tdd-spec-review

name	tdd-spec-review
version	2.0.0
last_reviewed	"2026-04-21T00:00:00.000Z"
description	[Code Quality] Use when you need to review test specifications for coverage, completeness, and correctness before implementation.

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

Quick Summary

Goal: Auto-review test specifications for coverage completeness, TC format correctness, and no missing test cases before implementation proceeds.

Key distinction: AI self-review (automatic), NOT user interview.

[BLOCKING] Read docs/project-reference/spec-principles.md — use Section 4 (AI-Implementability Checklist) and Section 7 (TC Coverage Mapping) as review criteria in addition to adversarial techniques below.

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

Adversarial Review Mindset (NON-NEGOTIABLE)

Default stance: SKEPTIC probing test coverage gaps, not confirming coverage completeness.

Coverage illusion trap: A spec with many TCs feels complete. But TCs that test implementation details, trivial happy paths, or vague outcomes provide false coverage confidence. This section forces quality challenge beyond count.

Adversarial Techniques (apply ALL before concluding)

1. Mutation Analysis Mindset For each TC: "If I changed ONE line of the implementation this TC is testing, would this TC fail?" If the TC would still pass after a subtle bug is introduced — it is not testing behavior, it is testing presence. Flag it.

2. Negative Test Adequacy List the 3 most likely production failures for this feature (invalid input, service timeout, data corruption, race condition). Does at least one TC cover each failure mode? If a production failure has no corresponding TC, it will not be caught until production.

3. TC Quality Challenge For each TC, check its assertion: "Could this TC PASS even if the feature is broken?" (e.g., "Response is 200 OK" without checking response body). Flag TCs where the assertion is too coarse to catch regressions.

4. Coverage Gap Hunt Identify code paths that EXIST but have NO corresponding TC. Common gaps: admin/superuser paths, concurrent access, partial data states, idempotency, rollback behavior. If a gap exists — flag it, don't rationalize it.

5. Boundary Condition Probe For each TC that tests a value (count, length, amount): "Is there a TC for the value-1, value, value+1 boundary?" Off-by-one errors are the most common business logic bug. Also probe: null (unset vs empty distinction), empty string vs whitespace-only, max-length overflow, zero and negative values, concurrent write contention on shared state. If boundary TCs for any of these are missing and the domain scenario is realistic, flag them.

6. Contrarian Pass Before writing any verdict, generate at least 2 sentences arguing the OPPOSITE conclusion. Then decide which argument is stronger.

Forbidden Patterns

• "Coverage looks complete" → Count is NOT quality. Would a mutation pass these TCs?
• "Happy path is tested" → The happy path is the least likely failure mode in production.
• "Edge cases included" → Are they the RIGHT edge cases? Name the 3 most likely production failures.
• "Assertions are clear" → Can the feature be broken while the assertion still passes?
• Approving test specs without adversarial quality challenge → Forbidden.

Anti-Bias Gate (MANDATORY before finalizing verdict)

• Applied mutation analysis to at least 1 TC per feature area
• Listed 3 production failure modes and verified TCs cover them
• Checked TC assertion specificity (can it pass even if feature breaks?)
• Identified at least 1 coverage gap (code path with no TC)
• Verified boundary TCs exist for value-based assertions
• Generated at least 2 sentences arguing the opposite verdict

If any box is unchecked → adversarial review incomplete. Go back.

Workflow

1. Locate test specs — Find TCs in feature doc Section 15 or docs/specs/
2. Load source — Read stories/PBI/acceptance criteria that TCs should cover
3. Evaluate checklist — Score each check
4. Calculate coverage — % of stories/AC with corresponding TCs
5. Classify — PASS/WARN/FAIL
6. Output verdict

Checklist

Required (all must pass)

#	Check	Presence	Quality Depth
1	TC ID format — All TCs follow TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN} format	Do all TCs use the TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN} pattern?	Are IDs unique per TC? Does the FEATURE code match the actual feature?
2	Story coverage — Every user story has at least one corresponding TC	Does every story ID appear in at least one TC?	Does each TC actually test the story behavior, or does it just reference the story ID in a comment?
3	AC coverage — Every acceptance criterion has a test case	Is every AC traceable to at least one TC?	Does each AC have a TC that would FAIL if the AC is violated?
4	Happy path — Each story has at least one happy path TC	Is a happy path TC present per story?	Does the happy path TC verify the full end-to-end scenario, or just a happy-path stub?
5	Error path — Each story has at least one error/failure TC	Is an error/failure TC present per story?	Does the error TC verify the exact error response (code + message), not just that an error occurred?
6	No duplicates — No duplicate TCs testing the same scenario	Are all TC IDs unique with distinct scenarios?	Are there TCs that test the same scenario with slightly different input? Flag near-duplicates.
7	Testable assertions — Each TC has clear expected result (not vague "should work")	Does each TC have a specific expected result?	Is each assertion specific enough to catch regressions? Would it pass if the return value is wrong?
8	Authorization TCs — At least 1 TC per story verifying unauthorized access is rejected	Is an authorization TC present per story?	Does the authorization TC test a realistic access scenario, not just "wrong role → 403 without body check"?
9	TC format completeness — Every TC has Related Files table and IntegrationTest field	Does every TC include a Related Files table and IntegrationTest: field?	Is IntegrationTest populated with {File}.cs::{MethodName} (not Untested for Tested-status TCs)?
10	Preservation Tests (bugfix context) — When fixing a bug, at least 1 TC verifies the pre-fix behavior is no longer reproducible	If this is a bugfix: is there a TC that would have CAUGHT the bug before the fix?	Does the preservation TC assert the exact broken behavior (not just "no exception")?

Recommended (>=50% should pass)

#	Check	Presence	Quality Depth
1	Edge cases — Boundary values, empty inputs, max limits tested	Are edge case TCs listed?	Are these the RIGHT edge cases? Do they cover the 3 most likely production failure modes for this feature?
2	Integration points — Cross-service scenarios covered	Are cross-service TCs present where applicable?	Do integration TCs verify actual data flow across services, or just that a downstream call was made?
3	Performance TCs — Response time or throughput expectations where relevant; production-like data volume TCs if >1000 records expected (ref: protocol §4)	Are performance TCs present where data volume or SLA expectations exist?	Do performance TCs use production-like data volumes, not toy datasets that trivially pass?
4	Security TCs — Auth, authorization, input validation tested	Are security TCs present for auth, authz, and input validation?	Do security TCs attempt realistic attack vectors (SQLi, over-posting, privilege escalation) not just "invalid token → 401"?
5	Seed data TCs — If feature needs reference data, TCs verify data exists and seeder runs correctly (ref: protocol §2)	If reference data is needed, does a seed data TC exist (or N/A)?	If present, does the TC assert the exact seeded data shape, not just that the seeder ran without error?
6	Data migration TCs — If schema changes exist, TCs verify data transforms correctly, rollback works, no data loss (ref: protocol §5)	If schema changes exist, does a migration TC exist (or N/A)?	If present, does the TC verify rollback behavior and zero data loss, not just forward migration success?

Output

## Test Spec Review Result

**Status:** PASS | WARN | FAIL
**TCs reviewed:** {count}
**Coverage:** {X}% of stories, {Y}% of acceptance criteria

### Coverage Matrix

| Story/AC | TC IDs | Happy | Error | Edge |
| -------- | ------ | ----- | ----- | ---- |

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

- ✅/❌ Check description

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

- ✅/⚠️ Check description

### Missing Coverage

- {Stories/AC without TCs}

### Verdict

{PROCEED | REVISE_FIRST}

Round 2+ : Fresh Sub-Agent Re-Review (MANDATORY)

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

After completing Round 1 checklist evaluation, spawn a fresh general-purpose sub-agent for Round 2 using the canonical Agent template from SYNC:review-protocol-injection above. Test specification reviews are NOT code reviews — use subagent_type: "general-purpose". When constructing the Agent call prompt:

1. Copy the Agent call shape from the SYNC:review-protocol-injection template verbatim
2. Set subagent_type: "general-purpose"
3. Embed the full verbatim body of these SYNC blocks: SYNC:evidence-based-reasoning, SYNC:rationalization-prevention, SYNC:understand-code-first (omit code-specific protocols like SYNC:bug-detection, SYNC:design-patterns-quality, SYNC:fix-layer-accountability which are not applicable to test specification artifacts)
4. Set the Task as "Review the test specification artifacts for coverage completeness and quality. Focus on: implicit assumptions not validated, missing story/AC coverage, edge cases not addressed, cross-references not verified, vague expected results, duplicate TCs, missing authorization TCs."
5. Set Target Files as the explicit test specification file paths being reviewed
6. Set report path as plans/reports/tdd-spec-review-round{N}-{date}.md

After sub-agent returns:

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

Key Rules

• FAIL blocks workflow — If FAIL, do NOT proceed to implementation.
• Coverage 100% required for Tested + Untested TCs — Every story and AC must have at least one TC with Status: Tested or Status: Untested. TCs with Status: Planned are exempt from coverage calculation — they acknowledge a gap, they are not missing work.
• No guessing — Reference specific TC IDs and story references.
• Quality over quantity — Flag duplicate TCs, prefer fewer meaningful tests.

---

Workflow Recommendation

[BLOCKING] If you are NOT already in a workflow, use AskUserQuestion to ask the user. Do NOT judge task complexity or decide this is "simple enough to skip" — the user decides whether to use a workflow, not you:

1. Activate pbi-to-tests workflow (Recommended) — tdd-spec → tdd-spec-review → quality-gate → workflow-end
2. Execute /tdd-spec-review directly — run this skill standalone

---

Next Steps

[BLOCKING] After completing this skill, use AskUserQuestion to present these options. Do NOT skip because the task seems "simple" or "obvious" — the user decides:

• "/plan (Recommended)" — Create implementation plan with validated test specs
• "/tdd-spec" — Re-generate specs if FAIL verdict
• "/integration-test" — Generate integration test code from specs
• "Skip, continue manually" — user decides

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

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

External Memory: For complex or lengthy work (research, analysis, scan, review), write intermediate findings and final results to a report file in plans/reports/ — prevents context loss and serves as deliverable.

• docs/specs/ — Test specifications by module (cross-reference during review to verify TC completeness and avoid duplicates)
• docs/project-reference/integration-test-reference.md — Integration test patterns, fixture setup, seeder conventions, lessons learned (MUST READ before reviewing/writing integration tests)

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.

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

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

Format (explicit mode — visible thought trail):

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

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

Stop conditions: confidence <80% on any critical decision → escalate via AskUserQuestion · ≥3 revisions on same thought → re-frame the problem · branch count >3 → split into sub-task.

Implicit mode: apply methodology internally without visible markers when adding markers would clutter the response (routine work where reasoning aids accuracy).

Deep-dive: see /sequential-thinking skill (.claude/skills/sequential-thinking/SKILL.md) for worked examples (api-design, debug, architecture), advanced techniques (spiral refinement, hypothesis testing, convergence), and meta-strategies (uncertainty handling, revision cascades).

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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 graph blast-radius on changed files to find potentially stale consumers/handlers (when graph.db exists).

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

MUST ATTENTION apply sequential-thinking — multi-step Thought N/M, REVISION/BRANCH/HYPOTHESIS markers, confidence % closer; see /sequential-thinking skill.

MUST ATTENTION apply AI mistake prevention — holistic-first debugging, fix at responsible layer, surface ambiguity before coding, re-read files after compaction.

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

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

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

Prompt-Enhance Closing Anchors

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION follow declared step order for this skill; NEVER skip, reorder, or merge steps without explicit user approval IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION for every step/sub-skill call: set in_progress before execution, set completed after execution IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION every skipped step MUST include explicit reason; every completed step MUST include concise evidence IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION if Task tools unavailable, maintain an equivalent step-by-step plan tracker with synchronized statuses

Closing Reminders

[BLOCKING] Break work into small todo tasks using TaskCreate BEFORE starting. [BLOCKING] Validate decisions with user via AskUserQuestion — never auto-decide. [REQUIRED] Add a final review todo task to verify work quality. [BLOCKING] READ the following files before starting:

[TASK-PLANNING] Before acting, analyze task scope and systematically break it into small todo tasks and sub-tasks using TaskCreate.

[IMPORTANT] Analyze how big the task is and break it into many small todo tasks systematically before starting — this is very important.