Plan Validate

[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.

Quick Summary

Goal: Force every assumption-laden plan decision and every preservation-critical behavior through explicit user confirmation BEFORE implementation — by interviewing the user with critical questions that validate assumptions and surface issues — so no unstated assumption silently reaches code.

Summary:

• Purpose: validate a finished plan via a critical-questions interview so every assumption-laden decision and every preservation-critical behavior is user-confirmed BEFORE implementation — no unstated assumption silently reaches code.
• Main steps (run in order): Phase 0 Detect Plan Type → resolve plan path ($ARGUMENTS / ## Plan Context / ask) → load mode + questions range as hard constraints → Step 1 Read plan.md + all phase-*.md, flag decisions/assumptions/risks/tradeoffs → Step 2 Extract topics across 8 categories (Architecture, Assumptions, Tradeoffs, Risks, Scope, New Tech/Lib, Test Specs, Preservation) → Step 3 Generate questions (2-4 concrete options each, surface implicit decisions) → Step 4 Interview via AskUserQuestion (≤4 per call) → Step 5 Document answers → offer implement/refine/skip.
• Phase 0 weights everything: plan type (bugfix/feature/migration/refactor/other) decides which question categories fire; any fix/bug/regression/broken/defect keyword makes the Preservation question BLOCKING — never skip it.
• The output is a REAL interview, not a self-answer: honor the questions MIN-MAX range from ## Plan Context, give 2-4 concrete options per question, treat the Preservation "Unsure" answer as BLOCKED → route to /plan; if the plan adds new tech/packages, probe whether alternatives were evaluated before accepting the choice.
• Persist results narrowly: add ONLY a ## Validation Summary (confirmed decisions + action items) to plan.md — NEVER edit phase files; close by offering implement/refine/skip via AskUserQuestion.

Workflow:

1. Detect Plan Type — Classify plan (bugfix/feature/migration/refactor) to weight question categories
2. Read Plan — Parse plan.md + phase files for decisions, assumptions, risks
3. Extract Topics — Scan architecture, assumptions, tradeoffs, risks, scope keywords
4. Generate Questions — Formulate concrete questions with 2-4 options each
5. Interview User — Present questions using configured count range
6. Document Answers — Add Validation Summary section to plan.md

Key Rules:

• MUST ATTENTION use AskUserQuestion — NEVER auto-decide on behalf of user — why: the user owns every assumption-laden choice, not the agent
• Ask ONLY about genuine choices affecting implementation — NEVER about non-decision points — why: noise questions burn the interview budget and erode trust
• Bugfix plans ALWAYS trigger the Preservation question (keywords: fix, bug, regression, broken, defect) — why: an unverified preserved-correctness invariant is a silent regression
• Persist via a ## Validation Summary on plan.md — NEVER modify phase files — why: phase files are the plan's source of truth; validation is a read-then-annotate pass

First Principle — Easy to Change

The success metric of every coding decision is future change cost. DRY, SRP, abstraction, design patterns, naming, layering, tests — every technique exists to serve one goal: making the next change cheaper.

Evaluating code, refactor, test, abstraction, ask: does this make next change cheaper or more expensive?

• Reject "best practices" raising change cost (premature abstraction, speculative generality, leaky indirection, ceremony without payoff).
• Name real enemies in findings: coupling, hidden state, duplicated knowledge, unclear intent, irreversible decisions exposed too early.
• Simpler design easy to change beats sophisticated design that isn't.

Apply this lens before invoking any specific rule, pattern, or checklist below — if a downstream rule raises change cost, this principle wins.

Phase 0: Detect Plan Type

Classify plan type BEFORE generating questions — drives question category weighting:

Bugfix detection is BLOCKING — NEVER skip Preservation question when fix/bug/regression/broken/defect keywords present.

Plan Resolution

1. $ARGUMENTS provided → use that path
2. Check ## Plan Context section → use active plan path
3. No plan found → ask user to specify path or run /plan first

Configuration (from injected context)

Check ## Plan Context section:

• mode — auto/prompt/off behavior
• questions — range like 3-8 (min-max)

Use as hard constraints.

Workflow

Step 1: Read Plan Files

Read plan directory:

• plan.md — overview + phases list
• phase-*.md — all phase files
• Flag: decision points, assumptions, risks, tradeoffs

Step 2: Extract Question Topics

Step 3: Generate Questions

Format rules:

• 2-4 concrete options per question
• Mark recommended with "(Recommended)" suffix
• "Other" option automatic — do NOT add
• Surface implicit decisions

Examples:

Category: Architecture
Question: "How should validation results be persisted?"
Options:
1. Save to plan.md frontmatter (Recommended) — updates existing plan
2. Create validation-answers.md — separate answers file
3. Don't persist — ephemeral validation only

Category: Assumptions
Question: "Plan assumes API rate limiting not needed. Correct?"
Options:
1. Yes, not needed for MVP
2. No, add basic rate limiting now (Recommended)
3. Defer to Phase 2

Category: Preservation (MANDATORY when title/frontmatter: fix, bug, regression, broken, defect)
Question: "List 2-3 inputs where CURRENT code is correct. Will fix change behavior on any?"
Options (multi-select):
1. "Current code correct on: {input A}. Fix preserves behavior." (Recommended)
2. "Current code correct on: {input B}. Fix CHANGES behavior because: {justification}"
3. "Current code has NO preserved-correctness inputs — every input was broken" (rare; requires confirmation)
4. "Unsure — need to investigate" (STOP: run /plan preservation analysis)

Follow-up rules:

• Option 2 selected → plan.md Preservation Inventory MUST cite Preservation TC asserting new behavior is intended
• Option 4 selected → return BLOCKED status, recommend /plan before proceeding
• Option 3 selected → AskUserQuestion follow-up: "Confirm: current code has NO preserved invariant? [Yes, every input broken / No, missed some — re-investigate]"

Step 4: Interview User

Use AskUserQuestion — NEVER skip or auto-answer.

Rules:

• Use question count from ## Plan Context → Validation: mode=X, questions=MIN-MAX
• Group related questions (max 4 per tool call)
• Focus: assumptions, risks, tradeoffs, architecture
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION: if plan introduces new tech/packages, ask: "Plan uses {lib}. Were alternatives evaluated? Confirm choice or research more?"

Step 5: Document Answers

Add ## Validation Summary to plan.md:

## Validation Summary

**Validated:** {date}
**Questions asked:** {count}

### Confirmed Decisions

- {decision 1}: {user choice}
- {decision 2}: {user choice}

### Action Items

- [ ] {changes needed based on answers}

NEVER modify phase files — only document what needs updating.

Output

After validation:

• Questions asked count
• Key decisions confirmed
• Items flagged for plan revision
• Recommendation: proceed to implementation OR revise plan first

Next Steps

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — NO EXCEPTIONS after completing, use AskUserQuestion to present:

• "/feature-implement (Recommended)" — Begin implementation with validated plan
• "/refine" — If plan needs PBI refinement first
• "Skip, continue manually" — User decides

[BLOCKING] MUST ATTENTION use AskUserQuestion to interview user. Completing without asking ≥1 question = violation.

[IMPORTANT] Use TaskCreate to break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting — including tasks for each file read. For simple tasks, AI MUST ATTENTION ask user whether to skip.

External Memory: Complex/lengthy work → write findings + results to plans/reports/ — prevents context loss.

Evidence Gate: MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — every claim requires file:line proof or traced evidence with confidence % (>80% act, <80% verify first).

Nested Task Expansion Contract — For workflow-step invocation, the [Workflow] ... row is only a parent container; the child skill still creates visible phase tasks.

1. Call TaskList first. If a matching active parent workflow row exists, set nested=true and record parentTaskId; otherwise run standalone.
2. Create one task per declared phase before phase work. When nested, prefix subjects [N.M] $skill-name — phase.
3. When nested, link the parent with TaskUpdate(parentTaskId, addBlockedBy: [childIds]).
4. Orchestrators must pre-expand a child skill's phase list and link the workflow row before invoking that child skill or sub-agent.
5. Mark exactly one child in_progress before work and completed immediately after evidence is written.
6. Complete the parent only after all child tasks are completed or explicitly cancelled with reason.

Blocked until: TaskList done, child phases created, parent linked when nested, first child marked in_progress.

Task Tracking & External Report Persistence — Bootstrap this before execution; then run project-reference doc prefetch before target/source work.

1. Create a small task breakdown before target file reads, grep, edits, or analysis. On context loss, inspect the current task list first.
2. Mark one task in_progress before work and completed immediately after evidence; never batch transitions.
3. For plan/review work, create plans/reports/{skill}-{YYMMDD}-{HHmm}-{slug}.md before first finding.
4. Append findings after each file/section/decision and synthesize from the report file at the end.
5. Final output cites Full report: plans/reports/{filename}.

Blocked until: task breakdown exists, report path declared for plan/review work, first finding persisted before the next finding.

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.

Sequential Thinking Protocol — Structured multi-step reasoning for complex/ambiguous work. Use when planning, reviewing, debugging, or refining ideas where one-shot reasoning is unsafe.

Trigger when: complex problem decomposition · adaptive plans needing revision · analysis with course correction · unclear/emerging scope · multi-step solutions · hypothesis-driven debugging · cross-cutting trade-off evaluation.

Format (explicit mode — visible thought trail):

1. Thought N/M: [aspect] — one aspect per thought, state assumptions/uncertainty
2. Thought N/M [REVISION of Thought K]: ... — when prior reasoning invalidated; state Original / Why revised / Impact
3. Thought N/M [BRANCH A from Thought K]: ... — explore alternative; converge with decision rationale
4. Thought N/M [HYPOTHESIS]: ... then [VERIFICATION]: ... — test before acting
5. Thought N/N [FINAL] — only when verified, all critical aspects addressed, confidence >80%

Mandatory closers: Confidence % stated · Assumptions listed · Open questions surfaced · Next action concrete.

Stop conditions: confidence <80% on any critical decision → escalate via AskUserQuestion · ≥3 revisions on same thought → re-frame the problem · branch count >3 → split into sub-task.

Implicit mode: apply methodology internally without visible markers when adding markers would clutter the response (routine work where reasoning aids accuracy).

Deep-dive: see /sequential-thinking skill (.claude/skills/sequential-thinking/SKILL.md) for worked examples (API design, debugging, architecture), advanced techniques (spiral refinement, hypothesis testing, convergence), and meta-strategies (uncertainty handling, revision cascades).

Project Reference Docs Gate — Run after task-tracking bootstrap and before target/source file reads, grep, edits, or analysis. Project docs override generic framework assumptions.

1. Identify scope: file types, domain area, and operation.
2. Read docs/project-config.json first — the project's machine-readable map. It is the single source of truth for THIS repo (modules/paths, framework + search keywords, test/E2E/integration run-commands, design system, architecture rules, workflow patterns); ground exact paths, run-commands, and conventions on it before investigating, planning, or coding — never assume framework defaults (CLAUDE.md + reference docs are derived from it). If it — or the docs index, lessons.md, CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, or any required reference doc — is missing or stale, auto-run /project-init or the narrow route (/project-config, /docs-init, /scan-all, /scan --target=<key>, /claude-md-init) first; if Codex mirrors or AGENTS.md are stale, ask the user to run /sync-codex (never auto-run it).
3. Required docs by trigger: always docs/project-reference/lessons.md; doc lookup docs-index-reference.md; review code-review-rules.md; backend/CQRS/API backend-patterns-reference.md; domain/entity domain-entities-reference.md; frontend/UI frontend-patterns-reference.md; styles/design scss-styling-guide.md + design-system/design-system-canonical.md; integration tests integration-test-reference.md; E2E e2e-test-reference.md; feature docs/specs feature-spec-reference.md + spec-system-reference.md + spec-principles.md; behavior/public-contract/spec-test-code sync workflow-spec-test-code-cycle-reference.md; derived spec index/ERD/reimplementation guides spec-system-reference.md + source Feature Specs under docs/specs/; architecture/new area project-structure-reference.md.
4. Read every required doc, then before target work state: Reference docs read: ... | Not applicable: ....

Ready when: scope evaluated, docs/project-config.json consulted, required docs checked/read or setup route completed, lessons.md confirmed, citation emitted.

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. — why: long context drifts from the file; the file is ground truth
7. NEVER invent new patterns when existing ones work — match exactly or document deviation. — why: divergent patterns fragment the codebase and slow every future reader

BLOCKED until: - [ ] Read target files - [ ] Grep 3+ patterns - [ ] Graph trace (if graph.db exists) - [ ] Assumptions verified with evidence

Plan Quality — Every plan phase MUST ATTENTION include test specifications.

1. Add ## Test Specifications section with TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN} IDs to every phase file
2. Map every functional requirement to ≥1 TC (or explicit TBD with rationale)
3. TC IDs follow TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN} format — reference by ID, never embed full content
4. Before any new workflow step: call TaskList and re-read the phase file
5. On context compaction: call TaskList FIRST — never create duplicate tasks
6. Verify TC satisfaction per phase before marking complete (evidence must be file:line, not TBD)

Mode: TDD-first → reference existing TCs with Evidence: TBD. Implement-first → use TBD → /spec [mode=tests] fills after.

Cross-Service Check — Microservices/event-driven: MANDATORY before concluding investigation, plan, spec, or feature doc. Missing downstream consumer = silent regression.

Boundary	Grep terms
Event producers	Publish, Dispatch, Send, emit, EventBus, outbox, IntegrationEvent
Event consumers	Consumer, EventHandler, Subscribe, @EventListener, inbox
Sagas/orchestration	Saga, ProcessManager, Choreography, Workflow, Orchestrator
Sync service calls	HTTP/gRPC calls to/from other services
Shared contracts	OpenAPI spec, proto, shared DTO — flag breaking changes
Data ownership	Other service reads/writes same table/collection → Shared-DB anti-pattern

Per touchpoint: owner service · message name · consumers · risk (NONE / ADDITIVE / BREAKING).

BLOCKED until: Producers scanned · Consumers scanned · Sagas checked · Contracts reviewed · Breaking-change risk flagged

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.

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION search 3+ existing patterns and read code BEFORE any modification. Run graph trace when graph.db exists.

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION cite file:line evidence for every claim. Confidence >80% to act, <60% = do NOT recommend.

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION include ## Test Specifications with TC IDs per phase. Call TaskList before creating new tasks.

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION microservices/event-driven: scan producers, consumers, sagas, contracts in task scope. Per touchpoint: owner · message · consumers · risk (NONE/ADDITIVE/BREAKING). Missing consumer = silent regression.

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.

MUST ATTENTION apply sequential-thinking — multi-step Thought N/M, REVISION/BRANCH/HYPOTHESIS markers, confidence % closer; see /sequential-thinking skill.

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.

• MANDATORY Bootstrap task tracking before target work; transition one task at a time.
• MANDATORY Persist plan/review findings to plans/reports/ incrementally and synthesize from disk.

• MANDATORY Before investigating, planning, or coding, read docs/project-config.json (the project map: modules/paths, run-commands, conventions, architecture/workflow rules) + the required project-reference docs, and cite Reference docs read: ....
• MANDATORY Always include lessons.md; project config + conventions override generic framework defaults.
• MANDATORY If project config, root instruction files, or any required reference doc is missing or stale, auto-run /project-init or the narrow lower-level route before ordinary project-specific work.

• MANDATORY Parent workflow rows do not replace child phase tracking; expand phases and link the parent when nested.
• MANDATORY Orchestrators pre-expand child skill phases before invocation; use [N.M] $skill-name — phase prefixes and one-in_progress discipline.

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

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.

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.

Closing Reminders

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Goal: Force every assumption-laden plan decision and every preservation-critical behavior through explicit user confirmation BEFORE implementation — by interviewing the user with critical questions that validate assumptions and surface issues — so no unstated assumption silently reaches code.

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

• Nested Task Creation: child skill still creates visible phase tasks; link parent when nested.
• Task Tracking & External Report: bootstrap task breakdown first; persist findings incrementally to plans/reports/.
• Critical Thinking: MUST ATTENTION apply critical + sequential thinking; cite proof; confidence >80% to act.
• Sequential Thinking: structured multi-step Thought N/M with REVISION/BRANCH/HYPOTHESIS markers and confidence closer.
• Project Reference Docs: read required project-reference docs before target work; always include lessons.md.
• Understand Code First: MUST ATTENTION read code and grep 3+ patterns before any modification.
• Plan Quality: include ## Test Specifications with TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN} IDs per phase.
• Cross-Service Check: scan producers, consumers, sagas, contracts; flag breaking-change risk.
• AI Mistake Prevention: verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references, verify all affected outputs, re-read after context loss, surface ambiguity.

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION run the main steps IN ORDER — Phase 0 Detect Plan Type → resolve plan path → load mode + questions range → Step 1 Read plan.md + all phase-*.md (flag decisions/assumptions/risks/tradeoffs) → Step 2 Extract topics (8 categories) → Step 3 Generate questions (2-4 options each) → Step 4 Interview via AskUserQuestion (≤4 per call) → Step 5 Document answers → offer implement/refine/skip — why: the pipeline IS the work; never collapse or skip a step from memory

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION validate decisions with the user via AskUserQuestion — NEVER auto-decide or self-answer; completing without ≥1 question is a protocol violation — why: the user owns every assumption-laden choice, not the agent IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION detect plan type FIRST (Phase 0) BEFORE generating questions — bugfix keywords (fix, bug, regression, broken, defect) make the Preservation question BLOCKING, never skipped — why: detection drives which categories fire and the Preservation gate IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION NEVER modify phase files — persist results by adding ONLY a ## Validation Summary (confirmed decisions + action items) to plan.md — why: phase files are the plan's source of truth and validation is a read-then-annotate pass

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION break work into small todo tasks using TaskCreate BEFORE starting (including a task per file read); call TaskList first on context loss, never duplicate — why: resume existing tasks rather than re-plan after compaction
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION honor the questions MIN-MAX range and mode from ## Plan Context as hard constraints; give 2-4 concrete options per question, never go below min — why: the interview budget is configured, not improvised
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION treat the Preservation "Unsure" answer as BLOCKED → return BLOCKED status and route to /plan preservation analysis before any implementation — why: an unverified preserved-correctness invariant is a silent regression risk
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION if the plan introduces new tech/packages, probe whether alternatives were evaluated before accepting the choice — why: unevaluated dependency choices raise future change cost
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION cite file:line proof or traced evidence with confidence % for every claim (>80% act, <80% verify first); admit uncertainty rather than present a guess as fact — why: speculation drives wrong validation questions
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION search 3+ existing patterns and read the plan + phase files BEFORE generating questions — match the codebase's local conventions over generic framework defaults — why: questions grounded in actual code surface real decisions, not invented ones
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION apply the Easy-to-Change lens before any rule below — flag decisions that raise future change cost (coupling, hidden state, duplicated knowledge, unclear intent, irreversible early choices)
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION add a final review task to verify work quality

Anti-Rationalization:

[TASK-PLANNING] Before acting, analyze task scope and systematically break it into small todo tasks and sub-tasks using TaskCreate.

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION detect plan type (Phase 0) FIRST — bugfix keywords make Preservation BLOCKING. IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION validate with the user via AskUserQuestion — NEVER auto-decide. IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION NEVER modify phase files — add only a ## Validation Summary to plan.md.

Closing reminder — Easy to Change is the success metric. Every finding, test, refactor, and abstraction must answer one question: does this make the next change cheaper or more expensive? If it doesn't reduce future change cost, reject it. Coupling, hidden state, duplicated knowledge, and unclear intent are the real enemies — call them out by name.