# Business Evaluation

> [Content] Use when you need to evaluate business idea viability: Business Model Canvas, financial projections, risk matrix, go-to-market, execution plan.

- Skill: `duc01226/business-evaluation` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add duc01226/business-evaluation`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/duc01226/business-evaluation/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Marketing & Growth
- Author: duc01226 (https://skillmd.com/u/duc01226)
- Updated: 2026-09-09
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/duc01226/business-evaluation

---


> Codex compatibility note:
>
> - Invoke repository skills with `$skill-name` in Codex; this mirrored copy rewrites legacy Claude `/skill-name` references.
> - Task tracker mandate: BEFORE executing any workflow or skill step, create/update task tracking for all steps and keep it synchronized as progress changes.
> - User-question prompts mean to ask the user directly in Codex.
> - Ignore Claude-specific mode-switch instructions when they appear.
> - Strict execution contract: when a user explicitly invokes a skill, execute that skill protocol as written.
> - Subagent authorization: when a skill is user-invoked or AI-detected and its protocol requires subagents, that skill activation authorizes use of the required `spawn_agent` subagent(s) for that task.
> - Do not skip, reorder, or merge protocol steps unless the user explicitly approves the deviation first.
> - For workflow skills, execute each listed child-skill step explicitly and report step-by-step evidence.
> - If a required step/tool cannot run in this environment, stop and ask the user before adapting.

<!-- CODEX:PROJECT-REFERENCE-LOADING:START -->

## Codex Project-Reference Loading (No Hooks)

Codex uses static project-reference loading instead of runtime-injected project docs.
When coding, planning, debugging, testing, or reviewing, open project docs explicitly using this routing.

**Always read:**

- `docs/project-config.json` (project-specific paths, commands, modules, and workflow/test settings)
- `docs/project-reference/docs-index-reference.md` (routes to the full `docs/project-reference/*` catalog)
- `docs/project-reference/lessons.md` (always-on guardrails and anti-patterns)

**Missing/stale context route:** If `docs/project-config.json`, the docs index, `lessons.md`, `CLAUDE.md`, `AGENTS.md`, or any task-required reference doc is missing or stale, auto-run `$project-init` or the narrow setup route (`$project-config`, `$docs-init`, `$scan-all`, `$scan --target=<key>`, `$claude-md-init`) before ordinary project-specific work. If Codex mirrors or `AGENTS.md` are missing/stale, ask the user to run `$sync-codex`; do not auto-run it.

**Situation-based docs:**

- Project structure/architecture/tech-stack/deployment/setup (any layer — backend, frontend, or infra): `project-structure-reference.md`
- Backend/CQRS/API/domain/entity changes: `backend-patterns-reference.md`, `domain-entities-reference.md`
- Frontend/UI/styling/design-system: `frontend-patterns-reference.md`, `scss-styling-guide.md`, `design-system/README.md`
- Spec authoring, `docs/specs/` pathing, or TC format: `feature-spec-reference.md`, `spec-system-reference.md`, `spec-principles.md`
- Behavior/public-contract changes or spec-test-code sync: `workflow-spec-test-code-cycle-reference.md` plus the spec docs above
- Derived spec indexes/ERDs/reimplementation guides: `spec-system-reference.md` and source Feature Specs under `docs/specs/`
- Integration test implementation/review: `integration-test-reference.md`
- E2E test implementation/review: `e2e-test-reference.md`
- Code review/audit work: `code-review-rules.md` plus domain docs above based on changed files

Do not read all docs blindly. Start from `docs-index-reference.md`, then open only relevant files for the task.

<!-- CODEX:PROJECT-REFERENCE-LOADING:END -->

<!-- PROMPT-ENHANCE:STEP-TASK-ANCHOR:START -->

> **[BLOCKING]** Execute skill steps in declared order. NEVER skip, reorder, or merge steps without explicit user approval.
> **[BLOCKING]** Before each step or sub-skill call, update task tracking: set `in_progress` when step starts, set `completed` when step ends.
> **[BLOCKING]** Every completed/skipped step MUST include brief evidence or explicit skip reason.
> **[BLOCKING]** If Task tools are unavailable, create and maintain an equivalent step-by-step plan tracker with the same status transitions.

<!-- PROMPT-ENHANCE:STEP-TASK-ANCHOR:END -->

## Quick Summary

**Goal:** Evaluate business idea viability to deliver an evidence-backed viability verdict — score + confidence + Pursue/Pivot/Pause/Pass recommendation — grounded in a complete 9-block BMC, 3-year financials with stated assumptions, 5+ risks with mitigation, and a phased execution + GTM plan, so the go/no-go decision rests on traced evidence, never optimism.

**Summary:**

- **All 7 main steps, in order:** (1) capture idea (problem/solution/target), (2) load market-analysis data as evidence, (3) Business Model Canvas — all 9 blocks, (4) 3-year financial projections + assumptions table, (5) risk assessment — 5+ risks, (6) phased execution plan, (7) go-to-market — then deliver the (Step 7) verdict. NEVER skip, reorder, or merge a step — why: AI forgets the skill's own steps and ships a partial evaluation.
- Runs after market-analysis: pull its market data in as evidence rather than re-deriving market sizing here — this skill judges viability, it does not research the market.
- Every artifact is evidence-gated — all 9 BMC blocks cite proof, every financial number carries an assumption + source, and each of the 5+ risks needs mitigation AND a residual-risk entry; an unbacked number or block fails the gate.
- The verdict is the load-bearing output: a 1-10 viability score, an explicit confidence tier (95/80/60/<60%) with its evidence basis, a Pursue/Pivot/Pause/Pass call, and the single key condition that must hold to succeed — bias toward skepticism, never optimism.
- Write the result to `docs/knowledge/strategy/business/{slug}.md` via the enforced `.claude/templates/business-evaluation-template.md`, then use ask the user directly to route next (domain-analysis recommended) — never auto-decide.

**Workflow:**

1. **Capture idea** — Problem, solution, target customer
2. **Load market analysis** — Market data from market-analysis
3. **Business Model Canvas** — All 9 blocks with evidence
4. **Financial projections** — 3-year revenue, costs, break-even
5. **Risk assessment** — 5+ risks with mitigation
6. **Execution plan** — 3 phases with milestones
7. **Verdict** — Viability score, confidence, recommendation

**Key Rules:**

- All 9 BMC blocks required, each with evidence
- Financial projections: explicit assumptions table
- Minimum 5 risks with mitigation AND residual risk
- Verdict must be evidence-backed with confidence declaration

**Be skeptical. Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence percentages (Idea should be more than 80%).**

# Business Evaluation

## Step 1: Capture the Idea

From user input, extract:

- **One-liner** — Elevator pitch in 1 sentence
- **Problem** — What pain point does it solve?
- **Solution** — How does it solve it?
- **Target customer** — Who specifically benefits?

## Step 2: Business Model Canvas

All 9 blocks required:

| Block                      | Key Question                      | Evidence Required    |
| -------------------------- | --------------------------------- | -------------------- |
| **Customer Segments**      | Who are we serving?               | Market research      |
| **Value Propositions**     | What value do we deliver?         | Customer pain points |
| **Channels**               | How do we reach customers?        | Channel analysis     |
| **Customer Relationships** | How do we maintain relationships? | Retention strategy   |
| **Revenue Streams**        | How do we make money?             | Pricing research     |
| **Key Resources**          | What do we need?                  | Resource assessment  |
| **Key Activities**         | What must we do?                  | Operational analysis |
| **Key Partnerships**       | Who helps us?                     | Partner landscape    |
| **Cost Structure**         | What does it cost?                | Cost analysis        |

## Step 3: Financial Projections (3 Years)

### Revenue Model

| Year | Users/Customers | ARPU | Revenue | Growth |
| ---- | --------------- | ---- | ------- | ------ |

### Cost Structure

| Category | Y1  | Y2  | Y3  |
| -------- | --- | --- | --- |

### Break-Even

- **Monthly burn:** ${X}
- **Break-even point:** Month/Year
- **Funding needed:** ${X}

### Assumptions Table

Every number must list its assumption and source.

## Step 4: Risk Assessment

Minimum 5 risks:

| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation | Residual Risk |
| ---- | ---------- | ------ | ---------- | ------------- |

Categories to consider: market, execution, financial, competitive, regulatory, technical.

## Step 5: Execution Plan

| Phase          | Timeline    | Focus                     | Key Milestones             |
| -------------- | ----------- | ------------------------- | -------------------------- |
| **Validation** | 0-3 months  | Customer discovery, MVP   | N interviews, prototype    |
| **Build**      | 3-6 months  | Core product, early users | Beta launch, first revenue |
| **Growth**     | 6-12 months | Scale, optimize           | Revenue target, team size  |

## Step 6: Go-to-Market

- **Launch strategy** — How to enter the market
- **Initial channels** — Top 3 acquisition channels
- **Pricing strategy** — Model + rationale + competitive comparison

## Step 7: Verdict

- **Viability score:** 1-10 with rationale
- **Confidence:** 95%/80%/60%/<60% with evidence basis
- **Recommendation:** Pursue | Pivot | Pause | Pass
- **Key condition:** What must be true for this to succeed?

## Output

Write to `docs/knowledge/strategy/business/{descriptive-slug}.md` using enforced template from `.claude/templates/business-evaluation-template.md`.

---

## Next Steps

**MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — NO EXCEPTIONS** after completing this skill, you MUST ATTENTION use ask the user directly to present these options. Do NOT skip because the task seems "simple" or "obvious" — the user decides:

- **"$domain-analysis (Recommended)"** — Analyze domain model from business evaluation
- **"$plan"** — If ready to plan implementation
- **"Skip, continue manually"** — user decides

> **[IMPORTANT]** Use task tracking to break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting.

> **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).

<!-- SYNC:ai-mistake-prevention -->

> **AI Mistake Prevention** — Failure modes to avoid on every task:
>
> **Re-read files after context changes.** Context compaction, resume, or long-running work can make memory stale; verify current files before acting.
> **Verify generated content against source evidence.** AI hallucinates APIs, names, claims, and document facts. Check the relevant source before documenting or referencing.
> **Check downstream references before deleting or renaming.** Removing an artifact can stale docs, generated mirrors, configs, and callers; map references first.
> **Trace the full impact chain after edits.** Changing a definition can miss derived outputs and consumers. Follow the affected chain before declaring done.
> **Verify ALL affected outputs, not just the first.** One green check is not all green checks; validate every output surface the change can affect.
> **Assume existing values are intentional — ask WHY before changing OR flagging one as a defect.** Before changing or reporting a constant, limit, flag, cutoff, wording, or pattern, read nearby context and history, the CALLER's ordering, and 2+ sibling call sites of the same convention. A doc stating WHAT without WHY is missing rationale, not proof of a missing guard.
> **Surface ambiguity before acting — don't pick silently.** Multiple valid interpretations require an explicit question or stated assumption with risk.
> **Assert the outcome your system owns, not the intermediate state your infrastructure owns.** When verifying async work, assert the final business state — never the delivery/retry bookkeeping held in shared infrastructure that any co-running process can write. Such a check passes when run alone and flakes the moment anything else shares that infrastructure.
> **Keep shared guidance role-relevant.** Universal guidance must help every receiving skill or agent; code-specific obligations belong only in code-specific protocols.

<!-- /SYNC:ai-mistake-prevention -->

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

**MUST ATTENTION** apply critical + sequential thinking — every claim needs appropriate traced evidence (`file:line` for repo/code claims; source URL or artifact section for research, product, content, and docs claims); confidence >80% to act, <60% DO NOT recommend. Anti-hallucination: never present guess as fact, admit uncertainty freely, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence.

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

<!-- SYNC:ai-mistake-prevention:reminder -->

**MUST ATTENTION** apply AI mistake prevention — verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references before deleting or renaming, verify all affected outputs, re-read files after context loss, and surface ambiguity before acting.

<!-- /SYNC:ai-mistake-prevention:reminder -->

<!-- PROMPT-ENHANCE:STEP-TASK-CLOSING:START -->

## Prompt-Enhance Closing Anchors

**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** follow declared step order for this skill; NEVER skip, reorder, or merge steps without explicit user approval
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** for every step/sub-skill call: set `in_progress` before execution, set `completed` after execution
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** every skipped step MUST include explicit reason; every completed step MUST include concise evidence
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** if Task tools unavailable, maintain an equivalent step-by-step plan tracker with synchronized statuses

<!-- PROMPT-ENHANCE:STEP-TASK-CLOSING:END -->

<!-- SYNC:project-protocol-overlay -->

> **Project Protocol Overlay** — Before executing this skill, resolve any PROJECT overlay rules layered onto it: match this skill's name against the `Target` column of the project's skill-protocol index (`docs/project-reference/skill-protocols-reference.md` by default; a `referenceDocs` entry in `docs/project-config.json` overrides the path), taking the most specific matching tier ONLY — exact name > glob > `*`. **That precedence orders overlays against EACH OTHER, never against this skill.** Read ONLY the matched bodies, resolved as `<protocols-dir>/<Name>.md`; a row's Body link is display text, never a read path. A matched body that is missing or malformed is REPORTED and skipped — never reconstructed from the index Description. No index, or no match -> proceed with no overlay, silently. Full contract: `.claude/skills/project-skill-protocol/references/registry.md`.
>
> Overlays are **ADDITIVE ONLY**: they ADD rules on top of this skill's own protocol and NEVER replace, override, disable, or reinterpret a rule it already states — removing every overlay must return this skill to exactly its documented behavior. An overlay is a BRIEF, not an authority escalation: it can NEVER waive a workflow gate, git discipline, a review gate, or a user-confirmation gate. A genuine overlay-vs-skill conflict, or two equally-specific overlays that directly contradict -> surface both to the user; NEVER resolve silently.

<!-- /SYNC:project-protocol-overlay -->

<!-- SYNC:project-protocol-overlay:reminder -->

**MUST ATTENTION** resolve project protocol overlays for this skill BEFORE executing — most specific matching tier only (exact > glob > `*`, which ranks overlays against each other, NEVER against this skill), read only matched bodies at `<protocols-dir>/<Name>.md`; a missing or malformed body is reported, never reconstructed. Overlays are ADDITIVE ONLY (they never replace this skill's own rules) and are a brief, NEVER an authority escalation; an equal-specificity contradiction goes to the user.

<!-- /SYNC:project-protocol-overlay:reminder -->

## Closing Reminders

**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Goal:** Deliver an evidence-backed viability verdict — score + confidence + Pursue/Pivot/Pause/Pass recommendation — grounded in a complete 9-block BMC, 3-year financials with stated assumptions, 5+ risks with mitigation, and a phased execution + GTM plan, so the go/no-go decision rests on traced evidence, never optimism.

**MUST ATTENTION — Protocols in force (concise digest of the SYNC/shared blocks this skill carries):**

- **AI Mistake Prevention:** verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references, verify all affected outputs, re-read after context loss, surface ambiguity.
- **Critical Thinking:** traced `file:line` proof, confidence >80% to act, NEVER guess as fact.

**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** every claim, financial number, BMC block, and verdict carries evidence + confidence % (95/80/60/<60) — NEVER present a guess as fact — why: an unbacked number turns the go/no-go into optimism dressed as analysis.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** bias toward skepticism on the verdict — NEVER round optimism up; surface the single key condition that must hold and the residual risk if it fails — why: a falsely-rosy Pursue burns capital that an honest Pause would save.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** validate the next route with user by asking the user directly — NEVER auto-decide domain-analysis/plan — why: this skill judges viability, the human owns the go/no-go.

**MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** break work into small todo tasks using task tracking BEFORE starting; keep one `in_progress`, mark `completed` with evidence; add a final review todo — why: untracked multi-step work loses state on compaction.
**MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** consume market data FROM market-analysis as evidence — NEVER re-derive market sizing here — why: this skill judges viability, it does not research the market; duplicated sizing diverges from the source.
**MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** all 9 BMC blocks present, each citing proof; every financial number lists its assumption + source in the assumptions table — why: a missing block or bare number is a silent gap the verdict then rests on.
**MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** minimum 5 risks, each with mitigation AND a residual-risk entry across market/execution/financial/competitive/regulatory/technical — why: a risk without residual pretends mitigation is total.
**MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** run ALL 7 steps in order — idea → market-load → 9-block BMC → 3-year financials → 5+ risks → 3-phase execution plan (Validation/Build/Growth milestones) → go-to-market (launch + top-3 channels + pricing rationale) → verdict; NEVER drop financials, execution, or GTM because the idea "feels" decided — why: the verdict is only as sound as the weakest step it rests on.
**MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** before writing any figure or claim, search market-analysis output + prior evaluations for 3+ comparable patterns and cite them — why: a number with no comparable anchor is a fabrication.
**MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** write the result to `docs/knowledge/strategy/business/{slug}.md` via the enforced `.claude/templates/business-evaluation-template.md` — NEVER hand-roll the structure — why: the template is the contract downstream skills (domain-analysis/plan) read.
**MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** persist intermediate findings to `plans/reports/` for lengthy evaluations — why: external memory survives context loss and serves as the deliverable.

**Anti-Rationalization:**

| Evasion                                 | Rebuttal                                                                              |
| --------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| "Idea is obviously viable, skip rigor"  | Optimism is not evidence. Run all 9 blocks + financials + risks anyway.               |
| "Skip a BMC block — not relevant"       | Every block cites proof or states why N/A explicitly; silent omission fails the gate. |
| "Estimate the number, source it later"  | No assumption + source = no number. Fill the assumptions table before the verdict.    |
| "5 risks is a lot, 2 covers it"         | Minimum 5, each with residual risk. Thin risk lists hide the real downside.           |
| "Recommendation is clear, skip the ask" | Still ask the user directly for the next route — the human owns go/no-go.             |

**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** evidence + confidence % on every number — NEVER present a guess as fact. **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** bias toward skepticism — NEVER round optimism up. **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** ask the user directly for the next route — NEVER auto-decide.

<!-- CODEX:SYNC-PROMPT-PROTOCOLS:START -->

## Hookless Prompt Protocol Mirror (Auto-Synced)

Source: `.claude/.ck.json` + `.claude/skills/shared/sync-inline-versions.md` (`:full` blocks) + `.claude/scripts/lib/hookless-prompt-protocol.cjs`

## [WORKFLOW-EXECUTION-PROTOCOL] [BLOCKING] Workflow Execution Protocol — MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST CRITICAL. Do not skip for any reason.

**Generic portability boundary:** Reusable skills and protocol text stay project-neutral; project-specific conventions are discovered from docs/project-config.json and docs/project-reference/. Apply shared AI-SDD from `shared/sdd-artifact-contract.md`. Read `docs/project-config.json` and `docs/project-reference/docs-index-reference.md`, then open the project reference docs named there. For spec, test-case, behavior-change, public-contract, or `docs/specs/` work, route through the local spec docs named by the docs index: `feature-spec-reference.md`, `spec-system-reference.md`, `spec-principles.md`, and `workflow-spec-test-code-cycle-reference.md` when specs/tests/code must stay synchronized. If either file or a required reference doc is missing or stale, auto-run `$project-init` (or the narrow lower-level route such as `$project-config`, `$docs-init`, `$scan-all`, or `$scan --target=<key>`) before ordinary project-specific work. Any supported AI tool may execute when this shared context and local docs are available.

1. **DETECT:** If the prompt starts with an explicit slash skill/workflow command, execute it directly. Otherwise match the prompt against the workflow catalog and skill list.
2. **ANALYZE:** Choose the best option: execute directly, invoke a skill, activate a standard workflow, or compose a custom step combination.
3. **AUTO-SELECT:** Pick the best option yourself. Do not ask the user to choose between direct execution, skill, standard workflow, or custom workflow.
4. **ACTIVATE:** For a selected workflow, call `$start-workflow <workflowId>`; for a selected skill, invoke that skill; for a custom workflow, sequence custom steps directly; for direct execution, proceed with the task.
5. **CREATE TASKS:** task tracking for ALL workflow/skill/custom steps before execution when the selected path has multiple steps.
6. **PARALLELIZE:** Before executing the task list, tag each task `PAR` (independent inputs + write set disjoint from every other `PAR` task) or `SEQ` (name the blocking dependency), group `PAR` tasks into waves, declare the wave plan, and spawn each wave's sub-agents in ONE message — all-return barrier per wave, fan-out one level deep unless a sub-agent's own definition authorizes further fan-out. Sequential-by-default is a defect when tasks are independent; do not parallelize shared write targets, output-consuming tasks, trivial single-file work, ordering a skill or workflow explicitly fixes, or user-approval gates.
7. **EXECUTE:** Advance per the **Workflow Step Advancement & Parallel Phases** rule in your context instructions — model-driven; a sub-agent completion advances a step identically to an inline call; a parallel-phase group is an all-return barrier (advance only after ALL members return, never serialize it)

## Shared AI-SDD Protocol Markers

Source: `.claude/skills/shared/sync-inline-versions.md`

## SYNC:ai-sdd-artifact-contract

> **AI-SDD Artifact Contract** — Shared spec-driven development rules stay portable and source-owned.
>
> 1. Keep reusable AI-SDD principles in `.claude`; put repository-specific paths, commands, owners, products, and formats in project config/reference docs.
> 2. Preserve cycle: `spec -> plan -> tasks -> implement -> verify -> update spec/docs`.
> 3. Trace every requirement or invariant through decision, task, TC/test, source evidence, and docs/spec update.
> 4. Treat code-to-spec extraction as reference-only until accepted by the canonical spec owner.
> 5. Any supported AI tool may plan, implement, review, or verify with synced context; using multiple tools is optional.
> 6. Update `.claude` source first, then sync generated mirrors; do not manually edit `.agents`, `.codex`, or `AGENTS.md`. — why: mirrors are generated artifacts; hand-edits are overwritten on the next sync
> 7. If `docs/project-config.json`, root instruction files, or a required project-reference doc is missing or stale, auto-run `$project-init` or the narrow lower-level route before ordinary project-specific work.
>
> **Active reference:** `shared/sdd-artifact-contract.md` in the active skills root.

---

## SYNC:ai-sdd-artifact-contract:reminder

- **MANDATORY** Apply `shared/sdd-artifact-contract.md`; keep reusable AI-SDD in `.claude` and local rules in project docs.
- **MANDATORY** Code-to-spec extraction is reference-only until canonical acceptance; any supported AI tool may execute with synced context.
- **MANDATORY** Update `.claude` source before syncing generated mirrors; do not manually edit `.agents`, `.codex`, or `AGENTS.md`.
- **MANDATORY** Missing or stale project config, root instruction files, or required reference docs route project-specific work through `$project-init` or the narrow setup route automatically.
  **[TASK-PLANNING] [MANDATORY]** BEFORE executing any workflow or skill step, create/update task tracking for all planned steps, then keep it synchronized as each step starts/completes.

## [LESSON-LEARNED-REMINDER] [BLOCKING] Task Planning & Continuous Improvement — MANDATORY. Do not skip.

Break work into small tasks (task tracking) before starting. Add final task: "Analyze AI mistakes & lessons learned".

**Extract lessons — ROOT CAUSE ONLY, not symptom fixes:**

1. Name the FAILURE MODE (reasoning/assumption failure), not symptom — "assumed API existed without reading source" not "used wrong enum value".
2. Generality test: does this failure mode apply to ≥3 contexts/codebases? If not, abstract one level up.
3. Write as a universal rule — strip project-specific names/paths/classes. Useful on any codebase.
4. Consolidate: multiple mistakes sharing one failure mode → ONE lesson.
5. **Recurrence gate:** "Would this recur in future session WITHOUT this reminder?" — No → skip `$learn`.
6. **Auto-fix gate:** "Could `$code-review`/`$code-simplifier`/`$security-review`/`$lint` catch this?" — Yes → improve review skill instead.
7. BOTH gates pass → ask user to run `$learn`.
   **[CRITICAL-THINKING-MINDSET]** Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act.
   **Anti-hallucination principle:** Never present guess as fact — cite sources for every claim, admit uncertainty freely, self-check output for errors, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence — certainty without evidence root of all hallucination.
   **AI Attention principle (Primacy-Recency):** Put the 3 most critical rules at both top and bottom of long prompts/protocols so instruction adherence survives long context windows.
   **Goal-driven execution:** Define success criteria first, loop until verified, and stop only when observable checks pass.
   **Tests verify intent:** Tests must protect business rules/invariants and fail when the protected intent breaks, not only mirror current behavior.

## Common AI Mistake Prevention (System Lessons)

- **Re-read files after context compaction.** Edit requires prior Read in same context; compaction wipes read state. Re-read before editing.
- **Grep for old terms after bulk replacements.** AI over-trusts find/replace completeness. Grep full repo after bulk edits for missed refs in docs/configs/catalogs.
- **Check downstream references before deleting.** Deletions cascade doc/code staleness. Map referencing files before removal.
- **After memory loss, check existing state before creating new.** Compaction wipes prior-work memory. Query current state to resume — never blindly duplicate.
- **Verify AI-generated content against actual code.** AI hallucinates APIs, class names, method signatures. Grep to confirm existence before documenting/referencing.
- **Trace full dependency chain after edits.** Changing a definition misses downstream consumers. Trace the full chain.
- **When renaming, grep ALL consumer file types.** Some file types silently ignore missing refs (no compile error). Search code, templates, configs, generated files.
- **Trace ALL code paths when verifying correctness.** Code existing ≠ code executing. Trace early exits, error branches, conditional skips — not just happy path.
- **Update docs that embed canonical data when source changes.** Docs inlining derived data (workflows, schemas, configs) go stale silently. Update all embedding docs alongside source.
- **Verify sub-agent results after context recovery.** Background agents may finish while parent compacted — grep-verify output, don't trust assumed completion.
- **Cross-check full target list against sub-agent assignments.** Parallel sub-agents by category miss boundary items. Reconcile union of assignments against target list before proceeding.
- **Sub-agents inherit knowledge only from their agent .md definition — use custom agent types, not built-in Explore.** Tool adoption = permission + knowledge + enforcement (numbered workflow step).
- **Persist sub-agent findings incrementally, not as a final batch.** Long sub-agents hit cutoffs before final write — findings lost. Instruct append-per-section to report file.
- **When debugging, ask "whose responsibility?" before fixing.** Trace caller (wrong data) vs callee (wrong handling). Fix at responsible layer — never patch symptom site.
- **Test failure → record a provisional verdict before trace/edit, then investigate.** Use the full five-way taxonomy: SOURCE-WRONG (production violates intent), TEST-WRONG (assertion/setup is stale), TEST-NOT-OPTIMAL (valid but fragile or low-signal test), ENVIRONMENT-BLOCKED (external state prevents a verdict), or AMBIGUOUS (intent/evidence cannot choose safely). Then trace root cause and triangulate against the governing spec (`docs/specs/**` if one exists) AND source. NEVER weaken an assertion, add a skip, relax a timeout, or change source merely to force green.
- **Grep ALL removed names after extraction/refactoring.** Primary file "done" ≠ secondary files clean. Grep entire scope for every removed symbol before declaring complete.
- **Assume existing values are intentional — ask WHY before changing OR flagging one as a defect.** Pattern-matching as "wrong" skips context. Before changing or reporting any constant/limit/flag/cutoff: read comments, git blame, the CALLER's ordering (the guarantee that makes the value correct usually lives in code running immediately BEFORE the cited line), and 2+ sibling call sites of the same convention. A doc stating WHAT without WHY is missing rationale, not proof of a missing guard — and in a validation pass, an accurate `file:line` citation proves the transcription, never the defect.
- **Verify ALL affected outputs, not just the first.** One build green ≠ all green. Multi-stack changes (backend/frontend/tests/docs) require verifying EVERY output.
- **Evaluate fit before copying a nearby pattern.** Closest example ≠ matching preconditions — verify the new context shares the same constraints, base classes, scope, lifetime.
- **Holistic-first debugging — resist nearest-attention trap.** Don't dive into first plausible cause. List EVERY precondition (config, env vars, paths, DB, endpoints, creds, versions, DI, data). Verify each against evidence (grep/query — not reasoning). Ask "what would falsify this?" — if nothing, it's not a hypothesis. Most expensive failure: going deeper in "obvious" layer while bug sits in layer never questioned.
- **Surgical changes — apply the diff test (context-aware).** Two modes: (1) Bug fix → every line traces to the bug; no restyling; orphan cleanup only for imports YOUR changes made unused. (2) Review/enhancement → implement improvements AND announce as "Enhancement beyond main request: [what]". Never silently scope-creep. Diff test: "Would this line exist if I wasn't asked to do X?" — if no, delete or announce.
- **Surface ambiguity before coding — don't pick silently.** Multiple valid interpretations → present each with effort: "[Request] could mean (1) [N h], (2) [N h]. Which matters?" List scope/format/volume/constraints assumptions first. If simpler path exists, say so. Never silently pick.
- **[MANDATORY FIRST ACTION] ALWAYS activate a suitable skill or workflow BEFORE responding.** Match task against workflow catalog + skill list; invoke via skill invocation or `$start-workflow <workflowId>`. NEVER answer or write code before checking. Skip = protocol violation.
- **Why-Review adversarial mindset — apply when reviewing any plan, decision, or design.** Default SKEPTIC not VALIDATOR: steel-man a rejected alternative, invert each stated reason ("what does it sacrifice?"), stress-test top 2-3 assumptions, run pre-mortem ("ships, fails in 3 months — what breaks?"), surface 1-2 alternatives author missed. Section presence ≠ quality; quality = causal reasoning + concrete mitigations + evidence, not "it's better" or "monitor closely".
- **Front-load report-write in sub-agent prompts for large reviews.** Many-file sub-agents hit budget before final write — findings lost. Design prompts so: (1) report-write is first explicit deliverable, (2) append per-file/section (not batched), (3) scope bounded so reads don't exhaust budget. Truncated mid-sentence with no report file → spawn narrower scope, don't retry same prompt.
- **After context compaction, re-verify all prior phase outcomes before continuing.** Summaries describe intent, not environment state (git index, filesystem, processes). On resume, FIRST audit: git status, re-read modified files, verify filesystem. Every "completed" claim is an untested hypothesis until evidence confirms.
- **OOM/memory: check row count before row size.** Triage: (1) Unbounded query — no DB filter for trigger? Push filter to DB; eliminates OOM. (2) Large rows? Projection reduces proportionally. Row reduction > projection in ROI.
- **Assert the outcome your system OWNS, never the intermediate state your INFRASTRUCTURE owns.** When testing anything asynchronous (queue/broker delivery, retries, background jobs, caches, replication), assert the final business/entity state. NEVER assert the delivery bookkeeping — consume/send status, attempt counts, last-error, row existence or counts in a broker, scheduler, or outbox/inbox table. That bookkeeping lives in shared infrastructure that ANY co-running process (a peer worker, a second replica, a leftover local container) can write, usually under a deterministic shared key, so the assertion silently tests the developer's environment instead of the system: green when run alone, flaky the instant anything else shares that broker + database. Gate question for every assertion: "would this hold no matter WHICH process did the work?" — if no, assert the converged data state instead. Corollary: process-local fault injection and in-process telemetry cannot gate work any process may perform — use them as stress amplifiers (arm → bounded window → disarm → assert convergence), never as preconditions.
- **Keep domain concepts out of generic/shared/infrastructure layers.** Reusable layer (shared library, framework, infra module) must reference NO consumer-specific domain concept — tenant/customer/product IDs, business entities, feature rules. Leak compiles + runs → passes review silently while coupling the "reusable" layer to one consumer. Keep shared type domain-free; push domain fields/logic down into the consumer via subclass/composition. — why: a layer coupled to one consumer's domain is no longer reusable.

<!-- CODEX:SYNC-PROMPT-PROTOCOLS:END -->