CRITICAL MUST ATTENTION: Before writing assertions, READ handler/entity/event source. Understand WHAT fields change, WHAT entities created/updated/deleted, WHAT event handlers fire. Smoke-only FORBIDDEN unless side effect truly unobservable.
• CRITICAL MUST ATTENTION: Verification requires 3 consecutive successful runs of the relevant integration suite/project without resetting data. One green run proves only the current run, not repeatability.
• Minimum 3 test methods: happy path, validation failure, DB state check
• Authorization tests: Multiple user contexts — authorized succeeds AND unauthorized rejected
• Every test method MUST have // TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN}: Description comment + test-spec annotation — before method, outside body
• No TC in feature docs → auto-create in Section 15 before generating test
• For comprehensive spec generation before coding → $tdd-spec first

Mandatory Task Ordering (MUST ATTENTION FOLLOW)

ALWAYS create and execute tasks in this exact order:

1. FIRST: Verify/upsert test specs in feature docs

   • Read feature doc Section 15 (docs/business-features/{App}/detailed-features/) for target domain
   • Read test-specs doc (docs/specs/{App}/README.md) if exists
   • For each test case: verify matching TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN} exists
   • TC MISSING → create entry in Section 15 with Priority, Status, GIVEN/WHEN/THEN, Evidence
   • TC INCORRECT → update to reflect current behavior
   • Output: TC mapping list (TC code → test method name)

2. MIDDLE: Implement integration tests

   • Generate test files using TC mapping from task 1
   • Each test method gets TC annotation before it (outside method body):

     // TC-OM-001: Create valid order — happy path
     [Trait("TestSpec", "TC-OM-001")]
     [Fact]
     public async Task CreateOrder_WhenValidData_ShouldCreateSuccessfully()
     

   • Follow existing patterns from project's test base classes

3. FINAL: Verify bidirectional traceability

   • Grep test-spec annotations in test project
   • Grep all TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN} in feature doc Section 15 / specs doc
   • Verify: every test method → doc TC, every doc TC → test method
   • Flag orphans: tests without doc TCs, doc TCs without matching tests
   • Update IntegrationTest field in feature doc TCs with {File}::{MethodName}

Module Abbreviation Registry

Module	Abbreviation	Test Folder
Order Management	OM	Orders/
Inventory	INV	Inventory/
User Profiles	UP	UserProfiles/
Notification Management	NM	Notifications/
Report Generation	RG	Reports/
Feedback	FB	Feedback/
Background Jobs	BJ	—

TC Code Numbering Rules

Creating new TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN} codes:

1. Check feature doc first — docs/business-features/{App}/detailed-features/ has existing codes. New codes must not collide.
2. Decade-based grouping — e.g., OM: 001-004 (CRUD), 011-013 (validation), 021-023 (permissions), 031-033 (events). Find next free decade.
3. Unavoidable collision → renumber in doc only. Keep test-spec annotation unchanged; add renumbering note in doc.
4. Feature doc = canonical registry. Test-spec annotation = traceability only, not numbering source.

Integration Test Generation

Mode Detection

Args = command/query name (e.g., "$integration-test CreateOrderCommand")
  → FROM-PROMPT mode: generate tests for the specified command/query

No args (e.g., "$integration-test")
  → FROM-CHANGES mode: detect changed command/query files from git

Args = "review" (e.g., "$integration-test review Orders")
  → REVIEW mode: audit existing test quality, find flaky patterns, check best practices

Args = "diagnose" (e.g., "$integration-test diagnose OrderCommandIntegrationTests")
  → DIAGNOSE mode: analyze why tests fail — determine test bug vs code bug

Args = "verify" (e.g., "$integration-test verify {Service}")
  → VERIFY-TRACEABILITY mode: check test code matches specs and feature docs

Step 1: Find Targets

From-Changes Mode (default)

Run via Bash tool:

git diff --name-only; git diff --cached --name-only

Filter for command/query files using project naming conventions (e.g., *Command.*, *Query.*). Path patterns from docs/project-config.json → modules or backendServices. Extract service from path:

Path pattern	Service	Test project
Per docs/project-config.json service path pattern	{Service}	{Service}.IntegrationTests (or project equivalent)

Search codebase for existing *.IntegrationTests.* projects to find correct mapping.

If no test project exists: inform user "No integration test project for {service}. See CLAUDE.md Integration Testing section to create one."

If test file already exists: ask user overwrite or skip.

From-Prompt Mode

User specifies command/query name. Use Grep tool (NOT bash grep):

Grep pattern="class {CommandName}" path="." glob="*.cs"

Step 2: Gather Context

For each target, read in parallel:

1. Command/query file — extract: class name, result type, DTO properties, entity type
2. Existing test files in same service — Glob {Service}.IntegrationTests/**/*IntegrationTests.*, read ≥1 for conventions (collection name, trait, namespace, usings, base class)
3. Service integration test base class — grep: class.*ServiceIntegrationTestBase
4. references/integration-test-patterns.md — canonical templates (adapt {Service} placeholders)

Step 2b: Look Up TC Codes

For each target domain, read:

• docs/business-features/{App}/detailed-features/ Section 15 (primary source)
• docs/specs/{App}/README.md (secondary reference)

Build mapping: test case description → TC code (e.g., "create valid order" → TC-OM-001).

• No TC exists → CREATE IT in Section 15 before generating test. NOT optional.
• TC outdated/incorrect → UPDATE IT first.
• Section 15 missing → run $tdd-spec first.

Step 3: Generate Test File

File path: {project-test-dir}/{Service}.IntegrationTests/{Domain}/{CommandName}IntegrationTests{ext} (adapt path/extension per docs/project-config.json → integrationTestVerify.testProjectPattern)

Folder = domain feature. {Domain} = business domain (Orders, Inventory, Notifications, UserProfiles), NOT CQRS type. Command and query tests for same domain live in same folder.

Structure (C#/xUnit — adapt to your framework):

#region
using FluentAssertions;
// ... service-specific usings (copy from existing tests)
#endregion

namespace {Service}.IntegrationTests.{Domain};

[Collection({Service}IntegrationTestCollection.Name)]
[Trait("Category", "Command")]  // or "Query"
public class {CommandName}IntegrationTests : {Service}ServiceIntegrationTestBase
{
    // Minimum 3 tests: happy path, validation failure, DB state verification
}

Test method naming: {CommandName}_When{Condition}_Should{Expectation}

Required patterns per command type:

Command type	Required tests
Save/Create	Happy path + validation failure + DB state
Update	Create-then-update + verify updated fields in DB
Delete	Create-then-delete + AssertEntityDeletedAsync
Query	Filter returns results + pagination + empty result

Step 4: Verify

Build test project via project's build tool (see $integration-test-verify for config-driven build).

MUST ATTENTION verify ALL of the following:

• Test collection/group attribute present with correct collection name
• Test category annotation present
• All string test data uses project's unique name generator
• User context created via project's user context factory
• DB assertions use project's entity assertion helpers with async polling
• No mocks — real DI only
• Every test method has // TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN}: Description comment + test-spec annotation

Example Files to Study

Search codebase for existing integration test files:

find . -name "*IntegrationTests.*" -type f
find . -name "*IntegrationTestBase.*" -type f
find . -name "*IntegrationTestFixture.*" -type f

Pattern	Shows
{Service}.IntegrationTests/{Domain}/*CommandIntegrationTests.*	Create + update + validation
{Service}.IntegrationTests/{Domain}/*QueryIntegrationTests.*	Query with create-then-query
{Service}.IntegrationTests/{Domain}/Delete*IntegrationTests.*	Delete + cascade
{Service}.IntegrationTests/{Service}ServiceIntegrationTestBase.*	Service base class pattern

How to Use for Each Case

Case: Generate tests from existing test specs (feature docs Section 15)

$integration-test CreateOrderCommand

→ Reads Section 15 TCs, generates test file with TC annotations

Case: Generate tests from git changes (default)

$integration-test

→ Detects changed command/query files, checks Section 15 for matching TCs, generates tests

Case: Generate tests after $tdd-spec created new TCs

$tdd-spec → $integration-test

→ tdd-spec writes TCs to Section 15, then integration-test generates tests from those TCs

Case: Review existing tests for quality

$integration-test review Orders

→ Audits test quality, finds flaky patterns, checks best practices

Case: Diagnose test failures

$integration-test diagnose OrderCommandIntegrationTests

→ Analyzes failures, determines test bug vs code bug

Case: Verify test-spec traceability

$integration-test verify {Service}

→ Checks test code matches specs and feature docs bidirectionally

---

REVIEW Mode — Test Quality Audit

Mode = REVIEW: audit existing integration tests for quality, flaky patterns, best practices.

Sub-Agent Routing

Input type	Sub-agent	Why
Test file quality audit	integration-tester	Purpose-built for spec generation, TC traceability, and test patterns — catches integration-specific issues code-reviewer misses
Security-sensitive test data (PII, auth fixtures)	security-auditor	Detects PII leakage in test fixtures

Sub-Agent Type Override

MANDATORY: Integration test REVIEW mode spawns integration-tester sub-agent (agent_type: "integration-tester"), NOT code-reviewer. Rationale: integration-tester specializes in test spec generation, TC traceability, CQRS test patterns, WaitUntilAsync correctness, and microservices integration context — areas code-reviewer does not cover at depth.

Fresh Eyes Protocol: Run Round 1 inline. If findings are LOW confidence or contradictory → spawn fresh integration-tester sub-agent (zero memory of Round 1) for Round 2. Main agent reads report, NEVER filters findings. Max 2 rounds, then escalate.

Review Workflow

1. Find test files — Glob {Service}.IntegrationTests/{Domain}/**/*IntegrationTests.*
2. Read each test file — analyze for quality issues (persist findings after each file per SYNC:incremental-persistence)
3. Generate quality report — categorized findings with severity
4. Round 2 (if low confidence): Spawn fresh sub-agent with report path — NEVER re-examine with main context

Review Dimensions

Dimension 1: Reliability — Think: What causes intermittent failures?

• MUST ATTENTION flag missing async polling — DB assertions after async handlers without WaitUntilAsync() or equiv → WILL flake
• MUST ATTENTION flag missing retry for eventual consistency — message bus / event handler / background job state without polling wrapper
• MUST ATTENTION flag hardcoded delays — Thread.Sleep(), Task.Delay() instead of condition-based polling
• MUST ATTENTION flag race conditions — tests modifying shared state without isolation (same entity ID, same user context)
• MUST ATTENTION flag non-unique test data — hardcoded strings/IDs instead of unique generators
• MUST ATTENTION flag time-dependent assertions — DateTime.Now without time abstraction

Dimension 2: Assertion Value — Think: Does the test actually verify anything?

• MUST ATTENTION flag DI-resolution-only tests — smoke tests that just resolve services → HIGH severity
• MUST ATTENTION flag exception-check-only tests — exception.Should().BeNull() alone → HIGH severity
• MUST ATTENTION verify test reads handler/entity/event source and asserts specific field values
• MUST ATTENTION verify minimum 3 tests per command (happy path, validation failure, DB state)

Dimension 3: Conventions — Think: Does test follow project patterns?

• MUST ATTENTION verify collection/group attribute — correct collection name for shared fixture
• MUST ATTENTION verify category trait — [Trait("Category", "Command")] or equiv
• MUST ATTENTION verify TC annotation — every test method has TC code comment + test spec trait
• MUST ATTENTION verify no mocks — real DI only
• MUST ATTENTION verify unique test data — all string data uses unique generators
• MUST ATTENTION verify user context — via factory, not hardcoded
• MUST ATTENTION verify DB assertions — uses entity assertion helpers, not raw DB queries

Dimension 4: Code Quality — Think: Maintainability and isolation?

• MUST ATTENTION verify method naming — {Action}_When{Condition}_Should{Expectation}
• MUST ATTENTION verify Arrange-Act-Assert — clear separation
• MUST ATTENTION flag logic in tests — conditionals, loops, complex setup in test methods
• MUST ATTENTION verify test independence — each test runs in isolation

Review Report Format

# Integration Test Quality Report — {Domain}

## Summary

- Tests scanned: {N}
- Issues found: {N} (HIGH: {n}, MEDIUM: {n}, LOW: {n})
- Overall quality: {GOOD|NEEDS_WORK|CRITICAL}

## HIGH Severity Issues (Flaky Risk)

| Test         | Issue                                            | Fix                                    |
| ------------ | ------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------- |
| {MethodName} | DB assertion without polling after async handler | Wrap in project's async polling helper |

## MEDIUM Severity Issues (Best Practice)

| Test | Issue | Fix |
| ---- | ----- | --- |

## LOW Severity Issues (Style)

| Test | Issue | Fix |
| ---- | ----- | --- |

## Recommendations

1. {Prioritized fix suggestions}

---

DIAGNOSE Mode — Test Failure Root Cause Analysis

Mode = DIAGNOSE: analyze failing tests to determine test bug vs application code bug.

Diagnose Workflow

1. Identify failing tests — User provides test class name or run test suite to collect failures
2. Read test code — understand what test expects
3. Read application code — trace the command/query handler path
4. Compare expected vs actual — determine root cause
5. Classify — Test bug vs code bug vs infrastructure issue
6. Report — Root cause + recommended fix

Root Cause Decision Tree

Test fails
├── Compilation error?
│   ├── Missing type/method → Code changed, test not updated → TEST BUG
│   └── Wrong import/namespace → TEST BUG
├── Timeout/hang?
│   ├── Missing async/await → TEST BUG
│   ├── Deadlock in handler → CODE BUG
│   └── Infrastructure down → INFRA ISSUE
├── Assertion failure?
│   ├── Expected value wrong?
│   │   ├── Test hardcoded old behavior → TEST BUG
│   │   └── Business logic changed → CODE BUG (if unintended) or TEST BUG (if intended change)
│   ├── Null/empty result?
│   │   ├── Entity not found → Check if create step succeeded → TEST BUG (setup) or CODE BUG (handler)
│   │   └── Query returns empty → Check filters/predicates → CODE BUG
│   ├── Intermittent (passes sometimes)?
│   │   ├── Async assertion without polling → TEST BUG (add async polling/retry)
│   │   ├── Non-unique test data collision → TEST BUG (use unique name generator)
│   │   └── Race condition in handler → CODE BUG
│   └── Wrong count/order?
│       ├── Test data leak from other tests → TEST BUG (isolation)
│       └── Logic error in query → CODE BUG
├── Validation error (expected success)?
│   ├── Test sends invalid data → TEST BUG
│   └── Validation rule too strict → CODE BUG
└── Exception thrown?
    ├── Known exception type in handler → CODE BUG
    └── DI/config error → INFRA ISSUE

Diagnose Report Format

# Test Failure Diagnosis — {TestClass}

## Failing Tests

| Test Method | Error Type        | Root Cause    | Classification              |
| ----------- | ----------------- | ------------- | --------------------------- |
| {Method}    | {AssertionFailed} | {Description} | TEST BUG / CODE BUG / INFRA |

## Detailed Analysis

### {MethodName}

**Error:** {error message}
**Expected:** {what test expected}
**Actual:** {what happened}
**Root Cause:** {explanation with code evidence}
**Classification:** TEST BUG | CODE BUG | INFRA ISSUE
**Evidence:** `{file}:{line}` — {what the code does}
**Recommended Fix:** {specific fix with code location}

## Summary

- Test bugs: {N} — fix in test code
- Code bugs: {N} — fix in application code
- Infra issues: {N} — fix in configuration/environment

---

VERIFY-TRACEABILITY Mode — Test ↔ Spec ↔ Feature Doc Verification

Mode = VERIFY: bidirectional traceability check between test code, test specs, feature docs.

Verify Workflow

1. Collect test methods — Grep for test spec annotations in test project
2. Collect doc TCs — Read feature doc Section 15 for all TC entries
3. Build 3-way matrix — Test code ↔ specs/ ↔ feature doc Section 15
4. Identify mismatches — Orphans, stale references, behavior drift
5. Classify mismatches — Which source is correct?
6. Report — Traceability matrix + recommended fixes

Mismatch Classification

Scenario	Likely Correct Source	Action
Test passes, spec describes different behavior	Test (reflects current code)	Update spec to match test
Test fails, spec describes expected behavior	Spec (test is stale)	Update test to match spec
Test exists, no spec	Test (spec was never written)	Create spec from test
Spec exists, no test	Spec (test was never written)	Generate test from spec
Test and spec agree, but code behaves differently	Spec (code has regression)	Fix code or update spec+test

Verification Requirements

MUST ATTENTION verify ALL of the following:

• Every test method has matching TC in feature doc Section 15
• Every TC in Section 15 has matching test method (or marked Status: Untested)
• TC descriptions in docs match what test actually validates
• Evidence file paths in TCs point to current (not stale) code locations
• Test annotations match TC IDs (no typos, no orphaned IDs)
• Priority levels in docs match test categorization
• docs/specs/ dashboard is in sync with feature doc Section 15

Verify Report Format

# Traceability Report — {Service}

## Summary

- TCs in feature docs: {N}
- Test methods with TC annotations: {N}
- Fully traced (both directions): {N}
- Orphaned tests (no matching TC): {N}
- Orphaned TCs (no matching test): {N}
- Mismatched behavior: {N}

## Traceability Matrix

| TC ID     | Feature Doc? | Test Code? | Dashboard? | Status       |
| --------- | ------------ | ---------- | ---------- | ------------ |
| TC-OM-001 | ✅           | ✅         | ✅         | Traced       |
| TC-OM-005 | ✅           | ❌         | ✅         | Missing test |
| TC-OM-010 | ❌           | ✅         | ❌         | Missing spec |

## Orphaned Tests (no matching TC in docs)

| Test File | Method   | Annotation | Action                   |
| --------- | -------- | ---------- | ------------------------ |
| {file}    | {method} | TC-OM-010  | Create TC in feature doc |

## Orphaned TCs (no matching test)

| TC ID     | Doc Location | Priority | Action                              |
| --------- | ------------ | -------- | ----------------------------------- |
| TC-OM-005 | Section 15   | P0       | Generate test via $integration-test |

## Behavior Mismatches

| TC ID | Doc Says | Test Does | Correct Source | Action |
| ----- | -------- | --------- | -------------- | ------ |

## Recommendations

1. {Prioritized actions}

---

Test Data Setup Guidelines

Pattern	When to Use	Example
Per-test inline	Simple tests, unique data	var order = new CreateOrderCommand { Name = UniqueName() }
Factory methods	Repeated entity creation	TestDataFactory.CreateValidOrder()
Builder pattern	Complex entities with many fields	new OrderBuilder().WithStatus(Active).WithItems(3).Build()
Shared fixture	Reference data needed by all tests	CollectionFixture.SeedReferenceData()

Rules:

• Every test creates own data — no shared mutable state between tests
• Unique identifiers for ALL string data (search test utilities for unique name/data generator helper)
• Factory methods return valid entities by default — tests override only what they test
• Cross-entity dependencies: create parent first, then child (e.g., User → Order)
• Feature requires reference/lookup data → set up in collection fixture or per-test preconditions

---

Workflow Recommendation

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — NO EXCEPTIONS: NOT in workflow? a direct user question — do NOT decide complexity yourself. User decides:

1. test-to-integration workflow (Recommended) — scout → integration-test → integration-test-review → integration-test-verify → test → docs-update → watzup → workflow-end
2. $integration-test directly — standalone

---

Test Execution & Failure Diagnosis (MANDATORY)

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION: After generating/modifying integration tests, MUST:

1. Run tests: $integration-test-verify (reads quickRunCommand from docs/project-config.json)
2. If tests fail: Diagnose root cause — (a) wrong test setup/assertions → fix test, or (b) service bug → report as finding
3. NEVER mark done until tests pass. Unrun tests have zero value.
4. Iterate: Fix → rerun → verify until all pass or failures confirmed as service bugs

Next Steps

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — NO EXCEPTIONS after completing, use a direct user question to present:

• "$integration-test-verify (Recommended)" — Run integration tests to verify they pass
• "$workflow-review-changes" — Review all changes before committing
• "Skip, continue manually" — user decides

Related Skills

Skill	Relationship	When to Call
$tdd-spec	Producer — TCs in feature doc Section 15 are the source for test generation	Must run tdd-spec before integration-test (CREATE or UPDATE mode). TCs must exist before generating tests.
$tdd-spec-review	Upstream reviewer — validates TC quality before test generation	Run before integration-test to ensure TCs have real assertion value
$tdd-spec [direction=sync]	Dashboard — syncs QA dashboard after TCs are linked to test files	Run after integration-test to update IntegrationTest: fields in dashboard
$feature-docs	TC host — Section 15 of feature doc is where TCs live	If feature doc is missing or Section 15 is empty → run $feature-docs first
$spec-discovery	Upstream spec — engineering spec is source of truth for what tests should assert	If tests diverge from spec → check spec-discovery output for correct behavior
$integration-test-review	Reviewer — 6-gate quality audit of generated tests	Always call after generating integration tests
$integration-test-verify	Runner — executes tests and reports pass/fail	Always call after integration-test-review clears
$docs-update	Orchestrator — calls tdd-spec sync (Phase 4) with test traceability	Run for full doc sync after integration test files updated

Standalone Chain

When called outside a workflow, follow this chain to complete the integration test authoring cycle.

integration-test (you are here)
  │
  ├─ PREREQUISITE: TCs must exist in feature doc Section 15
  │    [REQUIRED] Verify: docs/business-features/{Module}/README.md Section 15 has TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN} entries
  │    If empty → run $tdd-spec [CREATE mode] first
  │
  ├─ [REQUIRED] → $integration-test-review
  │     6-gate quality audit: assertion value, data state, repeatability, domain logic, traceability, three-way sync.
  │     Never skip — Gate 6 (three-way sync) is the only place where spec/code/test conflicts surface.
  │
  ├─ [REQUIRED] → $integration-test-verify
  │     Runs tests and reports pass/fail counts. Never mark complete without real runner output.
  │
  ├─ [REQUIRED] → $tdd-spec [direction=sync]
  │     Updates QA dashboard with IntegrationTest: file::method traceability links.
  │
  ├─ [RECOMMENDED] → $docs-update
  │     Updates feature doc evidence fields and version history if test coverage changed materially.
  │
  └─ [RECOMMENDED] → $tdd-spec-review
        Re-run if integration-test-review (Gate 6) flagged TC issues requiring TC edits.

### Mode-Specific Chains

| Mode | Pre-step | Post-step |
|------|---------|-----------|
| from-changes | verify TCs updated (run $tdd-spec UPDATE first) | $integration-test-review → /verify → /sync |
| from-prompt | confirm TC exists for target feature | $integration-test-review → /verify → /sync |
| review | N/A (read-only) | report findings → $tdd-spec UPDATE if TCs need fixes |
| diagnose | run $test to see failures first | fix identified issue → re-run $integration-test-verify |
| verify-traceability | N/A (read-only) | if orphaned TCs: $tdd-spec UPDATE → $integration-test [from-prompt] |

[IMPORTANT] task tracking — break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting. NEVER skip task creation.

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.

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.

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

Graph Impact Analysis — When .code-graph/graph.db exists, run blast-radius --json to detect ALL files affected by changes (7 edge types: CALLS, MESSAGE_BUS, API_ENDPOINT, TRIGGERS_EVENT, PRODUCES_EVENT, TRIGGERS_COMMAND_EVENT, INHERITS). Compute gap: impacted_files - changed_files = potentially stale files. Risk: <5 Low, 5-20 Medium, >20 High. Use trace --direction downstream for deep chains on high-impact files.

Infinitely Repeatable Tests — Tests MUST run N times without failure. Like manual QC — run 100 times, each run adds data. Verification is only PASS after the relevant suite/project passes 3 consecutive runs without DB reset.

1. Unique data per run: Use project's unique ID generator for ALL entity IDs. NEVER hardcode IDs.
2. Additive only: Tests create data, never delete/reset. Prior runs MUST NOT interfere.
3. No schema rollback dependency: Tests work with current schema only. Never rely on rollback.
4. Idempotent seeders: Fixture-level seeders use create-if-missing (check existence before insert). Test-level data uses unique IDs per execution.
5. No cleanup required: No teardown, no DB reset between runs. Isolation by unique seed data, not cleanup.
6. Unique names/codes: Entities requiring unique names/codes — append unique suffix via project's ID generator.

Red Flag Stop Conditions — STOP and escalate via ask the user directly when:

1. Confidence drops below 60% on any critical decision
2. Changes affect >20 files
3. Cross-service boundary crossed
4. Security-sensitive code (auth, crypto, PII)
5. Breaking change detected (interface, API contract, DB schema)
6. Test coverage would decrease
7. Approach requires technology/pattern not in project

NEVER proceed past a red flag without explicit user approval.

Rationalization Prevention — AI skips steps via these evasions. Recognize and reject:

Evasion	Rebuttal
"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 task tracking. 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.

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.

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

Sub-Agent Selection — Full routing contract: .claude/skills/shared/sub-agent-selection-guide.md Rule: NEVER use code-reviewer for specialized domains (architecture, security, performance, DB, E2E, integration-test, git).

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 the current task list 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: the current task list 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.

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION run graph trace when graph.db exists. Grep 3+ patterns, cite file:line.

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION run blast-radius when graph.db exists. Flag impacted files NOT in changeset as potentially stale.

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION STOP after 3 failed fix attempts. Report all attempts, ask user before continuing.

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION follow ALL steps regardless of perceived simplicity. "Too simple to plan" is an evasion, not a reason.

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 NEVER write smoke-only tests — read handler/entity/event source, assert specific field values
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION ALWAYS use async polling for ALL DB assertions — no exceptions
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION task tracking — break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION a direct user question — validate decisions with user. NEVER auto-decide.
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION READ references/integration-test-patterns.md BEFORE writing any test
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION NEVER create Queries/ or Commands/ folders — organize by domain feature
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION NEVER generate tests without TC annotation — auto-create in Section 15 if missing
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION NEVER mark done until tests pass via $integration-test-verify
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION search 3+ existing patterns, cite file:line before modifying anything

Anti-Rationalization:

Evasion	Rebuttal
"Test is simple, skip TC lookup"	TC traceability = test value. Skip = untraceable test.
"Async polling not needed here"	ALL DB assertions need polling. Handler type irrelevant.
"Already searched patterns"	Show file:line evidence. No proof = no search.
"Smoke test is fine for now"	Smoke-only FORBIDDEN. Assert specific field values.
"Repo setup is faster"	Direct repository data hacks create invalid state. Use real use-case paths or valid seeded fixtures.
"One green run is enough"	Verification requires 3 consecutive passing runs without DB reset.
"REVIEW: one pass is enough"	Low confidence → spawn fresh sub-agent. Never declare PASS after Round 1.
"Skip task creation, it's obvious"	task tracking is non-negotiable. Tracking prevents context loss.

---

Hookless Prompt Protocol Mirror (Auto-Synced)

Source: .claude/hooks/lib/prompt-injections.cjs + .claude/.ck.json

[WORKFLOW-EXECUTION-PROTOCOL] [BLOCKING] Workflow Execution Protocol — MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST CRITICAL. Do not skip for any reason.

1. DETECT: Match prompt against workflow catalog
2. ANALYZE: Find best-match workflow AND evaluate if a custom step combination would fit better
3. ASK (REQUIRED FORMAT): Use a direct user question with this structure:
   • Question: "Which workflow do you want to activate?"
   • Option 1: "Activate [BestMatch Workflow] (Recommended)"
   • Option 2: "Activate custom workflow: [step1 → step2 → ...]" (include one-line rationale)
4. ACTIVATE (if confirmed): Call $workflow-start <workflowId> for standard; sequence custom steps manually
5. CREATE TASKS: task tracking for ALL workflow steps
6. EXECUTE: Follow each step in sequence [CRITICAL-THINKING-MINDSET] Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination principle: 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. AI Attention principle (Primacy-Recency): Put the 3 most critical rules at both top and bottom of long prompts/protocols so instruction adherence survives long context windows.

Learned Lessons

Lessons Learned

[CRITICAL] Hard-won project debugging/architecture rules. MUST ATTENTION apply BEFORE forming hypothesis or writing code.

Quick Summary

Goal: Prevent recurrence of known failure patterns — debugging, architecture, naming, AI orchestration, environment.

Top Rules (apply always):

• MUST ATTENTION verify ALL preconditions (config, env, DB names, DI regs) BEFORE code-layer hypothesis
• MUST ATTENTION fix responsible layer — NEVER patch symptom sites with caller-specific defensive code
• MUST ATTENTION use ExecuteInjectScopedAsync for parallel async + repo/UoW — NEVER ExecuteUowTask
• MUST ATTENTION name by PURPOSE not CONTENT — adding member forces rename = abstraction broken
• MUST ATTENTION persist sub-agent findings incrementally after each file — NEVER batch at end
• MUST ATTENTION Windows bash: verify Python alias (where python/where py) — NEVER assume python/python3 resolves

---

Debugging & Root Cause Reasoning

• [2026-04-11] Holistic-first: verify environment before code. Failure → list ALL preconditions (config, env vars, DB names, endpoints, DI regs, credentials, permissions, data prerequisites) → verify each via evidence (grep/cat/query) BEFORE code-layer hypothesis. Worst rabbit holes: diving nearest layer while bug sits elsewhere — e.g., hours debugging "sync timeout", real cause: test appsettings pointing wrong DB. Cheapest check first.
• [2026-04-01] Ask "whose responsibility?" before fixing. Trace: bug in caller (wrong data) or callee (wrong handling)? Fix responsible layer — NEVER patch symptom site masking real issue.
• [2026-04-01] Trace data lifecycle, not error site. Follow data: creation → transformation → consumption. Bug usually where data created wrong, not consumed.
• [2026-04-01] Code is caller-agnostic. Functions/handlers/consumers don't know who invokes them. Comments/guards/messages describe business intent — NEVER reference specific callers (tests, seeders, scripts).

Architecture Invariants

• [2026-03-31] ParallelAsync + repo/UoW MUST use ExecuteInjectScopedAsync, NEVER ExecuteUowTask. ExecuteUowTask creates new UoW but reuses outer DI scope (same DbContext) — parallel iterations sharing non-thread-safe DbContext silently corrupt data. ExecuteInjectScopedAsync creates new UoW + new DI scope (fresh repo per iteration).
• [2026-03-31] Bus message naming MUST include service name prefix — core services NEVER consume feature events. Prefix declares schema ownership (AccountUserEntityEventBusMessage = Accounts owns). Core services (Accounts, Communication) are leaders. Feature services (Growth, Talents) sending to core MUST use {CoreServiceName}...RequestBusMessage — never define own event for core to consume.

Naming & Abstraction

• [2026-04-12] Name PURPOSE not CONTENT — "OrXxx" anti-pattern. HrManagerOrHrOrPayrollHrOperationsPolicy names set members, not what it guards. Add role → rename = broken abstraction. Rule: names express DOES/GUARDS, not CONTAINS. Test: adding/removing member forces rename? YES = content-driven = bad → rename to purpose (e.g., HrOperationsAccessPolicy). Nuance: "Or" fine in behavioral idioms (FirstOrDefault, SuccessOrThrow) — expresses HAPPENS, not membership.

Environment & Tooling

• [2026-04-20] Windows bash: NEVER assume python/python3 resolves — verify alias first. Python may not be in bash PATH under those names. Check: where python / where py. Prefer py (Windows Python Launcher) for one-liners, node if JS alternative exists.

Test-specific lessons → docs/project-reference/integration-test-reference.md Lessons Learned section. Production-code anti-patterns → docs/project-reference/backend-patterns-reference.md Anti-Patterns section. Generic debugging/refactoring reminders → System Lessons in .claude/hooks/lib/prompt-injections.cjs.

---

Closing Reminders

• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION holistic-first: verify ALL preconditions (config, env, DB names, endpoints, DI regs) BEFORE code-layer hypothesis — cheapest check first
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION fix responsible layer — NEVER patch symptom site; trace caller (wrong data) vs callee (wrong handling), fix root owner
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION parallel async + repo/UoW → ALWAYS ExecuteInjectScopedAsync, NEVER ExecuteUowTask (shared DbContext = silent data corruption)
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION bus message prefix = schema ownership; feature services NEVER define events for core services — use {CoreServiceName}...RequestBusMessage
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION name by PURPOSE — adding/removing member forces rename = broken abstraction
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION sub-agents MUST write findings after each file/section — NEVER batch all findings into one final write
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Windows bash: NEVER assume python/python3 resolves — run where python/where py first, use py launcher or node

[LESSON-LEARNED-REMINDER] [BLOCKING] Task Planning & Continuous Improvement — MANDATORY. Do not skip.

Break work into small tasks (task tracking) before starting. Add final task: "Analyze AI mistakes & lessons learned".

Extract lessons — ROOT CAUSE ONLY, not symptom fixes:

1. Name the FAILURE MODE (reasoning/assumption failure), not symptom — "assumed API existed without reading source" not "used wrong enum value".
2. Generality test: does this failure mode apply to ≥3 contexts/codebases? If not, abstract one level up.
3. Write as a universal rule — strip project-specific names/paths/classes. Useful on any codebase.
4. Consolidate: multiple mistakes sharing one failure mode → ONE lesson.
5. Recurrence gate: "Would this recur in future session WITHOUT this reminder?" — No → skip $learn.
6. Auto-fix gate: "Could $code-review/$code-simplifier/$security/$lint catch this?" — Yes → improve review skill instead.
7. BOTH gates pass → ask user to run $learn. [TASK-PLANNING] [MANDATORY] BEFORE executing any workflow or skill step, create/update task tracking for all planned steps, then keep it synchronized as each step starts/completes.