OpenSkillIndex← back to search
claude-code

EasyPlatform review-architecture

[Code Quality] Review architecture compliance — clean architecture layers, messaging patterns, service boundaries, CQRS, v1/v2 service patterns, repository usage, entity event handlers. Default: changed files only.

install
source · Clone the upstream repo
git clone https://github.com/duc01226/EasyPlatform
Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/duc01226/EasyPlatform "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/.claude/skills/review-architecture" ~/.claude/skills/duc01226-easyplatform-review-architecture && rm -rf "$T"
manifest: .claude/skills/review-architecture/SKILL.md
source content

[IMPORTANT] Use 

TaskCreate
to break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting — including tasks for each file read. This prevents context loss from long files. For simple tasks, AI MUST ATTENTION ask user whether to skip.

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

Critical Thinking Mindset — Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination: Never present guess as fact — cite sources for every claim, admit uncertainty freely, self-check output for errors, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence — certainty without evidence root of all hallucination.

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

AI Mistake Prevention — Failure modes to avoid on every task:

  • Check downstream references before deleting. Deleting components causes documentation and code staleness cascades. Map all referencing files before removal.
  • Verify AI-generated content against actual code. AI hallucinates APIs, class names, and method signatures. Always grep to confirm existence before documenting or referencing.
  • Trace full dependency chain after edits. Changing a definition misses downstream variables and consumers derived from it. Always trace the full chain.
  • Trace ALL code paths when verifying correctness. Confirming code exists is not confirming it executes. Always trace early exits, error branches, and conditional skips — not just happy path.
  • When debugging, ask "whose responsibility?" before fixing. Trace whether bug is in caller (wrong data) or callee (wrong handling). Fix at responsible layer — never patch symptom site.
  • Assume existing values are intentional — ask WHY before changing. Before changing any constant, limit, flag, or pattern: read comments, check git blame, examine surrounding code.
  • Verify ALL affected outputs, not just the first. Changes touching multiple stacks require verifying EVERY output. One green check is not all green checks.
  • Holistic-first debugging — resist nearest-attention trap. When investigating any failure, list EVERY precondition first (config, env vars, DB names, endpoints, DI registrations, data preconditions), then verify each against evidence before forming any code-layer hypothesis.
  • Surgical changes — apply the diff test. Bug fix: every changed line must trace directly to the bug. Don't restyle or improve adjacent code. Enhancement task: implement improvements AND announce them explicitly.
  • Surface ambiguity before coding — don't pick silently. If request has multiple interpretations, present each with effort estimate and ask. Never assume all-records, file-based, or more complex path.
<!-- /SYNC:ai-mistake-prevention --> <!-- SYNC:evidence-based-reasoning -->

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

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

BLOCKED until: 

- [ ]
Evidence file path (
file:line
) 
- [ ]
Grep search performed 
- [ ]
3+ similar patterns found 
- [ ]
Confidence level stated

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

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

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

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

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

Round 2: MANDATORY fresh sub-agent review — see 

SYNC:fresh-context-review
for the spawn mechanism and 
SYNC:review-protocol-injection
for the canonical Agent prompt template. The sub-agent re-reads ALL files from scratch with ZERO Round 1 memory. It must catch:

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

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

AskUserQuestion
.

Rules:

  • NEVER declare PASS after Round 1 alone
  • NEVER reuse a sub-agent across rounds — every iteration spawns a NEW Agent call
  • Main agent READS sub-agent reports but MUST NOT filter, reinterpret, or override findings
  • Max 3 fresh-subagent rounds per review — if still FAIL, escalate via 
    AskUserQuestion
    (do NOT silently loop)
  • Track round count in conversation context (session-scoped)
  • Final verdict must incorporate ALL rounds

Report must include 

## Round N Findings (Fresh Sub-Agent)
for every round N≥2.

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

Fresh Sub-Agent Review — Eliminate orchestrator confirmation bias via isolated sub-agents.

Why: The main agent knows what it (or 

/cook
) just fixed and rationalizes findings accordingly. A fresh sub-agent has ZERO memory, re-reads from scratch, and catches what the main agent dismissed. Sub-agent bias is mitigated by (1) fresh context, (2) verbatim protocol injection, (3) main agent not filtering the report.

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

How:

  1. Spawn a NEW 
    Agent
    tool call — use 
    code-reviewer
    subagent_type for code reviews, 
    general-purpose
    for plan/doc/artifact reviews
  2. Inject ALL required review protocols VERBATIM into the prompt — see 
    SYNC:review-protocol-injection
    for the full list and template. Never reference protocols by file path; AI compliance drops behind file-read indirection (see 
    SYNC:shared-protocol-duplication-policy
    )
  3. Sub-agent re-reads ALL target files from scratch via its own tool calls — never pass file contents inline in the prompt
  4. Sub-agent writes structured report to 
    plans/reports/{review-type}-round{N}-{date}.md
  5. Main agent reads the report, integrates findings into its own report, DOES NOT override or filter

Rules:

  • NEVER reuse a sub-agent across rounds — every iteration spawns a NEW 
    Agent
    call
  • NEVER skip fresh-subagent review because "last round was clean" — every fix triggers a fresh round
  • Max 3 fresh-subagent rounds per review — escalate via 
    AskUserQuestion
    if still failing; do NOT silently loop or fall back to any prior protocol
  • Track iteration count in conversation context (session-scoped, no persistent files)
<!-- /SYNC:fresh-context-review --> <!-- SYNC:review-protocol-injection -->

Review Protocol Injection — Every fresh sub-agent review prompt MUST embed 10 protocol blocks VERBATIM. The template below has ALL 10 bodies already expanded inline. Copy the template wholesale into the Agent call's 

prompt
field at runtime, replacing only the 
{placeholders}
in Task / Round / Reference Docs / Target Files / Output sections with context-specific values. Do NOT touch the embedded protocol sections.

Why inline expansion: Placeholder markers would force file-read indirection at runtime. AI compliance drops significantly behind indirection (see 

SYNC:shared-protocol-duplication-policy
). Therefore the template carries all 10 protocol bodies pre-embedded.

Subagent Type Selection

  • code-reviewer
    — for code reviews (reviewing source files, git diffs, implementation)
  • general-purpose
    — for plan / doc / artifact reviews (reviewing markdown plans, docs, specs)

Canonical Agent Call Template (Copy Verbatim)

Agent({
  description: "Fresh Round {N} review",
  subagent_type: "code-reviewer",
  prompt: `
## Task
{review-specific task — e.g., "Review all uncommitted changes for code quality" | "Review plan files under {plan-dir}" | "Review integration tests in {path}"}

## Round
Round {N}. You have ZERO memory of prior rounds. Re-read all target files from scratch via your own tool calls. Do NOT trust anything from the main agent beyond this prompt.

## Protocols (follow VERBATIM — these are non-negotiable)

### Evidence-Based Reasoning
Speculation is FORBIDDEN. Every claim needs proof.
1. Cite file:line, grep results, or framework docs for EVERY claim
2. Declare confidence: >80% act freely, 60-80% verify first, <60% DO NOT recommend
3. Cross-service validation required for architectural changes
4. "I don't have enough evidence" is valid and expected output
BLOCKED until: Evidence file path (file:line) provided; Grep search performed; 3+ similar patterns found; Confidence level stated.
Forbidden without proof: "obviously", "I think", "should be", "probably", "this is because".
If incomplete → output: "Insufficient evidence. Verified: [...]. Not verified: [...]."

### Bug Detection
MUST check categories 1-4 for EVERY review. Never skip.
1. Null Safety: Can params/returns be null? Are they guarded? Optional chaining gaps? .find() returns checked?
2. Boundary Conditions: Off-by-one (< vs <=)? Empty collections handled? Zero/negative values? Max limits?
3. Error Handling: Try-catch scope correct? Silent swallowed exceptions? Error types specific? Cleanup in finally?
4. Resource Management: Connections/streams closed? Subscriptions unsubscribed on destroy? Timers cleared? Memory bounded?
5. Concurrency (if async): Missing await? Race conditions on shared state? Stale closures? Retry storms?
6. Stack-Specific: JS: === vs ==, typeof null. C#: async void, missing using, LINQ deferred execution.
Classify: CRITICAL (crash/corrupt) → FAIL | HIGH (incorrect behavior) → FAIL | MEDIUM (edge case) → WARN | LOW (defensive) → INFO.

### Design Patterns Quality
Priority checks for every code change:
1. DRY via OOP: Same-suffix classes (*Entity, *Dto, *Service) MUST share base class. 3+ similar patterns → extract to shared abstraction.
2. Right Responsibility: Logic in LOWEST layer (Entity > Domain Service > Application Service > Controller). Never business logic in controllers.
3. SOLID: Single responsibility (one reason to change). Open-closed (extend, don't modify). Liskov (subtypes substitutable). Interface segregation (small interfaces). Dependency inversion (depend on abstractions).
4. After extraction/move/rename: Grep ENTIRE scope for dangling references. Zero tolerance.
5. YAGNI gate: NEVER recommend patterns unless 3+ occurrences exist. Don't extract for hypothetical future use.
Anti-patterns to flag: God Object, Copy-Paste inheritance, Circular Dependency, Leaky Abstraction.

### Logic & Intention Review
Verify WHAT code does matches WHY it was changed.
1. Change Intention Check: Every changed file MUST serve the stated purpose. Flag unrelated changes as scope creep.
2. Happy Path Trace: Walk through one complete success scenario through changed code.
3. Error Path Trace: Walk through one failure/edge case scenario through changed code.
4. Acceptance Mapping: If plan context available, map every acceptance criterion to a code change.
NEVER mark review PASS without completing both traces (happy + error path).

### Test Spec Verification
Map changed code to test specifications.
1. From changed files → find TC-{FEAT}-{NNN} in docs/business-features/{Service}/detailed-features/{Feature}.md Section 15.
2. Every changed code path MUST map to a corresponding TC (or flag as "needs TC").
3. New functions/endpoints/handlers → flag for test spec creation.
4. Verify TC evidence fields point to actual code (file:line, not stale references).
5. Auth changes → TC-{FEAT}-02x exist? Data changes → TC-{FEAT}-01x exist?
6. If no specs exist → log gap and recommend /tdd-spec.
NEVER skip test mapping. Untested code paths are the #1 source of production bugs.

### Fix-Layer Accountability
NEVER fix at the crash site. Trace the full flow, fix at the owning layer. The crash site is a SYMPTOM, not the cause.
MANDATORY before ANY fix:
1. Trace full data flow — Map the complete path from data origin to crash site across ALL layers (storage → backend → API → frontend → UI). Identify where bad state ENTERS, not where it CRASHES.
2. Identify the invariant owner — Which layer's contract guarantees this value is valid? Fix at the LOWEST layer that owns the invariant, not the highest layer that consumes it.
3. One fix, maximum protection — If fix requires touching 3+ files with defensive checks, you are at the wrong layer — go lower.
4. Verify no bypass paths — Confirm all data flows through the fix point. Check for direct construction skipping factories, clone/spread without re-validation, raw data not wrapped in domain models, mutations outside the model layer.
BLOCKED until: Full data flow traced (origin → crash); Invariant owner identified with file:line evidence; All access sites audited (grep count); Fix layer justified (lowest layer that protects most consumers).
Anti-patterns (REJECT): "Fix it where it crashes" (crash site ≠ cause site, trace upstream); "Add defensive checks at every consumer" (scattered defense = wrong layer); "Both fix is safer" (pick ONE authoritative layer).

### Rationalization Prevention
AI skips steps via these evasions. Recognize and reject:
- "Too simple for a plan" → Simple + wrong assumptions = wasted time. Plan anyway.
- "I'll test after" → RED before GREEN. Write/verify test first.
- "Already searched" → Show grep evidence with file:line. No proof = no search.
- "Just do it" → Still need TaskCreate. Skip depth, never skip tracking.
- "Just a small fix" → Small fix in wrong location cascades. Verify file:line first.
- "Code is self-explanatory" → Future readers need evidence trail. Document anyway.
- "Combine steps to save time" → Combined steps dilute focus. Each step has distinct purpose.

### Graph-Assisted Investigation
MANDATORY when .code-graph/graph.db exists.
HARD-GATE: MUST run at least ONE graph command on key files before concluding any investigation.
Pattern: Grep finds files → trace --direction both reveals full system flow → Grep verifies details.
- Investigation/Scout: trace --direction both on 2-3 entry files
- Fix/Debug: callers_of on buggy function + tests_for
- Feature/Enhancement: connections on files to be modified
- Code Review: tests_for on changed functions
- Blast Radius: trace --direction downstream
CLI: python .claude/scripts/code_graph {command} --json. Use --node-mode file first (10-30x less noise), then --node-mode function for detail.

### Understand Code First
HARD-GATE: Do NOT write, plan, or fix until you READ existing code.
1. Search 3+ similar patterns (grep/glob) — cite file:line evidence.
2. Read existing files in target area — understand structure, base classes, conventions.
3. Run python .claude/scripts/code_graph trace <file> --direction both --json when .code-graph/graph.db exists.
4. Map dependencies via connections or callers_of — know what depends on your target.
5. Write investigation to .ai/workspace/analysis/ for non-trivial tasks (3+ files).
6. Re-read analysis file before implementing — never work from memory alone.
7. NEVER invent new patterns when existing ones work — match exactly or document deviation.
BLOCKED until: Read target files; Grep 3+ patterns; Graph trace (if graph.db exists); Assumptions verified with evidence.

## Reference Docs (READ before reviewing)
- docs/project-reference/code-review-rules.md
- {skill-specific reference docs — e.g., integration-test-reference.md for integration-test-review; backend-patterns-reference.md for backend reviews; frontend-patterns-reference.md for frontend reviews}

## Target Files
{explicit file list OR "run git diff to see uncommitted changes" OR "read all files under {plan-dir}"}

## Output
Write a structured report to plans/reports/{review-type}-round{N}-{date}.md with sections:
- Status: PASS | FAIL
- Issue Count: {number}
- Critical Issues (with file:line evidence)
- High Priority Issues (with file:line evidence)
- Medium / Low Issues
- Cross-cutting findings

Return the report path and status to the main agent.
Every finding MUST have file:line evidence. Speculation is forbidden.
`
})

Rules

  • DO copy the template wholesale — including all 10 embedded protocol sections
  • DO replace only the 
    {placeholders}
    in Task / Round / Reference Docs / Target Files / Output sections with context-specific content
  • DO choose 
    code-reviewer
    subagent_type for code reviews and 
    general-purpose
    for plan / doc / artifact reviews
  • DO NOT paraphrase, summarize, or skip any protocol section
  • DO NOT pass file contents inline — the sub-agent reads via its own tool calls so it has a fresh context
  • DO NOT reference protocols by file path or tag name — the bodies are already embedded above
  • DO NOT introduce placeholder markers for the protocols — they must stay literally expanded
<!-- /SYNC:review-protocol-injection -->

Critical Purpose: Ensure architecture compliance — no layer violations, no messaging anti-patterns, no service boundary breaches, no pattern drift.

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).

Quick Summary

Goal: Validate that code changes comply with project architecture rules — clean architecture, messaging, service boundaries, CQRS, v1/v2, repositories, entity event handlers.

Default scope: All uncommitted changes (staged + unstaged). User can override scope via prompt (e.g., specific files, directories, services, or full codebase).

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Plan ToDo Task to READ the following project-specific reference docs BEFORE reviewing:

  1. docs/project-reference/backend-patterns-reference.md
    — CQRS, messaging, repositories, validation, entity events, layer rules (READ FIRST — primary architecture rules source)
  2. docs/project-reference/project-structure-reference.md
    — service map, layer structure, database ownership
  3. docs/project-reference/adr-service-pattern-v1-v2-split.md
    — v1 legacy vs v2 standard (Growth), auth/permissions/observability differences
  4. docs/project-reference/frontend-patterns-reference.md
    — component hierarchy, store, API service patterns (READ only if frontend files in scope)
  5. docs/project-reference/code-review-rules.md
    — anti-patterns, conventions (content may be auto-injected by hook — check for [Injected: ...] header before reading)

If any file not found, search for: architecture documentation, service patterns, messaging patterns.

These docs contain the project-specific architecture rules. This skill is a generic checklist — the rules come from the docs above.

Workflow:

  1. Phase 0: Load Architecture Rules — Read project-specific architecture docs listed above
  2. Phase 1: Determine Scope — Get changed files (default) or use user-specified scope
  3. Phase 2: Blast Radius — Run 
    /graph-blast-radius
    if graph.db exists
  4. Phase 3: Architecture Review — Check each file against architecture rules
  5. Phase 4: Finalize — Generate architecture compliance report with PASS/BLOCKED/WARN verdicts

Key Rules:

  • Report-driven: write findings to 
    plans/reports/arch-review-{date}-{slug}.md
  • BLOCKED = hard stop (must fix before merge)
  • WARN = flag for attention (review and decide)
  • PASS = compliant
  • Be skeptical — every violation needs 
    file:line
    proof + grep for 3+ counterexamples before flagging
  • This skill does NOT fix code — it only reviews and reports

Your Mission

<task> $ARGUMENTS </task>

Review 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 flag violations without reading the actual code and tracing the dependency
  • Every finding must include 
    file:line
    evidence
  • Before flagging a pattern violation, grep for 3+ existing examples — the codebase convention wins
  • Question: "Is this actually a violation, or is it an established exception?"

Phase 0: Load Architecture Rules (MANDATORY FIRST)

IMPORTANT MANDATORY MUST ATTENTION: Read project-specific architecture docs BEFORE reviewing any code. The rules come from these docs, not from general knowledge.

  • Read 
    docs/project-reference/backend-patterns-reference.md
    — extract messaging naming conventions, layer rules, CQRS patterns, repository rules, entity event handler patterns, validation patterns
  • Read 
    docs/project-reference/project-structure-reference.md
    — extract service map, layer structure, database ownership
  • Read 
    docs/project-reference/adr-service-pattern-v1-v2-split.md
    — extract v1/v2 differences, which services are v1 vs v2
  • If frontend files in scope: Read 
    docs/project-reference/frontend-patterns-reference.md
  • Note: 
    code-review-rules.md
    is auto-injected by hook on Skill invocation — check conversation context before reading

After reading, you now have the project-specific rules to validate against. Do NOT rely on general architecture knowledge — use what the docs say.

Phase 1: Determine Scope

Default (no user override): Review all uncommitted changes.

git status          # List changed files
git diff            # Staged + unstaged changes
git diff --cached   # Staged only

User-specified scope: If user specifies files, directories, services, or "full codebase" — use that instead.

  • Collect list of files to review
  • Categorize files: backend (.cs), frontend (.ts/.html), config, docs, other
  • Filter to architecture-relevant files only (skip pure docs, configs, tests unless architecture-relevant)

Phase 2: Blast Radius (if graph.db exists)

<!-- SYNC:graph-assisted-investigation -->

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

TaskMinimum 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.

<!-- /SYNC:graph-assisted-investigation -->
  • If 
    .code-graph/graph.db
    exists: Call 
    /graph-blast-radius
    skill
  • Record: impacted files count, cross-service impact, risk level
  • Use results to prioritize review (highest-impact files first)
  • If graph not available: note "Graph not available — skipping blast radius" and proceed

For each changed file with downstream impact:

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

Flag any MESSAGE_BUS consumers or event handlers impacted by changes.

Phase 3: Architecture Review

Create report file: 

plans/reports/arch-review-{date}-{slug}.md

For EACH file in scope, evaluate against ALL applicable categories below. Skip categories that don't apply to the file type.

Category 1: Clean Architecture Layers — Severity: BLOCKED

What to check: Dependency direction violations. Dependencies MUST ATTENTION flow inward only: Service/API → Application → Domain ← Persistence.

How to check:

  1. Read 
    docs/project-config.json
    → 
    architectureRules.layerBoundaries
    for project-specific layer rules
  2. For each file, determine its layer from path (Domain/, Application/, Persistence/, Service/)
  3. Scan 
    using
    (C#) or 
    import
    (TS) statements
  4. Flag any import from a layer that is forbidden for the current layer

Violation format:

BLOCKED: {layer} layer file {filePath}:{line} imports from {forbiddenLayer} layer ({importStatement})

Also check:

  • Business logic in correct layer? (Entity/Domain > Service/Application > Controller/Component)
  • No business logic in API/Controller layer (should delegate to Application layer)
  • No direct infrastructure access from Domain layer (repositories are interfaces in Domain, implementations in Persistence)

Category 2: Message Bus Patterns — Severity: BLOCKED/WARN

What to check: Naming conventions, base classes, producer/consumer patterns, upstream/downstream rules.

How to check (rules from backend-patterns-reference.md):

Naming (BLOCKED if wrong):

  • Event messages: 
    {ServiceName}{Feature}{Action}EventBusMessage
  • Request messages: 
    {ConsumerServiceName}{Feature}RequestBusMessage
  • Grep for existing examples to verify naming convention: 
    grep -r "EventBusMessage" --include="*.cs"

Base classes (BLOCKED if wrong):

  • All bus messages MUST ATTENTION extend 
    PlatformTrackableBusMessage
    or 
    PlatformBusMessage<TPayload>
  • Consumers MUST ATTENTION extend 
    PlatformApplicationMessageBusConsumer<TMessage>
  • Producers MUST ATTENTION extend 
    PlatformCqrsEventBusMessageProducer<TEvent, TMessage>

Upstream/Downstream (BLOCKED if violated):

  • Leader service owns entity data and defines EventBusMessage
  • Follower services consume events — they do NOT produce events about data they don't own
  • NO circular listening: if A→B events exist, B→A events for same data = boundary violation
  • Consumers MUST ATTENTION implement dependency waiting with 
    TryWaitUntilAsync
    when depending on data from other messages

SubQueuePrefix (WARN if missing for ordered messages):

  • Messages requiring ordered processing MUST ATTENTION override 
    SubQueuePrefix()
    with a meaningful key
  • Messages not requiring ordering should return 
    null

Also check:

  • No direct cross-service database access (MUST ATTENTION use message bus)
  • LastMessageSyncDate
    used for conflict resolution in consumers
  • Inbox/Outbox pattern used for reliable delivery (check 
    EnableInboxEventBusMessage
    )

Category 3: CQRS Compliance — Severity: BLOCKED/WARN

What to check: Command/Query handler patterns, validation, DTO mapping.

How to check (rules from backend-patterns-reference.md):

File organization (BLOCKED):

  • Command + Result + Handler MUST ATTENTION be in ONE file under 
    UseCaseCommands/{Feature}/
  • Query + Result + Handler MUST ATTENTION be in ONE file under 
    UseCaseQueries/{Feature}/

Validation (BLOCKED):

  • MUST ATTENTION use 
    PlatformValidationResult
    fluent API (
    .And()
    , 
    .AndAsync()
    )
  • NEVER throw exceptions for validation — return validation result
  • Sync validation in 
    command.Validate()
    , async validation in 
    ValidateRequestAsync()

DTO mapping (BLOCKED):

  • DTOs MUST ATTENTION own mapping via 
    MapToEntity()
    or 
    MapToObject()
  • NEVER map in command handlers — mapping belongs in DTO/Command class

Side effects (BLOCKED):

  • NEVER put side effects (notifications, sync, cascade updates) in command handlers
  • Side effects go in Entity Event Handlers under 
    UseCaseEvents/
  • Each handler = one independent concern (failures don't cascade)

Category 4: Repository Patterns — Severity: BLOCKED

What to check: Service-specific repository usage.

How to check (rules from backend-patterns-reference.md):

  • MUST ATTENTION use service-specific repository: 
    I{ServiceName}PlatformRootRepository<TEntity>
    (e.g., 
    IGrowthRootRepository<T>
    , 
    ICandidatePlatformRootRepository<T>
    )
  • NEVER use generic 
    IPlatformRootRepository<T>
    directly
  • Complex queries MUST ATTENTION use 
    RepositoryExtensions
    with static expressions
  • All query filter/FK/sort columns MUST ATTENTION have database indexes

Violation format:

BLOCKED: {filePath}:{line} uses generic IPlatformRootRepository instead of service-specific I{Service}RootRepository

Category 5: V1/V2 Service Pattern — Severity: BLOCKED (new services) / WARN (existing)

What to check: Service startup patterns, auth, permissions, observability.

How to check (rules from adr-service-pattern-v1-v2-split.md):

For NEW services (BLOCKED if v1 pattern used):

  • MUST ATTENTION use multi-scheme auth (JWT Bearer + Azure AD Teams)
  • MUST ATTENTION use 
    UsePermissionProviderClaimGenerationByProductScope()
  • MUST ATTENTION use OpenTelemetry via Aspire (NO ApplicationInsights)
  • MUST ATTENTION use modern C# collection syntax 
    [...]

For EXISTING v1 services (WARN if new v2 patterns mixed in without full migration):

  • Single JWT Bearer is expected — don't flag as violation
  • UsePermissionProviderClaimGeneration()
    without params is expected
  • Warn if ApplicationInsights is still present (being deprecated)

How to determine v1 vs v2:

  • Growth service = v2 standard
  • All other services = v1 legacy
  • Check 
    project-structure-reference.md
    for service list

Category 6: Entity Event Handlers — Severity: BLOCKED/WARN

What to check: Side effect implementation patterns.

How to check (rules from backend-patterns-reference.md):

Location (BLOCKED):

  • Entity event handlers MUST ATTENTION be in 
    UseCaseEvents/
    directory
  • NEVER inline side effects in command handlers

Implementation (BLOCKED):

  • MUST ATTENTION extend 
    PlatformCqrsEntityEventApplicationHandler<TEntity>
  • MUST ATTENTION implement 
    HandleWhen()
    to filter by CRUD action
  • One handler = one independent concern

Naming (WARN):

  • Convention: 
    {Action}On{Trigger}EntityEventHandler
  • Grep for existing examples before flagging

Producer patterns (BLOCKED):

  • Entity event bus message producers MUST ATTENTION extend 
    PlatformCqrsEventBusMessageProducer<TEvent, TMessage>
  • MUST ATTENTION implement 
    BuildMessage()
    and 
    HandleWhen()

Category 7: Service Boundaries — Severity: BLOCKED

What to check: Cross-service isolation.

How to check:

  • No direct database access to another service's database (BLOCKED)
  • No direct 
    using
    reference to another service's domain/persistence project (BLOCKED)
  • Cross-service communication via message bus only (event bus or request bus)
  • Shared data goes through shared message projects, not direct references
  • Each service owns its own database — verify from 
    project-structure-reference.md
    service-to-DB mapping

Violation format:

BLOCKED: {filePath}:{line} references {otherService} domain/persistence directly — must use message bus

Category 8: Frontend Architecture (if frontend files in scope) — Severity: BLOCKED/WARN

What to check: Component hierarchy, state management, API patterns.

How to check (rules from frontend-patterns-reference.md):

  • Components MUST ATTENTION extend 
    AppBaseComponent
    , 
    AppBaseVmStoreComponent
    , or 
    AppBaseFormComponent
    (BLOCKED)
  • State management MUST ATTENTION use 
    PlatformVmStore
    + 
    effectSimple()
    — no manual signals or direct HttpClient (BLOCKED)
  • API services MUST ATTENTION extend 
    PlatformApiService
    (BLOCKED)
  • All subscriptions MUST ATTENTION use 
    .pipe(this.untilDestroyed())
    — no manual unsubscribe (BLOCKED)
  • All template elements MUST ATTENTION have BEM classes (WARN)
  • Logic in lowest layer: Model > Service > Component (WARN)

Phase 4: Finalize — Architecture Compliance Report

Update report with final sections:

Verdict Scoring

Count findings by severity:

VerdictCondition
BLOCKED1+ BLOCKED findings — must fix before merge
WARN0 BLOCKED, 1+ WARN findings — review and decide
PASS0 BLOCKED, 0 WARN — architecture compliant

Report Structure

# Architecture Review Report — {date}

## Scope

- Files reviewed: {count}
- Services affected: {list}
- Blast radius: {summary from Phase 2}

## Verdict: {PASS | WARN | BLOCKED}

## BLOCKED Findings (Must Fix)

### {Category}: {description}

- **File:** {path}:{line}
- **Rule:** {rule from project doc}
- **Evidence:** {what was found}
- **Fix:** {what to change}

## WARN Findings (Review)

### {Category}: {description}

- **File:** {path}:{line}
- **Rule:** {rule from project doc}
- **Evidence:** {what was found}
- **Recommendation:** {suggested action}

## PASS Categories

- {list of categories that passed with no findings}

## Architecture Health Summary

- Clean Architecture: {PASS/WARN/BLOCKED}
- Messaging Patterns: {PASS/WARN/BLOCKED}
- CQRS Compliance: {PASS/WARN/BLOCKED}
- Repository Patterns: {PASS/WARN/BLOCKED}
- V1/V2 Compliance: {PASS/WARN/BLOCKED}
- Entity Event Handlers: {PASS/WARN/BLOCKED}
- Service Boundaries: {PASS/WARN/BLOCKED}
- Frontend Architecture: {PASS/WARN/BLOCKED/N/A}

Architecture Boundary Check (Automated)

For each changed file, verify it does not import from a forbidden layer:

  1. Read rules from 
    docs/project-config.json
    → 
    architectureRules.layerBoundaries
  2. Determine layer — For each changed file, match its path against each rule's 
    paths
    glob patterns
  3. Scan imports — Grep the file for 
    using
    (C#) or 
    import
    (TS) statements
  4. Check violations — If any import path contains a layer name listed in 
    cannotImportFrom
    , it is a violation
  5. Exclude framework — Skip files matching any pattern in 
    architectureRules.excludePatterns
  6. BLOCK on violation — Report as critical: 
    "BLOCKED: {layer} layer file {filePath} imports from {forbiddenLayer} layer ({importStatement})"

If 

architectureRules
is not present in project-config.json, skip this check silently.

Systematic Review Protocol (for 10+ changed files)

When 10+ files in scope, switch to parallel review:

  1. Categorize — Group files by service/layer/concern
  2. Parallel Sub-Agents — Launch one 
    code-reviewer
    sub-agent per category with architecture-specific checklist
  3. Synchronize — Collect findings, cross-reference service boundaries
  4. Consolidate — Single holistic report with per-category verdicts

Next Steps

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

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

  • "/code-simplifier" (Recommended) — Simplify and refine code
  • "/code-review" — Deep code quality review
  • "Skip, continue manually" — user decides

AI Agent Integrity Gate (NON-NEGOTIABLE)

Completion ≠ Correctness. Before reporting ANY work done, prove it:

  1. Grep every removed name. Extraction/rename/delete touched N files? Grep confirms 0 dangling refs across ALL file types.
  2. Ask WHY before changing. Existing values are intentional until proven otherwise. No "fix" without traced rationale.
  3. Verify ALL outputs. One build passing ≠ all builds passing. Check every affected stack.
  4. Evaluate pattern fit. Copying nearby code? Verify preconditions match — same scope, lifetime, base class, constraints.
  5. New artifact = wired artifact. Created something? Prove it's registered, imported, and reachable by all consumers.

Closing Reminders

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION break work into small todo tasks using 

TaskCreate
BEFORE starting. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION validate decisions with user via 
AskUserQuestion
— never auto-decide. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION read project-specific architecture docs BEFORE reviewing — rules come from docs, not general knowledge. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION add a final review todo task to verify work quality. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION READ the following files before starting:

<!-- SYNC:evidence-based-reasoning:reminder -->
  • IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION cite 
    file:line
    evidence for every claim. Confidence >80% to act, <60% = do NOT recommend. <!-- /SYNC:evidence-based-reasoning:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:graph-assisted-investigation:reminder -->
  • IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION run at least ONE graph command on key files when graph.db exists. Pattern: grep → trace → 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 -->