[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.

<!-- SYNC:critical-thinking-mindset -->

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.

<!-- /SYNC:critical-thinking-mindset --> <!-- SYNC:ai-mistake-prevention -->

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.

<!-- /SYNC:ai-mistake-prevention --> <!-- SYNC:evidence-based-reasoning -->

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

1. Cite

   file:line

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

BLOCKED until:

- [ ]

Evidence file path (

file:line

)

- [ ]

Grep search performed

- [ ]

3+ similar patterns found

- [ ]

Confidence level stated

Forbidden without proof: "obviously", "I think", "should be", "probably", "this is because" If incomplete → output:

"Insufficient evidence. Verified: [...]. Not verified: [...]."

<!-- /SYNC:evidence-based-reasoning --> <!-- SYNC:double-round-trip-review -->

Deep Multi-Round Review — Escalating rounds. Round 1 in main session. Round 2+ and EVERY recursive re-review iteration MUST use a fresh sub-agent.

Round 1: Main-session review. Read target files, build understanding, note issues. Output baseline findings.

Round 2: MANDATORY fresh sub-agent review — see

SYNC:fresh-context-review

for the spawn mechanism and

SYNC:review-protocol-injection

for the canonical Agent prompt template. The sub-agent re-reads ALL files from scratch with ZERO Round 1 memory. It must catch:

• Cross-cutting concerns missed in Round 1
• Interaction bugs between changed files
• Convention drift (new code vs existing patterns)
• Missing pieces that should exist but don't
• Subtle edge cases the main session rationalized away

Round 3+ (recursive after fixes): After ANY fix cycle, MANDATORY fresh sub-agent re-review. Spawn a NEW Agent tool call each iteration — never reuse Round 2's agent. Each new agent re-reads ALL files from scratch with full protocol injection. Continue until PASS or 3 fresh-subagent rounds max, then escalate to user via

AskUserQuestion

.

Rules:

• NEVER declare PASS after Round 1 alone
• 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

Report must include

## Round N Findings (Fresh Sub-Agent)

for every round N≥2.

<!-- /SYNC:double-round-trip-review --> <!-- SYNC:fresh-context-review -->

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: Round 2 of ANY review AND every recursive re-review iteration after fixes. NOT needed when Round 1 already PASSes with zero issues.

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:

• NEVER reuse a sub-agent across rounds — every iteration spawns a NEW

  Agent

  call
• NEVER skip fresh-subagent review because "last round was clean" — every fix triggers a fresh round
• 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)

<!-- /SYNC:fresh-context-review --> <!-- SYNC:review-protocol-injection -->

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

<!-- /SYNC:review-protocol-injection -->

• docs/project-reference/domain-entities-reference.md

  — Domain entity catalog, relationships, cross-service sync (read when task involves business entities/models) (content auto-injected by hook — check for [Injected: ...] header before reading)

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

Quick Summary

Goal: Review code for security vulnerabilities against OWASP Top 10 and enforce authorization, data protection, and secure coding patterns.

Workflow:

1. Pre-Flight — Identify security-sensitive areas, check OWASP relevance, review existing patterns
2. OWASP Audit — Evaluate code against all 10 categories (access control, injection, auth, etc.)
3. Project Checks — Verify authorization attributes, entity access expressions, input validation
4. Report — Document findings with severity, vulnerable vs secure code examples

Key Rules:

• Always check both backend and frontend attack surfaces
• Use project authorization attributes and entity-level access expressions, never rely on UI-only guards (see docs/project-reference/backend-patterns-reference.md)
• Validate all external data with project validation API, never trust client input (see docs/project-reference/backend-patterns-reference.md)

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

Security Review Workflow

When to Use This Skill

• Security audit of code changes
• Implementing authentication/authorization
• Data protection review
• Vulnerability assessment

Pre-Flight Checklist

• Identify security-sensitive areas
• Review OWASP Top 10 relevance
• Check for existing security patterns
• Plan remediation approach

OWASP Top 10 Checklist

1. Broken Access Control

// :x: VULNERABLE - No authorization check
[HttpGet("{id}")]
public async Task<Employee> Get(string id)
    => await repo.GetByIdAsync(id);

// :white_check_mark: SECURE - Authorization enforced
[HttpGet("{id}")]
[Authorize(Roles.Manager, Roles.Admin)] // project authorization attribute (see docs/project-reference/backend-patterns-reference.md)
public async Task<Employee> Get(string id)
{
    var employee = await repo.GetByIdAsync(id);

    // Verify access to this specific resource
    if (employee.CompanyId != RequestContext.CurrentCompanyId())
        throw new UnauthorizedAccessException();

    return employee;
}

2. Cryptographic Failures

// :x: VULNERABLE - Storing plain text secrets
var apiKey = config["ApiKey"];
await SaveToDatabase(apiKey);

// :white_check_mark: SECURE - Encrypt sensitive data
var encryptedKey = encryptionService.Encrypt(apiKey);
await SaveToDatabase(encryptedKey);

// Use secure configuration
var apiKey = config.GetValue<string>("ApiKey");  // From Azure Key Vault

3. Injection

// :x: VULNERABLE - SQL Injection
var sql = $"SELECT * FROM Users WHERE Name = '{name}'";
await context.Database.ExecuteSqlRawAsync(sql);

// :white_check_mark: SECURE - Parameterized query
await context.Users.Where(u => u.Name == name).ToListAsync();

// Or if raw SQL needed:
await context.Database.ExecuteSqlRawAsync(
    "SELECT * FROM Users WHERE Name = @p0", name);

4. Insecure Design

// :x: VULNERABLE - No rate limiting
[HttpPost("login")]
public async Task<IActionResult> Login(LoginRequest request)
    => await authService.Login(request);

// :white_check_mark: SECURE - Rate limiting applied
[HttpPost("login")]
[RateLimit(MaxRequests = 5, WindowSeconds = 60)]
public async Task<IActionResult> Login(LoginRequest request)
    => await authService.Login(request);

5. Security Misconfiguration

// :x: VULNERABLE - Detailed errors in production
app.UseDeveloperExceptionPage();  // Exposes stack traces

// :white_check_mark: SECURE - Generic errors in production
if (env.IsDevelopment())
    app.UseDeveloperExceptionPage();
else
    app.UseExceptionHandler("/Error");

6. Vulnerable Components

# Check for vulnerable packages
dotnet list package --vulnerable

# Update vulnerable packages
dotnet outdated

7. Authentication Failures

// :x: VULNERABLE - Weak password policy
if (password.Length >= 4) { }

// :white_check_mark: SECURE - Strong password policy
public class PasswordPolicy
{
    public bool Validate(string password)
    {
        return password.Length >= 12
            && password.Any(char.IsUpper)
            && password.Any(char.IsLower)
            && password.Any(char.IsDigit)
            && password.Any(c => !char.IsLetterOrDigit(c));
    }
}

8. Data Integrity Failures

// :x: VULNERABLE - No validation of external data
var userData = await externalApi.GetUserAsync(id);
await SaveToDatabase(userData);

// :white_check_mark: SECURE - Validate external data
var userData = await externalApi.GetUserAsync(id);
var validation = userData.Validate();
if (!validation.IsValid)
    throw new ValidationException(validation.Errors);
await SaveToDatabase(userData);

9. Logging Failures

// :x: VULNERABLE - Logging sensitive data
Logger.LogInformation("User login: {Email} {Password}", email, password);

// :white_check_mark: SECURE - Redact sensitive data
Logger.LogInformation("User login: {Email}", email);
// Never log passwords, tokens, or PII

10. SSRF (Server-Side Request Forgery)

// :x: VULNERABLE - User-controlled URL
var url = request.WebhookUrl;
await httpClient.GetAsync(url);  // Could access internal services

// :white_check_mark: SECURE - Validate and restrict URLs
if (!IsAllowedUrl(request.WebhookUrl))
    throw new SecurityException("Invalid webhook URL");

private bool IsAllowedUrl(string url)
{
    var uri = new Uri(url);
    return AllowedDomains.Contains(uri.Host)
        && uri.Scheme == "https";
}

Authorization Patterns

⚠️ MUST ATTENTION READ: CLAUDE.md for authorization controller/handler patterns,

RequestContext

usage, and entity-level access filters (see docs/project-reference/backend-patterns-reference.md).

Data Protection

Sensitive Data Handling

public class SensitiveDataHandler
{
    // Encrypt at rest
    public string EncryptForStorage(string plainText)
        => encryptionService.Encrypt(plainText);

    // Mask for display
    public string MaskEmail(string email)
    {
        var parts = email.Split('@');
        return $"{parts[0][0]}***@{parts[1]}";
    }

    // Never log sensitive data
    public void LogUserAction(User user)
    {
        Logger.LogInformation("User action: {UserId}", user.Id);
        // NOT: Logger.Log("User: {Email} {Phone}", user.Email, user.Phone);
    }
}

File Upload Security

public async Task<IActionResult> Upload(IFormFile file)
{
    // Validate file type
    var allowedTypes = new[] { ".pdf", ".docx", ".xlsx" };
    var extension = Path.GetExtension(file.FileName).ToLowerInvariant();
    if (!allowedTypes.Contains(extension))
        return BadRequest("Invalid file type");

    // Validate file size
    if (file.Length > 10 * 1024 * 1024)  // 10MB
        return BadRequest("File too large");

    // Scan for malware (if available)
    if (!await antivirusService.ScanAsync(file))
        return BadRequest("File rejected by security scan");

    // Generate safe filename
    var safeFileName = $"{Guid.NewGuid()}{extension}";

    // Save to isolated storage
    await fileService.SaveAsync(file, safeFileName);

    return Ok();
}

Security Scanning Commands

# .NET vulnerability scan
dotnet list package --vulnerable

# Outdated packages
dotnet outdated

# Secret scanning
grep -r "password\|secret\|apikey" --include="*.cs" --include="*.json"

# Hardcoded credentials
grep -r "Password=\"" --include="*.cs"
grep -r "connectionString.*password" --include="*.json"

Security Review Checklist

Authentication

• Strong password policy enforced
• Account lockout after failed attempts
• Secure session management
• JWT tokens properly validated
• Refresh token rotation

Authorization

• All endpoints require authentication
• Role-based access control implemented
• Resource-level permissions checked
• No privilege escalation possible

Input Validation

• All inputs validated
• SQL injection prevented (parameterized queries)
• XSS prevented (output encoding)
• File uploads validated
• URL validation for redirects

Data Protection

• Sensitive data encrypted at rest
• HTTPS enforced
• No sensitive data in logs
• Proper error handling (no stack traces)

Dependencies

• No known vulnerable packages
• Dependencies regularly updated
• Third-party code reviewed

Anti-Patterns to AVOID

:x: Trusting client input

var isAdmin = request.IsAdmin;  // User-supplied!

:x: Exposing internal errors

catch (Exception ex) { return BadRequest(ex.ToString()); }

:x: Hardcoded secrets

var apiKey = "sk_live_xxxxx";

:x: Insufficient logging

// No audit trail for sensitive operations
await DeleteAllUsers();

Verification Checklist

• OWASP Top 10 reviewed
• Authentication/authorization verified
• Input validation complete
• Sensitive data protected
• No hardcoded secrets
• Logging appropriate (no PII)
• Dependencies scanned

Related

• arch-performance-optimization

• arch-cross-service-integration

• code-review

---

Closing Reminders

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION break work into small todo tasks using

  TaskCreate

  BEFORE starting
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION search codebase for 3+ similar patterns before creating new code
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION cite

  file:line

  evidence for every claim (confidence >80% to act)
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION add a final review todo task to verify work quality
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION execute multi-round review per

  SYNC:double-round-trip-review

  : Round 1 in main session, Round 2+ via fresh

  code-reviewer

  sub-agent spawned per

  SYNC:fresh-context-review

  +

  SYNC:review-protocol-injection

  MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION READ the following files before starting: <!-- SYNC:evidence-based-reasoning:reminder -->
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION cite

  file:line

  evidence for every claim. Confidence >80% to act, <60% = do NOT recommend. <!-- /SYNC:evidence-based-reasoning:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:critical-thinking-mindset:reminder -->
• MUST ATTENTION apply critical thinking — every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination: never present guess as fact. <!-- /SYNC:critical-thinking-mindset:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:ai-mistake-prevention:reminder -->
• MUST ATTENTION apply AI mistake prevention — holistic-first debugging, fix at responsible layer, surface ambiguity before coding, re-read files after compaction. <!-- /SYNC:ai-mistake-prevention:reminder -->