aezizhu

Use when starting any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.

Use when facing 2+ independent tasks that can be worked on without shared state or sequential dependencies

Use when implementation is complete, all tests pass, and you need to decide how to integrate the work - guides completion of development work by presenting structured options for merge, PR, or cleanup

Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation

Use when the user explicitly requests a code review, or during subagent-driven development where review is part of the workflow

Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks in the current session

Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes

Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code

Use during any Hyperworkflows delivery merge phase - single-merger protocol, MERGE_TOKEN lifecycle, full-suite gating, and revert-and-quarantine rules.

Use when rendering any Hyperworkflows result to a human - the mandatory report format with verified/unverified/quarantined+grey buckets, coverage arithmetic, and evidence links.

Use when a contested set needs rulings - court procedure (advocate/skeptic/risk-officer), evidence requirements, sequential fallback, and escalation rules.

Use when a unit of work has no executable acceptance (no test, no verifiable output) and you need to construct one - golden files, property tests, metamorphic relations, snapshot tests - or prove it infeasible.

Use before building or auditing against acceptance contracts - systematically finds missing acceptance dimensions so "all green but wrong" cannot ship through contract holes.