EasyPlatform why-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.

<!-- 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 --> <!-- SYNC:graph-impact-analysis -->

Graph Impact Analysis — When

.code-graph/graph.db

exists, run

blast-radius --json

to detect ALL files affected by changes (7 edge types: CALLS, MESSAGE_BUS, API_ENDPOINT, TRIGGERS_EVENT, PRODUCES_EVENT, TRIGGERS_COMMAND_EVENT, INHERITS). Compute gap: impacted_files - changed_files = potentially stale files. Risk: <5 Low, 5-20 Medium, >20 High. Use

trace --direction downstream

for deep chains on high-impact files.

<!-- /SYNC:graph-impact-analysis -->

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: Validate that a plan contains sufficient design rationale (WHY, not just WHAT) before implementation begins.

Applies to: Features and refactors only — bugfixes and trivial changes exempt.

Why this exists: AI code generation optimizes mechanics but misses conceptual quality. This skill ensures the human thinking happened before the mechanical coding starts.

Your Mission

<task> $ARGUMENTS </task>

Adversarial Review Mindset (NON-NEGOTIABLE)

Default stance: SKEPTIC, not validator. Your job is to find what's wrong, not confirm what's right.

Confirmation bias trap: After reading a coherent plan, AI naturally finds reasons to agree. The current context (post-plan, post-fix) amplifies this — you've already seen the reasoning and rationalized it. This section exists to break that loop.

Adversarial Techniques (apply ALL before concluding)

1. Steel-Man Protocol Before dismissing any rejected alternative, argue FOR it as strongly as possible. Ask: "Would a senior engineer with 10 years of experience in this domain actually choose this alternative?" If yes — the plan's dismissal needs stronger justification.

2. Why NOT? Inversion For every stated reason ("We chose X because Y"), ask: "Why NOT X? What does X sacrifice?" The plan must acknowledge what the chosen approach gives up, not just what it gains.

3. What If? Assumption Stress Test List the top 3 assumptions in the plan. For each: "What if this assumption is wrong?" A good plan survives at least 2 of its 3 assumptions being false.

4. Pre-Mortem Assume the plan ships and fails in production within 3 months. 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. Unseen Alternatives Identify 1-2 approaches NOT mentioned in the plan at all. Did the author genuinely not consider them, or did they consider and consciously exclude them? Missing alternatives without exclusion reasoning = weak coverage.

6. Pros/Cons Symmetry Check Count the pros listed for the chosen approach. Count the cons. If pros > cons by more than 2:1, the analysis is likely biased. Real trade-offs have roughly equal weight on both sides.

7. Contrarian Pass Before writing any finding, 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.

Forbidden Patterns

• Leading with confirmation: "This looks good because..." → STOP. Lead with challenges first.
• Presence = quality: "Alternatives section exists ✅" → presence is NOT quality. Were they real alternatives?
• Vague rationale: "We chose X because it's better" → What metric? Better at what cost?
• Asymmetric trade-offs: Listing 3 pros and 1 con → the analysis is likely incomplete.
• "Looks fine" without evidence of adversarial challenge

Anti-Bias Gate (MANDATORY before finalizing verdict)

Complete ALL checks before writing the final verdict:

• MUST ATTENTION steel-man at least one rejected alternative (argue FOR it)
• MUST ATTENTION identify at least 1 alternative NOT in the plan
• MUST ATTENTION list 2-3 arguments AGAINST the chosen approach
• MUST ATTENTION surface 2-3 hidden assumptions with stress tests
• MUST ATTENTION run the pre-mortem (one concrete failure scenario)
• MUST ATTENTION check pros/cons symmetry

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

Behavioral Delta Matrix (MANDATORY for bugfixes)

<!-- SYNC:behavioral-delta-matrix -->

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

<!-- /SYNC:behavioral-delta-matrix -->

Plan Resolution

1. If arguments contain a path → use that plan directory
2. Else check

   ## Plan Context

   in injected context → use active plan path
3. If no plan found → tell user: "No active plan found. Run

   /plan

   or

   /plan-hard

   first."

Validation Checklist

Read the plan's

plan.md

and all

phase-*.md

files. Check each item below. Two dimensions per check: presence AND quality depth.

Rule: Presence alone is NOT a pass. A section that exists but contains weak, asymmetric, or unverified reasoning FAILS quality depth.

Required Sections (in plan.md or phase files)

#	Section	Presence Check	Quality Depth Check (adversarial)
1	Problem Statement	2-3 sentences describing the problem	Is the problem scoped correctly? Could it be framed differently to lead to a different solution? Are symptoms confused with root cause?
2	Alternatives Considered	Minimum 2 alternatives listed with pros/cons	Are alternatives real (not strawmen)? Would a domain expert seriously consider each? Are the cons of the CHOSEN approach listed, not just cons of the others?
3	Design Rationale	Explicit reasoning linking decision to trade-offs	Is reasoning causal (X leads to Y) or just descriptive (X is better)? Are hidden assumptions surfaced? Does it address failure modes, not just success modes?
4	Risk Assessment	At least 1 risk per phase	Are risks ranked by severity? Are mitigations concrete actions or vague intentions ("monitor closely")? Is there at least one risk about the approach itself (not just execution)?
5	Ownership	Clear who maintains code post-merge	Implicit OK (author owns), explicit better

Optional (Flag if Missing, Don't Fail)

#	Section	When Required	Quality Depth Check
6	Operational Impact	Service-layer or API changes	Are rollback steps defined? What breaks if this is reverted?
7	Cross-Service Impact	Changes touching multiple microservices	Are all downstream consumers identified? Who needs to be notified?
8	Migration Strategy	Database schema or data changes	Is there a rollback plan? Is it tested on a data sample?

Output Format

## Why-Review Results

**Plan:** {plan path}
**Date:** {date}
**Verdict:** PASS / NEEDS WORK

### Checklist

| #   | Check                   | Presence | Quality Depth | Notes                            |
| --- | ----------------------- | -------- | ------------- | -------------------------------- |
| 1   | Problem Statement       | ✅/❌    | ✅/⚠️/❌      | {what's strong / what's weak}    |
| 2   | Alternatives Considered | ✅/❌    | ✅/⚠️/❌      | {are they real or strawmen?}     |
| 3   | Design Rationale        | ✅/❌    | ✅/⚠️/❌      | {causal or just descriptive?}    |
| 4   | Risk Assessment         | ✅/❌    | ✅/⚠️/❌      | {concrete mitigations or vague?} |
| 5   | Ownership               | ✅/❌    | ✅/⚠️/❌      | {details}                        |

> ✅ Strong ⚠️ Weak/Partial ❌ Missing

### Adversarial Analysis

**Strongest arguments AGAINST the chosen approach:**

1. {argument 1 — cite specific plan text that weakens under this pressure}
2. {argument 2}
3. {argument 3 if applicable}

**Unexamined alternatives** (not mentioned in the plan):

- {alternative A} — why it might be worth considering
- {alternative B if applicable}

**Weakest assumptions** (if wrong, the plan breaks):

1. {assumption} — impact if false: {consequence}
2. {assumption} — impact if false: {consequence}

**Pre-mortem** (assume it ships and fails in 3 months):

> {One concrete, plausible failure scenario based on the plan's approach}

**Pros/Cons symmetry:** Pros listed: {N} | Cons listed: {N} | Bias: {balanced / leans toward pros / leans toward cons}

### Missing Items (if any)

- {specific item to add before implementation}

### Recommendation

{Proceed to /cook | Add missing sections first | Add adversarial analysis to plan before proceeding}

Round 2: Adversarial Re-Review (MANDATORY)

Protocol: Deep Multi-Round Review (inlined via SYNC:double-round-trip-review above)

After completing Round 1 checklist evaluation, execute a second full review round using adversarial mode:

1. Assume Round 1 was wrong — start with: "Round 1 missed something. Find it."
2. Challenge every PASS item from Round 1 — generate at least 2 sentences arguing the opposite for each
3. Complete the Anti-Bias Gate (all 6 boxes from Adversarial Review Mindset section)
4. Populate the Adversarial Analysis section in the output — this is MANDATORY:
   • At least 2 arguments against the chosen approach
   • At least 1 unexamined alternative
   • At least 2 hidden assumptions with failure consequences
   • Pre-mortem scenario
   • Pros/Cons symmetry count
5. Focus on what Round 1 typically misses:
   • Alternatives that are strawmen (too easy to dismiss)
   • Risks stated vaguely without concrete mitigations
   • Assumptions embedded in the problem statement itself
   • Scope creep disguised as "related improvements"
6. Update verdict if Round 2 found new issues
7. Final verdict must incorporate findings from BOTH rounds AND the Adversarial Analysis

Scope

• Applies to: Features, refactors, architectural changes
• Exempt: Bugfixes, config changes, single-file tweaks, documentation-only
• Enforcement: Advisory (soft warning) — does not block implementation

Important Notes

• Review only — do NOT modify plan files or implement changes
• Keep output concise — actionable in <2 minutes
• Simple plans still require the Anti-Bias Gate — findings may be brief ("No real alternatives found — approach is the only viable path given X constraint"), but the gate cannot be skipped

---

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:

• "/cook (Recommended)" — Begin implementation after design rationale is validated
• "/code" — If implementing a simpler change
• "Skip, continue manually" — user decides

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 add a final review todo task to verify work quality. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION READ the following files before starting:

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION cite

  file:line

  evidence for every claim. Confidence >80% to act, <60% do NOT recommend.
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION execute TWO review rounds. Round 2 delegates to fresh code-reviewer sub-agent (zero prior context) — never skip or combine with Round 1.
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION run graph blast-radius on changed files to find potentially stale consumers/handlers (when graph.db exists). <!-- 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 -->