evanflow-iterate（埃文流迭代）

EvanFlow: Iterate

Vocabulary

See evanflow meta-skill. Key terms: deep modules, deletion test, vertical slice.

When to Use

• After evanflow-executing-plans finishes all tasks
• After any non-trivial implementation
• When asked to "polish this" / "review this" / "make sure it's clean"

SKIP when: the change is one line or trivially correct.

The Loop

Repeat until stopping condition met:

1. Run All Quality Checks

Run the project's quality checks — exact commands are project-specific (see CLAUDE.md or the project's README). Typical examples across stacks:

# typecheck — one of:
tsc --noEmit          # TypeScript
pnpm typecheck        # if scripted
cargo check           # Rust
go vet ./...          # Go

# lint — one of:
pnpm lint
eslint .
cargo clippy
ruff check .

# test — one of:
pnpm test
pytest
cargo test
go test ./...

If any check fails: fix and restart the loop. Don't proceed to step 2 with broken checks.

2. Re-Read the Diff With Fresh Eyes

git diff             # working-tree changes
git diff HEAD~N..HEAD  # if reviewing a series of past commits

For each changed file, look critically for:

• Dead code — leftover console.logs, commented-out blocks, unused imports/vars
• Naming — does the name match what the code does? (Ubiquitous language matters; see evanflow-glossary.)
• Deletion test — does each new module earn its existence? Could removing it improve the code?
• Magic strings/numbers — should be enums or constants per CLAUDE.md
• Error handling — boundary inputs validated? External calls wrapped? Loading/error/empty states in UI?
• Type safety — any any, as, @ts-ignore? Justified?
• Security — authenticatedProcedure where needed? Resource ownership re-derived from ctx.user? Per CLAUDE.md.
• Test coverage — does the new behavior have a test? Does the test verify behavior, not internals?
• Test assertion correctness — research shows 62% of LLM-generated assertions are wrong. For each assertion, would a one-character bug in the implementation still let it pass? If yes, the assertion is too weak.
• Scope creep — anything in the diff that wasn't in the plan?
• Comments — only WHY notes that explain non-obvious constraints. Delete WHAT comments.

Fix what you find. Then restart from step 1.

2.5. Five Failure Modes Check

Industry research identifies five predictable failure modes in agentic coding. After step 2's diff review, do an explicit pass against each:

• (a) Hallucinated actions — did the implementation invent file paths, env vars, IDs, function names, library APIs, or other external values that aren't authoritatively confirmed? (Example: a process.env.STRIPE_SECRET_KEY reference when the actual var name is STRIPE_SK.)
• (b) Scope creep — does the diff touch files or behaviors not in the plan? Bundled refactors or stylistic changes that should be separate PRs?
• (c) Cascading errors — was a failure suppressed/caught/wrapped in a way that hides root cause from callers? Are there silent fallbacks that mask bugs (try/catch returning empty arrays, default values that paper over missing data)?
• (d) Context loss — does the diff contradict earlier decisions in the session, the plan, CLAUDE.md, or CONTEXT.md? Names, conventions, invariants?
• (e) Tool misuse — used the wrong tool (e.g., Bash for file reads, MCP server when CLI was simpler), or used a tool with wrong parameters (e.g., grep without proper escaping, Edit without reading first)?

For each mode flagged, fix and restart from step 1.

3. (UI work only) Visual Verification

If the diff touches frontend page or component files and the change has visible output:

Default approach (no Playwright needed):

# Make sure your dev server is running first (e.g., pnpm dev, npm run dev, etc.)
chromium --headless --no-sandbox \
  --screenshot=/tmp/iter-$(date +%s).png \
  --window-size=1440,900 \
  http://localhost:<port>/<route>

(If your project doesn't have chromium, substitute google-chrome --headless or chrome --headless with the same flags.)

Then read the screenshot:

Read /tmp/iter-*.png

Check against:

• Any brainstorm mockup or design comp the project maintains
• The project's design system (colors, spacing, typography, component patterns documented in CLAUDE.md)
• Responsive behavior — also screenshot at --window-size=390,844 (mobile)

If you need interaction (click, fill, observe modal): use Playwright MCP. If MCP fails with "chrome not found", configure it to use your installed Chromium binary by adding "--executable-path", "/path/to/chromium" to args in the Playwright .mcp.json. Don't fight the MCP — fix it once, then use it.

4. Stopping Condition

Stop the loop when all are true:

• All quality checks pass
• Re-read the diff and find no new issues you'd want to fix
• (UI) Screenshot matches expectation, OR you've confirmed with the user

Hard cap: 5 iterations. If you're still finding issues at iteration 5, the original plan was wrong — stop and ask the user. Don't iterate forever.

Hard Rules

• Don't iterate just to iterate. If everything is clean on the first pass, stop. Don't invent issues.
• Fix root causes, not symptoms. A linter warning that you suppress instead of fix is debt.
• Never auto-commit, never auto-stage, never auto-finish. Iteration produces a clean working tree. After convergence, report what was done and stop. The user decides whether to commit, refactor further, or change direction.
• Never iterate past the user. If the user says "good enough," stop. Their judgment beats the loop.
• Visual verification requires a running dev server. If the dev server isn't up, ask the user to start it (don't try to start it yourself unless the project has a documented "start dev" skill).

Hand-offs

• Loop converged, all clean → report what was done and STOP. Await user direction. No auto-finish, no staging, no commit.
• Loop hit cap with issues remaining → back to evanflow-writing-plans (plan was wrong)
• Found architectural issues → evanflow-improve-architecture
• Found a bug → evanflow-debug