review-changes（审查变更）

[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.

Prerequisites: MUST ATTENTION READ before executing:

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

Design Patterns Quality — Priority checks for every code change: 1. DRY via OOP: Same-suffix classes (*Entity, *Dto, *Service) MUST ATTENTION 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.

Deep Multi-Round Review — Escalating rounds. Round 1 in main session. Round 2+ and EVERY recursive re-review iteration MUST use a fresh sub-agent. Round 1: Main-session review. Read target files, build understanding, note issues. Output baseline findings. Round 2: MANDATORY fresh sub-agent review — see SYNC:fresh-context-review for the spawn mechanism and SYNC:review-protocol-injection for the canonical Agent prompt template. The sub-agent re-reads ALL files from scratch with ZERO Round 1 memory. It must catch: - Cross-cutting concerns missed in Round 1 - Interaction bugs between changed files - Convention drift (new code vs existing patterns) - Missing pieces that should exist but don't - Subtle edge cases the main session rationalized away Round 3+ (recursive after fixes): After ANY fix cycle, MANDATORY fresh sub-agent re-review. Spawn a NEW Agent tool call each iteration — never reuse Round 2's agent. Each new agent re-reads ALL files from scratch with full protocol injection. Continue until PASS or 3 fresh-subagent rounds max, then escalate to user via AskUserQuestion. Rules: - NEVER declare PASS after Round 1 alone - NEVER reuse a sub-agent across rounds — every iteration spawns a NEW Agent call - Main agent READS sub-agent reports but MUST NOT filter, reinterpret, or override findings - Max 3 fresh-subagent rounds per review — if still FAIL, escalate via AskUserQuestion (do NOT silently loop) - Track round count in conversation context (session-scoped) - Final verdict must incorporate ALL rounds Report must include ## Round N Findings (Fresh Sub-Agent) for every round N≥2.

Fresh Sub-Agent Review — Eliminate orchestrator confirmation bias via isolated sub-agents. Why: The main agent knows what it (or /cook) just fixed and rationalizes findings accordingly. A fresh sub-agent has ZERO memory, re-reads from scratch, and catches what the main agent dismissed. Sub-agent bias is mitigated by (1) fresh context, (2) verbatim protocol injection, (3) main agent not filtering the report. When: Round 2 of ANY review AND every recursive re-review iteration after fixes. NOT needed when Round 1 already PASSes with zero issues. How: 1. Spawn a NEW Agent tool call — use code-reviewer subagent_type for code reviews, general-purpose for plan/doc/artifact reviews 2. Inject ALL required review protocols VERBATIM into the prompt — see SYNC:review-protocol-injection for the full list and template. Never reference protocols by file path; AI compliance drops behind file-read indirection (see SYNC:shared-protocol-duplication-policy) 3. Sub-agent re-reads ALL target files from scratch via its own tool calls — never pass file contents inline in the prompt 4. Sub-agent writes structured report to plans/reports/{review-type}-round{N}-{date}.md 5. Main agent reads the report, integrates findings into its own report, DOES NOT override or filter Rules: - NEVER reuse a sub-agent across rounds — every iteration spawns a NEW Agent call - NEVER skip fresh-subagent review because "last round was clean" — every fix triggers a fresh round - Max 3 fresh-subagent rounds per review — escalate via AskUserQuestion if still failing; do NOT silently loop or fall back to any prior protocol - Track iteration count in conversation context (session-scoped, no persistent files)

Review Protocol Injection — Every fresh sub-agent review prompt MUST embed 9 protocol blocks VERBATIM. The template below has ALL 9 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 9 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 9 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

Logic & Intention Review — Verify WHAT code does matches WHY it was changed. 1. Change Intention Check: Every changed file MUST ATTENTION 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).

Bug Detection — MUST ATTENTION 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

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 ATTENTION 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.

Integration Test Sync Check — Verify changed handlers have corresponding integration tests. 1. From changed files → find *Command.cs, *Query.cs, *Handler.cs under src/Services/ 2. For each changed handler → search for matching *IntegrationTests.cs in same service's test project 3. If integration test EXISTS → check if test methods cover changed behavior (new methods/parameters) 4. If integration test MISSING → flag as advisory: "Changed handler {file} has no integration tests. Consider /integration-test." 5. Severity: MEDIUM (advisory, not blocking) This is advisory — do NOT block the review for missing integration tests.

• docs/project-reference/domain-entities-reference.md — Domain entity catalog, relationships, cross-service sync (read when task involves business entities/models) (content auto-injected by hook — check for [Injected:...] header before reading)

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: Comprehensive code review of all uncommitted changes following project standards.

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Plan ToDo Task to READ the following project-specific reference docs: - docs/project-reference/code-review-rules.md — anti-patterns, review checklists, quality standards (READ FIRST) - docs/project-reference/integration-test-reference.md — Integration test patterns, fixture setup, seeder conventions, lessons learned (MUST READ before reviewing/writing integration tests) - project-structure-reference.md — service list, directory tree, conventions - docs/project-reference/scss-styling-guide.md — BEM methodology, SCSS variables, mixins - docs/project-reference/design-system/README.md — design tokens, component inventory, icons If files not found, search for: project documentation, coding standards, architecture docs.

Workflow:

1. Phase 0: Blast Radius — Call /graph-blast-radius skill first (MANDATORY)
2. Phase 1: Collect — Run git status/diff, create report file
3. Phase 2: File Review — Review each changed file, update report incrementally
4. Phase 3: Holistic — Spawn fresh-context sub-agent for unbiased holistic assessment
5. Phase 4: Finalize — Generate critical issues, recommendations, and suggested commit message

Key Rules:

• Report-driven: always write findings to plans/reports/code-review-{date}-{slug}.md
• Check logic placement (lowest layer: Entity > Service > Component)
• Must create todo tasks for all 5 phases before starting
• Be skeptical — every claim needs file:line proof
• Verify convention by grepping 3+ existing examples before flagging violations
• Actively check for DRY violations, YAGNI/KISS over-engineering, and correctness bugs
• Cross-reference changed files against related docs — flag stale feature docs, test specs, READMEs

Code Review: Uncommitted Changes

Perform a comprehensive code review of all uncommitted changes following project standards.

Review Scope

Target: All uncommitted changes (staged and unstaged) in the current working directory.

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 accept code correctness at face value — verify by reading actual implementations
• Every finding must include file:line evidence (grep results, read confirmations)
• If you cannot prove a claim with a code trace, do NOT include it in the report
• Question assumptions: "Does this actually work?" → trace the call path to confirm
• Challenge completeness: "Is this all?" → grep for related usages across services
• Verify side effects: "What else does this change break?" → check consumers and dependents
• No "looks fine" without proof — state what you verified and how

Core Principles (ENFORCE ALL)

YAGNI — Flag code that solves problems that don't exist yet (unused parameters, speculative interfaces, premature abstractions) KISS — Flag unnecessarily complex solutions. Ask: "Is there a simpler way that meets the same requirement?" DRY — Actively grep for similar/duplicate code across the codebase before accepting new code. If 3+ similar patterns exist, flag for extraction. Clean Code — Readable > clever. Names reveal intent. Functions do one thing. No deep nesting. Follow Convention — Before flagging ANY pattern violation, grep for 3+ existing examples in the codebase. The codebase convention wins over textbook rules. No Flaws/No Bugs — Trace logic paths. Verify edge cases (null, empty, boundary values). Check error handling covers failure modes. Proof Required — Every claim backed by file:line evidence or grep results. Speculation is forbidden. Doc Staleness — Cross-reference changed files against related docs (feature docs, test specs, READMEs). Flag any doc that is stale or missing updates to reflect current code changes.

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.

Run python.claude/scripts/code_graph batch-query <f1> <f2> --json on changed files for test coverage and caller impact.

Blast Radius Pre-Analysis (MANDATORY FIRST STEP)

IMPORTANT MANDATORY MUST ATTENTION: This is the FIRST action in every review. Call /graph-blast-radius skill BEFORE any other review work.

If .code-graph/graph.db exists, run graph-blast-radius analysis before reviewing changes:

• Call /graph-blast-radius skill (which runs python.claude/scripts/code_graph blast-radius --json)
• Include in review: impacted files count, untested changes, risk level based on blast radius size
• Use results to prioritize file review order (highest-impact files first)

Graph-Assisted Change Review

For each changed file, trace its full impact:

1. python.claude/scripts/code_graph trace <changed-file> --direction downstream --json — see all files affected by changes (including implicit MESSAGE_BUS consumers, event handlers)
2. Flag any affected file NOT covered by tests
3. This catches cross-service impact that simple diff review misses

Review Approach (Report-Driven Two-Phase - CRITICAL)

⛔ MANDATORY FIRST: Create Todo Tasks for Review Phases Before starting, call TaskCreate with:

• [Review Phase 0] Run /graph-blast-radius to analyze change impact - in_progress (MUST ATTENTION BE FIRST)
• [Review Phase 1] Get changes and create report file - pending
• [Review Phase 2] Review file-by-file and update report - pending
• [Review Phase 3] Spawn fresh-context sub-agent for holistic assessment - pending
• [Review Phase 4] Generate final review findings - pending
• [Review Phase 5] Run /docs-update if staleness detected - pending Update todo status as each phase completes. This ensures review is tracked.

Note: If Phase 1 reveals 20+ changed files, replace Phase 2-4 tasks with Systematic Review Protocol tasks: [Review Phase 2] Categorize and fire parallel sub-agents, [Review Phase 3] Synchronize and cross-reference, [Review Phase 4] Generate consolidated report

Phase 0: Run Graph Blast Radius Analysis (MANDATORY FIRST STEP)

IMPORTANT MANDATORY MUST ATTENTION: This is the FIRST action before ANY other review work. The blast radius analysis provides structural impact data (impacted files, untested changes, risk level) that informs the entire review.

• Call /graph-blast-radius skill (runs python.claude/scripts/code_graph blast-radius --json)
• Record in report: changed files count, impacted files count, untested changes, risk level
• Use blast radius output to prioritize which files to review most carefully in Phase 2
• If .code-graph/graph.db does not exist, note "Graph not available — skipping blast radius" and proceed to Phase 1

Phase 0.5: Plan Compliance Check (CONDITIONAL — only when active plan exists)

Check ## Plan Context in injected context:

• If "Plan: none" → skip, log "No active plan — skipping plan compliance"
• If "Plan: {path}" → load plan and verify:

1. Read {plan-path}/plan.md — get phase list and scope
2. Read relevant phase-*.md files — extract files to modify, test specifications (TC IDs), success criteria
3. Verify:

- Scope match — changed files listed in plan phases (warn on unplanned files) - TC evidence — TCs mapped to completed phases have evidence (file:line), not "TBD" - Success criteria met — phase success criteria satisfied by changes

1. Add "Plan Compliance" section to review report

Phase 1: Get Changes and Create Report File

• Run git status to see all changed files
• Run git diff to see actual changes (staged and unstaged)
• Create plans/reports/code-review-{date}-{slug}.md
• Initialize with Scope, Files to Review, and Blast Radius Summary sections

Phase 2: File-by-File Review (Build Report Incrementally) For EACH changed file, read and immediately update report with:

• File path and change type (added/modified/deleted)
• Change Summary: what was modified/added
• Purpose: why this change exists
• Convention check: Grep for 3+ similar patterns in codebase — does new code follow existing convention?
• Correctness check: Trace logic paths — does the code handle null, empty, boundary values, error cases?
• DRY check: Grep for similar/duplicate code — does this logic already exist elsewhere?
• Intention check: Does this change serve the stated purpose? Flag unrelated modifications
• Logic trace: Trace one happy path + one error path. Does the logic match requirements?
• Semantic correctness: Does the code DO what it's supposed to? (filter logic, sort order, boundary conditions)
• Issues Found: naming, typing, responsibility, patterns, bugs, over-engineering, logic errors
• Continue to next file, repeat

Phase 3: Holistic Review (Fresh Sub-Agent — Round 2)

Protocol: SYNC:double-round-trip-review + SYNC:fresh-context-review + SYNC:review-protocol-injection (all inlined above in this file).

After ALL files reviewed in Phase 2 (Round 1), spawn a fresh code-reviewer sub-agent for Round 2 holistic assessment using the canonical Agent template from SYNC:review-protocol-injection above. The sub-agent has ZERO memory of the Phase 2 file-by-file review. When constructing the Agent call prompt:

1. Copy the Agent call shape from the SYNC:review-protocol-injection template verbatim
2. Embed the full verbatim body of these 9 SYNC blocks (all present inline above in this skill file): SYNC:evidence-based-reasoning, SYNC:bug-detection, SYNC:design-patterns-quality, SYNC:logic-and-intention-review, SYNC:test-spec-verification, SYNC:fix-layer-accountability, SYNC:rationalization-prevention, SYNC:graph-assisted-investigation, SYNC:understand-code-first
3. Set the Task as "Review ALL uncommitted changes holistically. Focus on big picture — overall technical approach coherence, architecture layers, logic placement (lowest layer), backend mapping in Command/DTO, frontend constants in Model, DRY violations, service boundaries, YAGNI/KISS, function complexity."
4. Set Target Files as "run git diff to see all uncommitted changes"
5. Set report path as plans/reports/code-review-changes-round{N}-{date}.md

After 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, 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 The following checks are now handled by the sub-agent but can be verified in Phase 4:

Clean Code & Over-engineering Checks:

• YAGNI: Any code solving hypothetical future problems? Unused params, speculative interfaces, config for one-time ops?
• KISS: Any unnecessarily complex solution? Could this be simpler while meeting same requirement?
• Function complexity: Methods >30 lines? Nesting >3 levels? Multiple responsibilities in one function?
• Over-engineering: Abstractions for single-use cases? Generic where specific suffices? Feature flags for things that could just be changed?
• Readability: Would a new team member understand this in <2 minutes? Are names self-documenting?

Documentation Staleness Check (REQUIRED):

Cross-reference changed files against related documentation using this mapping:

• For each changed file, check if matching docs exist and are still accurate
• Flag docs where counts, tables, examples, or descriptions no longer match the code
• Flag missing docs for new features/components that should be documented
• Check test specs (docs/business-features/**/test-*) reflect current behavior
• Do NOT auto-fix — flag in report with specific stale section and what changed

Correctness & Bug Detection (per bug-detection-protocol.md):

• Null safety: New variables/params/returns — can they be null? Are they guarded?
• Boundary conditions: Off-by-one, empty collections, zero/negative/max values
• Error handling: Try-catch scope correct? Silent failures? Swallowed exceptions?
• Resource cleanup: Connections, streams, subscriptions properly disposed?
• Concurrency: Async code with shared state safe? Missing awaits? Race conditions?
• Data types: Implicit conversions, timezone issues, string/number confusion?
• Business logic: Does the logic match the requirement? Trace one complete happy path + one error path through the code.

Test Spec Verification (per test-spec-verification-protocol.md):

• Locate specs: From changed files → find TC-{FEAT}-{NNN} in feature docs or test-specs/
• Coverage: Each changed code path has a corresponding TC (or flag as "needs TC")
• New code without TCs: New functions/endpoints/handlers flagged for test spec creation
• Cross-cutting: Auth changes → TC-{FEAT}-02x exist? Data changes → TC-{FEAT}-01x exist?
• Stale evidence: Changed code referenced in TC Evidence fields — re-verify

Integration Test Sync (per integration-test-sync-check protocol):

• Locate changed handlers: Grep *Command.cs, *Query.cs in changed files
• Match to tests: For each handler, check {Service}.IntegrationTests/ for corresponding test file
• Flag gaps: Missing integration tests flagged as MEDIUM advisory finding
• Flag stale tests: If handler behavior changed, verify test assertions still match

Phase 4: Generate Final Review Result Update report with final sections:

• Overall Assessment (big picture summary)
• Critical Issues (must fix before merge)
• High Priority (should fix)
• Architecture Recommendations
• Documentation Staleness (list stale docs with what changed, or "No doc updates needed")
• Positive Observations
• Suggested commit message (based on changes)

Phase 5: Docs-Update Triage (CONDITIONAL)

If the Documentation Staleness Check in Phase 4 identified stale docs:

1. Invoke /docs-update skill to update impacted documentation
2. If /docs-update produces changes, include them in the review summary
3. If no staleness detected in Phase 4, skip: "No doc updates needed — staleness check was clean"

Note: This step runs the docs-update triage (Phase 0) which fast-exits when no docs are impacted. Overhead is minimal for non-doc-impacting changes.

Readability Checklist (MUST ATTENTION evaluate)

Before approving, verify the code is easy to read, easy to maintain, easy to understand:

• Schema visibility — If a function computes a data structure (object, map, config), a comment should show the output shape so readers don't have to trace the code
• Non-obvious data flows — If data transforms through multiple steps (A → B → C), a brief comment should explain the pipeline
• Self-documenting signatures — Function params should explain their role; flag unused params
• Magic values — Unexplained numbers/strings should be named constants or have inline rationale
• Naming clarity — Variables/functions should reveal intent without reading the implementation

Review Checklist

1. Architecture Compliance

• Follows Clean Architecture layers (Domain, Application, Persistence, Service)
• Uses correct repository pattern (search for: service-specific repository interface)
• CQRS pattern: Command/Query + Handler + Result in ONE file (search for: existing command patterns)
• No cross-service direct database access

2. Code Quality & Clean Code

• Single Responsibility Principle — each function/class does ONE thing. Event handlers/consumers/jobs: one handler = one independent concern (failures don't cascade)
• No code duplication (DRY) — grep for similar code, extract if 3+ occurrences
• Appropriate error handling with project validation patterns (search for: validation result pattern)
• No magic numbers/strings (extract to named constants)
• Type annotations on all functions
• No implicit any types
• Early returns/guard clauses used
• YAGNI — no speculative features, unused parameters, premature abstractions
• KISS — simplest solution that meets the requirement
• Function length <30 lines, nesting depth ≤3 levels
• Follows existing codebase conventions (verify with grep for 3+ examples)

2.5. Naming Conventions

• Names reveal intent (WHAT not HOW)
• Specific names, not generic (employeeRecords not data)
• Methods: Verb + Noun (getEmployee, validateInput)
• Booleans: is/has/can/should prefix (isActive, hasPermission)
• No cryptic abbreviations (employeeCount not empCnt)

3. Project Patterns (see docs/project-reference/backend-patterns-reference.md)

• Uses project validation fluent API (.And(),.AndAsync())
• No direct side effects in command handlers (use entity events)
• DTO mapping in DTO classes, not handlers
• Static expressions for entity queries

4. Security

• No hardcoded credentials
• Proper authorization checks
• Input validation at boundaries
• No SQL injection risks

5. Performance

• No O(n²) complexity (use dictionary for lookups)
• No N+1 query patterns (batch load related entities)
• Project only needed properties (don't load all then select one)
• Pagination for all list queries (never get all without paging)
• Parallel queries for independent operations
• Appropriate use of async/await
• Entity query expressions have database indexes configured
• Database collections have index management methods (search for: index setup pattern)
• Database migrations include indexes for WHERE clause columns

6. Common Issues to Check

• Unused imports or variables
• Console.log/Debug.WriteLine statements left in
• Hardcoded values that should be configuration
• Missing async/await keywords
• Incorrect exception handling
• Missing validation

7. Backend-Specific Checks

• CQRS patterns followed correctly
• Repository usage (no direct DbContext access)
• Entity DTO mapping patterns
• Validation using project validation patterns
• Seed data in data seeders, NOT in migration executors (if data must exist after DB reset → seeder)

8. Frontend-Specific Checks

• Component base class inheritance correct (search for: project base component classes)
• State management patterns (search for: project store base class)
• Memory leaks (search for: subscription cleanup pattern)
• Template binding issues
• BEM class naming on all elements

9. Documentation Staleness

• Changed service code → check docs/business-features/ for affected service
• Changed frontend code → check docs/project-reference/frontend-patterns-reference.md + business-feature docs
• Changed backend code → check docs/project-reference/backend-patterns-reference.md
• Changed .claude/hooks/** → check .claude/docs/hooks/README.md
• Changed .claude/skills/** → check .claude/docs/skills/README.md, skill catalogs
• Changed .claude/workflows/** → check CLAUDE.md workflow catalog, .claude/docs/ references
• New feature/component added → verify corresponding doc exists or flag as missing
• Test specs in docs/business-features/**/ reflect current behavior after changes
• API changes reflected in relevant API docs or Swagger annotations

Output Format

Provide feedback in this format:

Summary: Brief overall assessment

Critical Issues: (Must fix before commit)

• Issue 1: Description and suggested fix
• Issue 2: Description and suggested fix

High Priority: (Should fix)

• Issue 1: Description
• Issue 2: Description

Suggestions: (Nice to have)

• Suggestion 1
• Suggestion 2

Documentation Staleness: (Docs that may need updating)

• Doc 1: What is stale and why
• No doc updates needed — if no changed file maps to a doc

Positive Notes:

• What was done well

Suggested Commit Message:

type(scope): description

- Detail 1
- Detail 2

Systematic Review Protocol (for 10+ changed files)

NON-NEGOTIABLE: When the changeset is large (10+ files), you MUST ATTENTION use this systematic protocol instead of reviewing files one-by-one sequentially. Principle: Review carefully and systematically — break into groups, fire multiple agents to review in parallel. Ensure no flaws, no bugs, no stale info, and best practices in every aspect.

Auto-Activation

In Phase 0, after running git status, count the changed files. If 10 or more files changed:

1. STOP the sequential Phase 1-3 approach
2. SWITCH to this Systematic Review Protocol automatically
3. ANNOUNCE to user: "Detected {N} changed files. Switching to systematic parallel review protocol."

The sequential Phase 1-3 approach is ONLY for small changesets (<20 files). For large changesets, the parallel protocol produces better results with fewer missed issues.

Step 1: Categorize Changes

Group all changed files into logical categories (e.g., by directory, concern, or layer):

Step 2: Fire Parallel Sub-Agents

Launch one code-reviewer sub-agent per category using the Agent tool with run_in_background: true. Each sub-agent receives:

• Full list of files in its category
• Category-specific review checklist
• Cross-reference verification instructions (counts, tables, links)

All sub-agents run in parallel to maximize speed and coverage.

Step 3: Synchronize & Cross-Reference

After all sub-agents complete:

1. Collect findings from each agent's report
2. Cross-reference — verify counts, keyword tables, and references are consistent ACROSS categories
3. Detect gaps — issues that only appear when looking across categories (e.g., a workflow added in .claude/ but missing from CLAUDE.md keyword table)
4. Consolidate into single holistic report with categorized findings

Step 4: Holistic Big-Picture Assessment

With all category findings combined, assess:

• Overall coherence of changes as a unified plan
• Cross-category synchronization (do docs match code? do counts match reality?)
• Risk areas where categories interact
• Missing documentation updates for changed code

Why This Protocol Matters

Sequential file-by-file review of 50+ files causes:

• Context window exhaustion before completing review
• Missed cross-file inconsistencies
• Shallow review of later files due to attention fatigue
• No big-picture assessment

Parallel categorized review ensures thorough coverage with holistic synthesis.

Workflow Recommendation

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — NO EXCEPTIONS: If you are NOT already in a workflow, you MUST ATTENTION use AskUserQuestion to ask the user. Do NOT judge task complexity or decide this is "simple enough to skip" — the user decides whether to use a workflow, not you: 1. Activate review-changes workflow (Recommended) — review-changes → review-architecture → code-simplifier → code-review → performance → plan → plan-validate → cook → watzup 2. Execute /review-changes directly — run this skill standalone

Architecture Boundary Check

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.

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-review (Recommended)" — Deeper code quality review
• "/watzup" — Wrap up session and review all changes
• "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 add a final review todo task to verify work quality. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION READ the following files before starting:

• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION search 3+ existing patterns and read code BEFORE any modification. Run graph trace when graph.db exists.
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION check DRY via OOP, right responsibility layer, SOLID. Grep for dangling refs after moves.
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION run at least ONE graph command on key files when graph.db exists. Pattern: grep → trace → verify.
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION verify WHAT code does matches WHY it changed. Trace happy + error paths.
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION check null safety, boundaries, error handling, resource management for every review.
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION map changed code paths to TC-{FEAT}-{NNN}. Flag untested paths.
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION check changed handlers for matching integration tests. Flag missing tests as advisory.