EasyPlatform plan-review

[BLOCKING] This is a validation gate. MUST ATTENTION use

AskUserQuestion

to present review findings and get user confirmation. Completing without asking at least one question is a violation.

[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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

Evidence Gate: MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — every claim, finding, and recommendation requires

file:line

proof or traced evidence with confidence percentage (>80% to act, <80% must verify first).

OOP & DRY Enforcement: MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — flag duplicated patterns that should be extracted to a base class, generic, or helper. Classes in the same group or suffix (ex *Entity, *Dto, *Service, etc...) MUST ATTENTION inherit a common base (even if empty now — enables future shared logic and child overrides). Verify project has code linting/analyzer configured for the stack.

Quick Summary

Goal: Auto-review implementation plans for validity, correctness, and best practices. Recursive: on FAIL, fix issues directly in plan files and re-review until PASS (max 3 iterations).

Workflow:

1. Resolve Plan — Use $ARGUMENTS path or active plan from

   ## Plan Context

2. Read Files — plan.md + all phase-*.md files, extract requirements/steps/files/risks
3. Evaluate Checklist — Validity (summary, requirements, steps, files), Correctness (specific, paths, no conflicts), Best Practices (YAGNI/KISS/DRY, architecture), Completeness (risks, testing, success, security)
4. Score & Classify — PASS (all Required + ≥50% Recommended), WARN (all Required + <50% Recommended), FAIL (any Required fails)
5. Output Result — Status, checks passed, issues, recommendations, verdict
6. If FAIL — Fix issues in plan files directly, then re-review (loop back to step 2, max 3 iterations)

Core Principle — Detailed & Small Enough:

• Too vague? → Detail it: add specific file paths, concrete actions, exact method names
• Too big to detail? → Break it: split into smaller phases/sub-plans until each is detailed
• A plan that can't be immediately coded from is NOT ready. Every step must be implementation-ready.

Key Rules:

• No hallucination: Every plan claim about existing source code must have

  file:line

  proof — unverified paths, class names, or behaviors = FAIL
• PASS: Proceed to implementation
• WARN: Proceed with caution, note gaps
• FAIL (iteration < 3): Fix plan issues directly, then re-review
• FAIL (iteration = 3): STOP - escalate to user
• Constructive: Focus on implementation-blocking issues, not pedantic details

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, not validator. Your job is to find what cannot work, not confirm what looks right.

Confirmation bias trap: After reading a well-structured plan, AI naturally finds reasons to agree. This section exists to break that loop before it produces a rubber-stamp approval.

Adversarial Techniques (apply ALL before concluding)

1. Implementation Reality Check For every phase, ask: "If a developer started implementing this right now, what is the first thing that would break?" Walk through the critical path concretely. Vague phases ("implement the service layer") that can't be traced to specific files/classes fail this check.

2. Assumption Stress Test List the top 3 implicit assumptions embedded in the plan. For each: "What if this assumption is wrong?" A valid plan survives at least 2 of its 3 assumptions being false. Common hidden assumptions: "existing code is in a known state," "no external API changes," "team has this domain knowledge."

3. Effort Reality Check For each phase marked with effort estimates: "Has similar work in this codebase been done in this timeframe? What slowed it down last time?" Plans that underestimate by 2x or more are not valid plans — they are optimistic guesses.

4. Pre-Mortem Assume the plan is implemented exactly as written and the feature is in production after 1 month. Write one concrete failure scenario that is plausible given the current plan. If you can't find one, you haven't looked hard enough.

5. Scope Creep Detector Identify any task in the plan that is NOT directly required to deliver the stated feature. "While we're here, let's also refactor X" is scope creep. Flag it.

6. Dependency Blindspot List 2-3 external dependencies (other services, APIs, data sources) the plan assumes are stable. For each: "What breaks in this plan if this dependency changes or is unavailable?" If a dependency failure is not addressed anywhere in the plan, it is a risk gap.

7. Contrarian Pass Before writing any verdict, generate at least 2 sentences arguing the OPPOSITE conclusion. If you're about to write PASS — argue for NEEDS WORK. If about to write NEEDS WORK — argue for PASS. Then decide which argument is stronger based on evidence.

Forbidden Patterns

• "Structure looks good" → Structure is NOT quality. Can it be implemented?
• "Phases are well-defined" → Presence of phases is NOT correctness. What's in them?
• "Alternatives were considered" → Were they real alternatives or strawmen set up to fail?
• "Risk is managed" → Mitigation of "monitor closely" is NOT a mitigation. What action, by whom, triggered by what?
• "Looks achievable" without tracing the critical path → Not a valid assessment.

Anti-Bias Gate (MANDATORY before finalizing verdict)

Complete ALL checks before writing the final verdict:

• MUST ATTENTION run Implementation Reality Check on the highest-risk phase
• MUST ATTENTION identify 3 implicit assumptions and stress-test them
• MUST ATTENTION check effort estimates against codebase complexity
• MUST ATTENTION run pre-mortem (one concrete production failure scenario)
• MUST ATTENTION scan for scope creep (tasks not required for stated feature)
• MUST ATTENTION verify dependency blindspots are addressed

If any check is incomplete → you have NOT completed the adversarial review. Go back.

Behavioral Delta Matrix (MANDATORY for bugfixes)

Behavioral Delta Matrix — MANDATORY for bugfix reviews. Produce this table BEFORE PASS/FAIL verdict. Narrative descriptions don't substitute.

Input state	Pre-fix behavior	Post-fix behavior	Delta
{condition}	{current behavior}	{fixed behavior}	Preserved ✓ / Fixed ✓ / REGRESSION ✗

Rules: ≥3 rows · ≥1 row the bug report did NOT mention · REGRESSION delta → FAIL until a preservation test covers it (

tdd-spec-template.md#preservation-tests-mandatory-for-bugfix-specs

)

BLOCKED until: ≥3 rows · ≥1 row outside bug report · no unmitigated REGRESSION

Your mission

Perform automatic self-review of an implementation plan to ensure it's valid, correct, follows best practices, and identify anything needing fixes before proceeding.

Key distinction: This is AI self-review (automatic), NOT user interview like

/plan-validate

Plan Resolution

1. If

   $ARGUMENTS

   provided -> Use that path
2. Else check

   ## Plan Context

   section -> Use active plan path
3. If no plan found -> Error: "No plan to review. Run /plan first."

Workflow

Step 1: Read Plan Files

Read the plan directory:

• plan.md

  - Overview, phases list, frontmatter

• phase-*.md

  - All phase files
• Extract: requirements, implementation steps, file listings, risks

Step 2: Evaluate Against Checklist

Validity (Required - all must pass)

Correctness (Required - all must pass)

• Granularity Gate — "Detailed & Small Enough" — FAIL if ANY phase fails ANY criterion below. A plan you can't immediately code from is NOT ready.

Decision tree — apply to EACH phase:

Phase too vague? (no file paths, planning verbs, unclear actions)
  → YES → DETAIL IT: add specific file paths, exact method names, concrete actions
  → NO ↓
Phase too big? (>5 files OR >3h effort OR single step is a mini-project)
  → YES → BREAK IT: split into smaller sibling phases until each meets limits
  → NO → PASS this phase

5-Point Criteria (all must pass per phase):

src/auth/login.ts

validateToken()

Planning verbs that trigger FAIL: "research", "determine", "figure out", "decide", "evaluate", "explore", "investigate" — these belong in investigation, not implementation plans.

Action on failure:

• Too vague → Refine in-place: expand steps with file paths, method names, concrete actions
• Too big (≤9 files) → Split phase into sibling phases (Phase 2A, 2B, 2C)
• Too big (10+ files) → Create sub-plan:

  {plan-dir}/sub-plans/phase-{XX}-{name}/plan.md

Worked example: FAILS:

"Phase 2: Data Layer — Set up database models, Create repositories, Implement data access patterns. Effort: 4h, Files: ~8"

"Phase 2A: Database Schema (1h, 3 files) — Create src/models/user.entity.ts, Create src/models/session.entity.ts, Create migrations/001-create-users-sessions.ts"

"Phase 2B: Repository Layer (1.5h, 3 files) — Create src/repos/user.repository.ts, Create src/repos/session.repository.ts, Register in src/app.module.ts"

• File paths follow project patterns
• No conflicting or duplicate steps
• Dependencies between steps are clear
• Anti-Hallucination & Code-Proof Gate — FAIL if ANY plan claim about existing source code lacks

  file:line

  proof.

file:line

file:line

FAIL triggers: unread file paths, ungrepped method names, "should be"/"probably"/"typically" language about existing code, behaviors assumed from similar projects instead of THIS codebase. Greenfield-only plans (no existing code refs) → PASS.

• New Tech/Lib Gate: If plan introduces new packages/libraries/frameworks not in the project, verify alternatives were evaluated (top 3 compared) and user confirmed the choice. FAIL if new tech is added without evaluation.
• Test spec coverage — Every phase has

  ## Test Specifications

  section with TC mappings. "TBD" is valid for TDD-first mode.
• TC-requirement mapping — Every functional requirement maps to ≥1 TC (or explicit "TBD" with rationale)

Best Practices (Required - all must pass)

.claude/docs/

.claude/docs/

Completeness (Recommended - ≥50% should pass)

.code-graph/graph.db

importers_of

Step 3: Score and Classify

Step 4: Output Result

## Plan Review Result

**Status:** PASS | WARN | FAIL
**Reviewed:** {plan-path}
**Date:** {current-date}

### Summary

{1-2 sentence summary of plan quality}

### Checks Passed ({X}/{Y})

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

- ✅ Check 1
- ✅ Check 2
- ❌ Check 3 (if failed)

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

- ✅ Check 1
- ⚠️ Check 2 (missing)

### Issues Found

- ❌ FAIL: {critical issue requiring fix}
- ⚠️ WARN: {minor issue, can proceed}

### Recommendations

1. {specific fix 1}
2. {specific fix 2}

### Verdict

{PROCEED | REVISE_FIRST | BLOCKED}

Graph-Assisted Investigation — MANDATORY when

.code-graph/graph.db

exists.

HARD-GATE: MUST ATTENTION 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

Task	Minimum Graph Action
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.

Graph-Trace for Plan Coverage

When graph DB is available, verify the plan covers all affected files:

• For each file in the plan's "files to modify" list, run

  python .claude/scripts/code_graph trace <file> --direction downstream --json

• Flag any downstream file NOT listed in the plan as "potentially missed"
• This catches cross-service impact (MESSAGE_BUS consumers, event handlers) that the plan author may have overlooked

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)

Recursive Fix-and-Review Protocol (CRITICAL)

Protocol:

SYNC:double-round-trip-review

+

SYNC:fresh-context-review

+

SYNC:review-protocol-injection

(all inlined above in this file).

When the review results in FAIL, plan-review fixes the issues directly in plan files, then spawns a fresh

general-purpose

SYNC:review-protocol-injection

When constructing the Agent call prompt for Round N (N≥2):

1. Copy the Agent call shape from the

   SYNC:review-protocol-injection

   template verbatim
2. Use

   subagent_type: "general-purpose"

   (this is a plan review, not a code review)
3. Embed the full verbatim body of these SYNC blocks (inlined above in this skill file):

   SYNC:evidence-based-reasoning

   ,

   SYNC:rationalization-prevention

   ,

   SYNC:graph-assisted-investigation

   ,

   SYNC:understand-code-first

   (omit code-specific protocols like

   SYNC:bug-detection

   ,

   SYNC:test-spec-verification

   which are not applicable to plan files)
4. Set the Task as

   "Review plan files under {plan-dir}. Validate structural completeness, code-proof anti-hallucination (every file:line claim about existing source code must exist), and adversarial simulation (imagine implementing each phase right now — what fails first?)."

5. Set Target Files as

   "read plan.md and all phase-*.md files under {plan-dir}"

6. Set report path as

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

After the 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 plan files, 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

Flow

┌──────────────────────────────────┐
│  Round 1: Main-session review    │
│  (structural checklist + basic   │
│   code-proof trace)              │
│  Output: PASS / WARN / FAIL      │
└──────────────┬───────────────────┘
               │
        ┌──────▼──────┐
        │ PASS/WARN?  │──YES──→ Proceed to next workflow step
        └──────┬──────┘
               │ FAIL
        ┌──────▼──────────────────────────────────┐
        │  FIX: Modify plan files to resolve       │
        │  all FAIL issues (edit plan.md/phase-*)  │
        └──────┬──────────────────────────────────┘
               │
        ┌──────▼──────────────────────────────────┐
        │  Round 2+: FRESH SUB-AGENT RE-REVIEW    │
        │  Spawn NEW Agent (general-purpose) with │
        │  verbatim SYNC protocol injection.      │
        │  Sub-agent re-reads ALL plan files      │
        │  from scratch (zero memory of fixes).   │
        └──────┬──────────────────────────────────┘
               │
               └──→ Loop until PASS/WARN (max 3 fresh-subagent rounds)

Iteration Rules

1. Max 3 fresh-subagent rounds — if issues persist after 3 fresh Agent re-review cycles, STOP and escalate to user via

   AskUserQuestion

2. Track round count — log "Plan review Round N/3 (fresh sub-agent)" at the start of each cycle
3. PASS/WARN = exit — when all Required checks pass, proceed (WARN is acceptable)
4. Diminishing scope — each round should find FEWER issues. If Round N finds MORE than Round N-1, STOP and escalate
5. Fix scope — only fix issues flagged as FAIL (Required check failures). Do NOT rewrite the plan.
6. Fix approach:
   • Vague steps → expand with specific file paths, concrete actions
   • Missing sections → add them (risks, testing strategy, success criteria)
   • Conflicting steps → resolve conflicts, document rationale
   • Over-engineering → simplify, remove unnecessary complexity
   • Missing TC mappings → add TC references or "TBD" with rationale
7. After each fix — spawn a NEW fresh sub-agent for re-review (never reuse a prior agent — each round is a new

   Agent

   tool call)
8. No silent fallback — if 3 fresh rounds fail, escalate via

   AskUserQuestion

   . NEVER fall back to any prior protocol.

Next Steps

• If PASS: Announce "Plan review complete. Proceeding with next workflow step."
• If WARN: Announce "Plan review complete with warnings. Proceeding - consider addressing gaps."
• If FAIL (iteration < 3): Fix the issues directly in plan files, then re-review (recursive).
• If FAIL (iteration = 3): List remaining issues. STOP. Ask user to fix or regenerate plan via

  AskUserQuestion

  .

Important Notes

• Be constructive, not pedantic — focus on issues that would cause implementation problems
• WARN is acceptable for missing optional sections
• FAIL only for genuinely missing required content
• NEVER do a quick review — even "simple" plans had 13 bugs in real testing. Always run all 3 rounds

Skill Interconnection (Standalone: MUST ATTENTION ask user via

AskUserQuestion

. Skip if inside workflow.)

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

AskUserQuestion

• "Proceed with full workflow (Recommended)" — I'll detect the best workflow to continue from here (plan reviewed). This ensures validation, implementation, testing, and docs steps aren't skipped.
• "/plan-validate" — Interview user to confirm plan assumptions
• "/cook" or "/code" — If plan is approved and ready for implementation
• "Skip, continue manually" — user decides

Closing Reminders

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION plans must not hallucinate — every claim about existing source code needs

file:line

TaskCreate

AskUserQuestion

• 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:double-round-trip-review:reminder -->
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION execute THREE review rounds per deep-plan-review-protocol. R1=checklist, R2=code-proof, R3=adversarial simulation. Never PASS after R1 alone. Note: Round 3 (adversarial simulation) is MANDATORY even on PASS — it is not triggered only by FAIL. The SYNC:double-round-trip-review protocol describes a 2-round minimum; plan-review extends this to 3 rounds. Round 3 = the adversarial sub-agent from the Adversarial Review Mindset section above. <!-- /SYNC:double-round-trip-review:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:graph-assisted-investigation:reminder -->
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION run at least ONE graph command on key files when graph.db exists. Pattern: grep → graph trace → grep verify. <!-- /SYNC:graph-assisted-investigation: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 -->