EasyPlatform fix-parallel

[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:understand-code-first -->

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

<!-- /SYNC:understand-code-first --> <!-- 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)

<!-- SYNC:estimation-framework -->

Estimation — Modified Fibonacci: 1(trivial) → 2(small) → 3(medium) → 5(large) → 8(very large) → 13(epic, SHOULD split) → 21(MUST ATTENTION split). Output

story_points

and

complexity

in plan frontmatter. Complexity auto-derived: 1-2=Low, 3-5=Medium, 8=High, 13+=Critical.

<!-- /SYNC:estimation-framework --> <!-- SYNC:red-flag-stop-conditions -->

Red Flag Stop Conditions — STOP and escalate to user via AskUserQuestion when:

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

NEVER proceed past a red flag without explicit user approval.

<!-- /SYNC:red-flag-stop-conditions -->

Skill Variant: Variant of

/fix

— parallel multi-issue resolution using subagents.

Quick Summary

Goal: Fix multiple independent issues simultaneously using parallel fullstack-developer subagents.

Workflow:

1. Triage — Classify issues and verify independence (no shared files)
2. Assign — Distribute issues to parallel subagents with strict file ownership
3. Execute — Subagents fix issues independently
4. Merge — Review and integrate all fixes

Key Rules:

• Debug Mindset: every claim needs

  file:line

  evidence
• Issues MUST ATTENTION be independent (no overlapping file modifications)
• Each subagent owns specific files; no cross-boundary edits

<!-- SYNC:root-cause-debugging -->

Root Cause Debugging — Systematic approach, never guess-and-check.

1. Reproduce — Confirm the issue exists with evidence (error message, stack trace, screenshot)
2. Isolate — Narrow to specific file/function/line using binary search + graph trace
3. Trace — Follow data flow from input to failure point. Read actual code, don't infer.
4. Hypothesize — Form theory with confidence %. State what evidence supports/contradicts it
5. Verify — Test hypothesis with targeted grep/read. One variable at a time.
6. Fix — Address root cause, not symptoms. Verify fix doesn't break callers via graph

   connections

NEVER: Guess without evidence. Fix symptoms instead of cause. Skip reproduction step.

<!-- /SYNC:root-cause-debugging -->

Frontend/UI Context (if applicable)

When this task involves frontend or UI changes,

<!-- SYNC:ui-system-context -->

UI System Context — For ANY task touching

.ts

,

.html

,

.scss

, or

.css

files:

MUST ATTENTION READ before implementing:

1. docs/project-reference/frontend-patterns-reference.md

   — component base classes, stores, forms

2. docs/project-reference/scss-styling-guide.md

   — BEM methodology, SCSS variables, mixins, responsive

3. docs/project-reference/design-system/README.md

   — design tokens, component inventory, icons

Reference

docs/project-config.json

for project-specific paths.

<!-- /SYNC:ui-system-context -->

• Component patterns:

  docs/project-reference/frontend-patterns-reference.md

• Styling/BEM guide:

  docs/project-reference/scss-styling-guide.md

• Design system tokens:

  docs/project-reference/design-system/README.md

Debug Mindset (NON-NEGOTIABLE)

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

• Do NOT assume the first hypothesis is correct — verify with actual code traces
• Every root cause claim must include

  file:line

  evidence
• If you cannot prove a root cause with a code trace, state "hypothesis, not confirmed"
• Question assumptions: "Is this really the cause?" → trace the actual execution path
• Challenge completeness: "Are there other contributing factors?" → check related code paths
• No "should fix it" without proof — verify the fix addresses the traced root cause

⚠️ MANDATORY: Confidence & Evidence Gate

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION declare

Confidence: X%

with evidence list +

file:line

proof for EVERY claim. 95%+ recommend freely | 80-94% with caveats | 60-79% list unknowns | <60% STOP — gather more evidence.

⚠️ Validate Before Fix (NON-NEGOTIABLE): After root cause analysis + plan creation, MUST ATTENTION present findings + proposed fix plan to user via

AskUserQuestion

and get explicit approval BEFORE any code changes. No silent fixes.

Ultrathink parallel to fix: <issues>$ARGUMENTS</issues>

IMPORTANT: Activate needed skills. Ensure token efficiency. Sacrifice grammar for concision.

Workflow

1. Issue Analysis

• Use

  debugger

  subagent to analyze root causes
• Use

  /scout-ext

  to find related files
• Categorize issues by scope/area (frontend, backend, auth, payments, etc.)
• Identify dependencies between issues
• External Memory: Each parallel agent writes findings to

  .ai/workspace/analysis/{issue-name}-{agent}.analysis.md

  . Main agent re-reads all before coordinating fixes.

2. Parallel Fix Planning

• Trigger

  /plan-parallel <detailed-fix-instructions>

  for parallel-executable fix plan
• Wait for plan with dependency graph, execution strategy, file ownership matrix
• Group independent fixes for parallel execution
• Sequential fixes for dependent issues
• 🛑 Present root cause + fix plan →

  AskUserQuestion

  → wait for user approval before launching agents.

3. Parallel Fix Implementation

• Read

  plan.md

  for dependency graph
• Launch multiple

  fullstack-developer

  agents in PARALLEL for independent fixes
  • Example: "Fix auth + Fix payments + Fix UI" → launch 3 agents simultaneously
  • Pass phase file path:

    {plan-dir}/phase-XX-*.md

  • Include environment info
• Wait for all parallel fixes complete before dependent fixes
• Sequential fixes: launch one agent at a time

Subagent Context Discipline:

• Provide full task text — paste task content into subagent prompt; don't make subagent read plan file
• "Ask questions before starting" — subagent should surface uncertainties before implementing
• Self-review before reporting — subagent checks completeness, quality, YAGNI before returning results

4. Testing

• Use

  tester

  subagent for full test suite
• NO fake data/mocks/cheats
• Verify all issues resolved
• If fail: use

  debugger

  , fix, repeat

5. Code Review

<!-- SYNC:two-stage-task-review -->

Two-Stage Task Review — Both stages MUST ATTENTION complete before marking task done.

Stage 1: Self-review — Immediately after implementation:

• Requirements met? No regressions? Code quality acceptable?

Stage 2: Cross-review — Via

code-reviewer

subagent:

• Catches blind spots, convention drift, missed edge cases

NEVER skip Stage 2. Self-review alone misses 40%+ of issues.

<!-- /SYNC:two-stage-task-review -->

1. First: dispatch `spec-compliance-reviewer` to verify each fix matches its spec
2. Only after spec passes: dispatch `code-reviewer` for quality review

• Verify fixes don't introduce regressions
• If critical issues: fix, retest

6. Project Management & Docs

• If approved: use

  project-manager

  +

  docs-manager

  in parallel
• Update plan files, docs, roadmap
• If rejected: fix and repeat

7. Prove Fix

• MANDATORY: Run

  /prove-fix

  for EACH parallel fix
• Build code proof traces per change with confidence scores
• If any change scores < 80%, return to debug for that fix

8. Final Report

• Summary of all fixes from parallel phases
• Verification status per issue (include prove-fix confidence scores)
• Ask to commit (use

  git-manager

  if yes)

Example: Fix 1 (auth) + Fix 2 (payments) + Fix 3 (UI) → Launch 3 fullstack-developer agents → Wait → Prove each fix → Fix 4 (integration) sequential

---

Next Steps (Standalone: MUST ATTENTION ask user via

AskUserQuestion

. Skip if inside workflow.)

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — NO EXCEPTIONS: If this skill was called outside a workflow, you MUST ATTENTION use

AskUserQuestion

to present these options. Do NOT skip because the task seems "simple" or "obvious" — the user decides:

• "Proceed with full workflow (Recommended)" — I'll detect the best workflow to continue from here (fixes applied). This ensures prove-fix, review, testing, and docs steps aren't skipped.
• "/prove-fix" — Prove fix correctness with code traces
• "/test" — Run tests to verify fixes
• "Skip, continue manually" — user decides

If already inside a workflow, skip — the workflow handles sequencing.

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 STOP after 3 failed fix attempts — report outcomes, ask user before #4 MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION READ the following files before starting: <!-- SYNC:understand-code-first:reminder -->
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION search 3+ existing patterns and read code BEFORE any modification. Run graph trace when graph.db exists. <!-- /SYNC:understand-code-first:reminder --> <!-- 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:estimation-framework:reminder -->
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION include

  story_points

  and

  complexity

  in plan frontmatter. SP > 8 = split. <!-- /SYNC:estimation-framework:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:red-flag-stop-conditions:reminder -->
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION STOP after 3 failed fix attempts. Report all attempts, ask user before continuing. <!-- /SYNC:red-flag-stop-conditions:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:ui-system-context:reminder -->
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION read frontend-patterns-reference, scss-styling-guide, design-system/README before any UI change. <!-- /SYNC:ui-system-context: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 -->