EasyPlatform integration-test-review

[IMPORTANT] Use

TaskCreate

to break ALL work into small todo tasks BEFORE starting. A test that cannot fail is not a test. It is decoration. Every test must earn its existence by proving it would FAIL if the bug it guards were reintroduced. Every finding requires

file:line

proof with confidence >80%.

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.

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.

• docs/project-reference/integration-test-reference.md

  — Integration test patterns, fixture setup, seeder conventions, lessons learned (MUST READ before reviewing)

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: [...]."

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.

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)

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

Quick Summary

Goal: Review integration tests for real bug-protection value, correct data assertions, infinite repeatability, and spec alignment.

Scope: All test files in uncommitted changes (default), or user-specified scope.

Workflow: Collect → Review (5 gates) → Spec cross-check → Report → Fix all issues → Second-round fresh review → Build & verify → If fail: investigate + fix plan

Non-negotiable rules:

• MUST read the handler/service source before judging any test's assertions
• MUST flag smoke-only tests (no-exception-only checks) as FAIL
• MUST flag DI-resolution-only tests (resolve + not-null) as FAIL — they are NOT integration tests
• MUST verify tests use unique IDs per run (infinitely repeatable)
• MUST use async polling/retry for all DB assertions — async delays are the norm
• NEVER accept assertions that always pass regardless of handler correctness
• NO smoke/fake/useless tests — every test must execute actual operations and verify data state

The 5 Quality Gates

Gate 1: Assertion Value — "Would this catch the bug?"

The #1 AI failure: hallucination assertions — look real, verify nothing.

PASS: Asserts specific field values that would change if handler had a bug. At least one assertion per test that FAILS if core logic breaks.

FAIL:

• No-exception as ONLY assertion
• Not-null without checking content
• Assertions on fields the handler doesn't modify
• Dead assertions:

  x >= 0

  where x is always >= 0
• Unchecked exception captures
• count >= 0 (always true), string not empty on required fields (always true)

Verify: Read handler source → list fields it changes → check test asserts those fields.

Gate 2: Data State — "Does it check the database?"

PASS: After command, test queries DB and asserts specific entity field values.

FAIL:

• Only checks return value, never verifies DB state
• Checks existence (not-null) without field values
• Missing async polling on side-effect assertions

Exception: Smoke-only ONLY when side effect is truly unobservable. Must be marked with explicit justification comment.

Always use async polling/retry for data assertions. Event handlers, bus consumers, background jobs run async. Data may not be available immediately.

Gate 3: Repeatability — "Can I run this 100 times?"

Infinitely Repeatable Tests — Tests MUST run N times without failure. Like manual QC — run the suite 100 times, each run just adds more data.

1. Unique data per run: Use the project's unique ID generator for ALL entity IDs created in tests. NEVER hardcode IDs.
2. Additive only: Tests create data, never delete/reset. Prior test runs MUST NOT interfere with current run.
3. No schema rollback dependency: Tests work with current schema only. Never rely on schema rollback or migration reversals.
4. Idempotent seeders: Fixture-level seeders use create-if-missing pattern (check existence before insert). Test-level data uses unique IDs per execution.
5. No cleanup required: No teardown, no database reset between runs. Each test is isolated by unique seed data, not by cleanup.
6. Unique names/codes: When entities require unique names/codes, append a unique suffix using the project's ID generator.

FAIL: Hardcoded IDs, hardcoded business keys without unique suffix, teardown/cleanup, ordering dependency, seeders without existence check.

Gate 4: Domain Logic — "Does test match handler?"

PASS: Assertions match what handler ACTUALLY does (verified by reading source). Covers primary business rule. Validation paths tested.

FAIL: Assertions on untouched fields (copy-paste), missing primary side-effect assertion, event handler tests that never trigger the event.

Verify: Grep handler class → read it → list what it does → compare with assertions.

Also check:

• Authorization: does the test verify both authorized AND unauthorized access paths?
• Coverage: at minimum, happy path + validation failure + DB state check (3 tests)

Gate 5: Spec Traceability — "Is this tracked?"

PASS: Test has spec annotation linking to a TC ID. TC ID exists in spec docs. Method name matches TC.

FAIL (WARN, not BLOCK): Missing annotation, orphaned TC ID, or spec says "Planned" but test exists.

Gate 6: Three-Way Sync — "Do test, code, and docs agree?"

The hardest gate. When test code, implementation code, and feature/test-spec docs all differ, the AI must identify the discrepancy and classify it using the source-of-truth hierarchy — never silently pick a winner.

Source of Truth Hierarchy (highest → lowest)

docs/business-features/…/Section 15 TCs

docs/test-specs/

Rule: Docs win over code. Code wins over tests. Feature docs win over test-spec docs.

Conflict Classification

For each TC, read all three sources and classify:

/docs-update

AskUserQuestion

CRITICAL rules:

• NEVER fix a test to match broken code — that hides bugs
• NEVER assume docs are wrong without evidence they were intentionally superseded
• NEVER self-resolve a three-way conflict — always escalate via

  AskUserQuestion

• A "stale docs" verdict requires BOTH code AND test to agree — one is not enough
• When escalating, include: TC ID, what each source says, and what evidence you found

How to verify each source

1. Feature doc: Read

   docs/business-features/{Service}/detailed-features/{Feature}.md

   Section 15 for the TC. Note the scenario title, preconditions, steps, and expected results.
2. Test-spec doc: Read

   docs/test-specs/{Service}/README.md

   (or

   INTEGRATION-TESTS.md

   ) for the same TC. Note whether it says Planned/Implemented and what the described scenario is.
3. Implementation code: Read the handler/entity/service that the TC exercises. List what it actually does — fields written, events fired, validation rules.
4. Test code: Read the test method. List what it arranges, what command it executes, and what it asserts.

Compare each pair. Document findings with

file:line

PASS: All three sources agree on scenario intent and outcome. WARN: Minor wording differences with same semantic meaning — flag but do not block. FAIL: Semantic disagreement — a field, rule, or outcome differs between sources. ESCALATE: All three differ and the correct answer cannot be derived from evidence alone.

Review Protocol (9 Phases)

Use

TaskCreate

Phase 1 — Collect: Categorize changed files: new (full review), modified (changed methods only), new projects (infra + samples).

Phase 2 — Gate Review: Per file, apply all 6 gates. Record per-file verdict table:

Phase 3 — Spec Cross-Check + Three-Way Diff: For each TC ID in code:

1. Verify TC entry exists in both

   docs/business-features/

   (Section 15) and

   docs/test-specs/

2. Read what the TC describes in each doc
3. Read what the implementation code actually does
4. Read what the test asserts
5. Classify the conflict pattern (Gate 6 table) and record action
6. Flag gaps both directions: TC in code but not in docs, or "Implemented" TC in docs but no test found

Phase 4 — Initial Report: Write to

plans/reports/integration-test-review-{date}-{slug}.md

Phase 5 — Fix All Issues (MANDATORY): Fix every CRITICAL and HIGH issue found in Phase 2. MEDIUM issues: fix if straightforward, otherwise document as tech debt.

1. Prioritize: CRITICAL first, then HIGH, then MEDIUM
2. For each fix: read the handler source, understand the domain logic, then write/fix the assertion
3. Never weaken assertions to make tests pass — fix root cause (timing, data, setup) instead
4. After fixing, re-read changed files to verify the fix is correct
5. Record each fix with

   file:line

   in the report under

   ## Fixes Applied

Phase 6 — 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 Phase 5 fixes, spawn fresh

code-reviewer

SYNC:review-protocol-injection

1. Copy the Agent call shape from

   SYNC:review-protocol-injection

   template verbatim
2. Set

   subagent_type: "code-reviewer"

3. Embed the full verbatim body of these 9 SYNC blocks (all present inline above in this skill file):

   SYNC:evidence-based-reasoning

   ,

   SYNC:bug-detection

   ,

   SYNC:design-patterns-quality

   ,

   SYNC:logic-and-intention-review

   ,

   SYNC:test-spec-verification

   ,

   SYNC:fix-layer-accountability

   ,

   SYNC:rationalization-prevention

   ,

   SYNC:graph-assisted-investigation

   ,

   SYNC:understand-code-first

4. In the Task field, specify:

   "Review the integration tests in {file-list} against the 6 quality gates: assertion value, data state verification, infinite repeatability, domain logic, test-spec traceability, and three-way sync (test code vs implementation code vs feature/test-spec docs). Read handler source AND feature docs before judging assertions. Flag smoke-only, existence-only, and dead assertions as FAIL. Apply the source-of-truth hierarchy: feature docs > test-spec docs > implementation code > test code. Classify every disagreement as: wrong test, code bug, stale docs, or escalate (three-way conflict)."

5. Set Target Files as the explicit file list (never pass inline contents)
6. Set Reference Docs to include

   docs/project-reference/integration-test-reference.md

7. Set report path as

   plans/reports/integration-test-review-round{N}-{date}.md

After sub-agents return:

1. Read each 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 new CRITICAL or HIGH issues: fix them, then spawn NEW Round N+1 fresh sub-agents (never reuse prior agents)
4. Max 3 fresh rounds — escalate to user via

   AskUserQuestion

   if still failing after 3 rounds
5. Exit criteria: Fresh-round review returns 0 CRITICAL and 0 HIGH issues

Phase 7 — Build & Run Tests (MANDATORY): Build and run ALL changed/reviewed test files. Verify they pass.

1. Build the test project
2. Run changed tests (filter by reviewed test classes)
3. Never mark review complete until all tests pass. Unverified reviews have zero value.
4. Record pass/fail results in the report under

   ## Test Execution Results

Phase 8 — Failure Investigation (if Phase 7 fails): If tests fail after fixes, do NOT just retry. Investigate systematically.

1. Classify failure: Test bug (assertion wrong, setup wrong) vs Service bug (handler broken) vs Environment (service not running, DB timeout)
2. Root cause analysis: Read the failing test output, trace through handler source, identify the exact mismatch
3. Generate fix plan: For each failure, document:
   • Failing test:

     file:line

     , TC-ID
   • Error message / stack trace summary
   • Root cause (with confidence %)
   • Proposed fix (with

     file:line

     of what to change)
4. Apply fixes and rerun — loop until all pass or environment blockers identified
5. Environment blockers: If tests fail because services are not running, document in report and mark as

   BLOCKED — requires running system

   . Do NOT mark these as test failures.
6. Append to report under

   ## Failure Investigation

10+ files: Use parallel sub-agents grouped by module. Each gets file list + 6 gates + handler paths + feature doc paths. Consolidate into single report.

Common Anti-Patterns

count >= 0

Id = "test-001"

finally { Delete(); }

Next Steps

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — NO EXCEPTIONS after completing this skill, you MUST ATTENTION use

AskUserQuestion

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

Closing Reminders

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION use

  TaskCreate

  to break ALL work into small todo tasks BEFORE starting — create todo tasks for each phase
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION a test that cannot fail is decoration — if it can't catch the bug, delete or fix it
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION read the handler source before judging assertions — you cannot review what you don't understand
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION tests MUST be infinitely repeatable — unique data per run, no cleanup, no rollback dependency
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION always use async polling/retry for DB assertions — async delays from event handlers and consumers
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION flag smoke-only as FAIL unless justified with explicit design comment
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION write findings to report file — never just return text
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION fix all CRITICAL and HIGH issues BEFORE running tests — Phase 5 is NOT optional
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION second-round fresh review after fixes — Phase 6 ensures fixes are correct and no new issues introduced
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION build and run ALL tests after fixes — Phase 7 is NOT optional, unverified reviews have zero value
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION if tests fail, investigate root cause systematically — Phase 8 generates diagnostic report with fix plan, never just retry blindly
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Gate 6: read ALL three sources (feature doc, impl code, test code) before classifying any discrepancy — never classify from two sources alone
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION NEVER fix a test to match broken code — that hides the bug; docs + code must agree first
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION NEVER self-resolve a three-way conflict — always escalate via

  AskUserQuestion

  with evidence from all three sources
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION "stale docs" verdict requires BOTH implementation code AND test code to agree — one source is never enough to declare docs wrong <!-- 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 -->