# Workflow Review Changes Loop > [Workflow] Use when running /workflow-review-changes repeatedly until a complete pass applies zero fixes. - Skill: `duc01226/workflow-review-changes-loop-2` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add duc01226/workflow-review-changes-loop-2` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/duc01226/workflow-review-changes-loop-2/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Productivity - Author: duc01226 (https://skillmd.com/u/duc01226) - Updated: 2026-09-21 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/duc01226/workflow-review-changes-loop-2 --- > **[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:** Converge a review scope to a **clean no-op pass** by re-running the ENTIRE `/workflow-review-changes` workflow INLINE, round after round, over a fixed scope combined with the fixes accumulated so far — stopping when a complete round applies **zero fixes**. **From round 2 the severity floor applies: LOW findings are no longer fixed, so a round that surfaces only LOW findings is a zero-fix round and ENDS the loop.** **Summary:** - **Steps (in order):** (0) resolve scope + Goal Contract → (0b) bind the convergence loop (protocol loop primary + optional `/goal` accelerator) → (1) round loop { run `/workflow-review-changes` INLINE → detect fixes-applied → log iteration } → (2) converge on a zero-fix round OR escalate on non-progress → (3) recap. - **Convergence:** stop ONLY when a whole round applies **zero fixes** (its fix cycle skipped, working tree unchanged, reviews clean) — not merely one clean review. - **Inline invariant:** run `/workflow-review-changes` via the `Skill` tool, NEVER the `Agent` tool — it self-binds its own review-loop obligation (owning the session Stop hook for its `/goal` gate WHEN available), which a sub-agent cannot own or carry back to this loop. - **Severity floor — from round 2, LOW stops blocking.** Round 1 fix every validated severity. **From round 2 tell the inner `/workflow-review-changes` to fix only CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM and to defer LOW findings** — a round whose validated findings are ALL LOW therefore applies zero fixes and CONVERGES. Carry every deferred LOW into the recap and Goal Contract; NEVER re-tier a real CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM down to LOW to reach the exit. Severity tiers per `SYNC:severity-rubric`. - **Bounded:** round cap default 3; blocking findings not shrinking across 2 rounds, or cap hit with CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM fixes still landing → **STOP & escalate** via `AskUserQuestion`. **Why this skill exists (READ FIRST — it is the whole justification):** `/workflow-review-changes` already converges *internally* to a clean pass, BUT its inner loop does **NOT** re-run the 7 specialist reviewers from scratch. Per the `Conditional Inline Re-Review Protocol` in `.claude/skills/workflow-review-changes/SKILL.md`, the step-15 inline re-review re-runs only `/changes-review`'s own BE/FE/SCSS/UI dimensions plus *scoped* re-runs of the specific specialist that raised a finding — `/architecture-review`, `/performance-review`, `/security-review`, `/integration-test-review`, `/production-readiness-review`, `/domain-entities-review`, and `/ui-review` fire ONCE (steps 4–10). Only a **fresh full re-invocation** re-runs ALL specialists over the now-fixed code — catching **second-order defects the fixes themselves introduced** and killing whole-workflow confirmation bias. Without this outer loop those regressions ship unreviewed. **Workflow:** resolve scope + Goal Contract → bind the convergence loop (protocol loop + optional `/goal` accelerator) → **round loop** { run `/workflow-review-changes` INLINE → detect fixes-applied → log iteration } → converge when a round applies zero fixes → recap. **Key Rules:** - **MUST run INLINE in the main session — NEVER dispatch `/workflow-review-changes` as a sub-agent.** It self-binds its own review-loop obligation (owning the session Stop hook for its `/goal` gate when available); as a sub-agent that in-session guarantee is silently lost (see the `[WORKFLOW-IN-WORKFLOW]` execution block in `workflow-review-changes/SKILL.md`). This loop skill therefore also runs inline. - **Convergence = a whole round applied ZERO fixes** (its fix cycle, steps 12–15, was skipped because reviews passed clean). That, not "one clean review", ends the loop. - **Scope base is FIXED across rounds; the working tree grows.** Recompute the scope each round as `branch-diff base` ∪ current uncommitted changes — the diff base never moves, so convergence is measured against a stable target. - **Round cap (default 3)** and **findings-increasing → STOP & escalate** via `AskUserQuestion`. NEVER loop open-ended. Cap exhaustion escalates only when CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM fixes are still landing — a LOW-only round converges via the severity floor. - **The severity floor bounds ITERATION, never the standard.** It ends the loop; it never authorizes shipping a known CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, and it never applies to a binary gate inside the inner workflow (a failing test is a failure, not a LOW finding). --- ## First Principle — Convergence, Not Motion > A round that changes files is progress **only if** the next round finds fewer things to fix. > The loop exists to reach a fixed point (zero fixes), not to keep churning the diff. > If findings stop shrinking, that is a signal to **escalate**, not to spin another round. --- ## Step 0 — Resolve Scope + Goal Contract (FIRST ACTION) 1. **Parse the review scope** from the user prompt into a stable, reusable scope string. It has two parts UNIONed: - **Branch-diff base** — a branch-to-branch or PR diff, e.g. `fix/timelog-org-business-timezone` into `develop`. Capture it as `git diff develop...HEAD` (three-dot: changes on the feature branch since it forked from `develop`) so the base is a **fixed merge-base**, not a moving target. - **Current changes** — the uncommitted working-tree changes (`git status --porcelain`, `git diff` + `git diff --staged`). - **Scope string (recompute each round):** `{branch-diff base} ∪ {current uncommitted changes}`. The base commit is fixed for the whole loop; the uncommitted set legitimately grows as fixes land. - If the prompt names no branch diff (pure "current changes" review), the scope is just the working-tree changes — the loop still applies. 2. **Resolve/create the Goal Contract** per `SYNC:goal-contract-satisfaction-loop` (`plans/goals/{YYMMDD-HHmm}-{slug}/goal.md`, template `.claude/templates/goal-contract-template.md`). Its single **required** Success Criterion: > *A complete `/workflow-review-changes` run over `{scope}` applies **zero fixes** (a clean no-op pass — no `/plan-execute` file changes; **round 1** no validated findings of any severity, **round 2+** no validated CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, with remaining LOW findings deferred rather than fixed).* Record the round cap (default 3), the severity floor (LOW non-blocking from round 2), and the scope string in **Constraints**. ## Step 0b — Bind the Convergence Loop (protocol-first; `/goal` is an optional accelerator) The convergence loop is bound by TWO layers. The **protocol loop (Steps 1–2) is the BINDING mechanism** and MUST be self-driven by you, the running agent, on every host — with or without any command or hook. The **`/goal` command is an OPTIONAL accelerator** layered on top; it is never the primary mechanism, and its absence NEVER weakens the loop. This mirrors the project rule that hooks/trackers are accelerators only — correctness must not depend on them. **1. Protocol loop — ALWAYS binding (hook/command-independent).** You are personally responsible for not stopping until the loop converges or bounded-escalates. This binds Claude, Codex, and Copilot equally, whether or not `/goal` exists: > Repeatedly run `/workflow-review-changes` INLINE over `{scope}` (branch-diff base ∪ current uncommitted changes, recomputed each round). After each round, detect whether it applied any fix. From round 2 on, instruct the inner workflow to fix only CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM validated findings and to defer LOW ones. Do NOT stop while the last round still applied fixes. Converge when a full round applies ZERO fixes (reviews clean, `/plan-execute` changed no files) — which from round 2 includes a round whose only validated findings were LOW. Cap at `{N=3}` rounds; if blocking findings do not shrink across 2 consecutive rounds, or the cap is hit with CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM fixes still landing → STOP and escalate via `AskUserQuestion`. Never loop open-ended. Treat this as a standing obligation you re-read at every Step 2 checkpoint — NOT a one-time note you can rationalize away after the first round. The Goal Contract's required Success Criterion (Step 0) is its durable, host-independent record. **2. `/goal` command — invoke as an accelerator WHEN AVAILABLE.** If a `/goal` command exists and you are permitted to run it in this environment, ALSO invoke it (a real tool/command call, NOT a paraphrase, NOT a Goal Contract file substituted for it) with the SAME condition, so a session Stop hook mechanically enforces the loop: ``` /goal review-changes convergence loop: repeatedly run /workflow-review-changes INLINE over {scope} (branch-diff base ∪ current uncommitted changes, recomputed each round). After each round, detect whether it applied any fix; if fixes>0 → run another round; if a full round applied ZERO fixes (reviews clean, /plan-execute changed no files) → CONVERGED, clear the gate. From round 2 on, the inner workflow fixes only CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM and defers LOW, so a LOW-only round is a zero-fix round and CONVERGES. Do NOT stop while the last round still applied fixes. Cap at {N=3} rounds; if blocking findings do not shrink across 2 consecutive rounds, or the round cap is hit with CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM fixes still landing → STOP and escalate via AskUserQuestion. Never loop open-ended. ``` The `/goal` Stop hook blocks stopping until the condition holds and auto-clears when met — do not tell the user to clear it. **If `/goal` is unavailable, unregistered, or not permitted** (e.g. Codex/Copilot, or a Claude run without the command): DO NOT error, DO NOT block, and DO NOT invent a stand-in gate. Record ONE line in the Goal Contract — `/goal accelerator unavailable — loop bound by protocol (Steps 1–2) + this Goal Contract` — and proceed. The protocol loop above plus the Goal Contract are the same gate, enforced by discipline instead of a hook. > **Nested gates (by design, safe):** each inner `/workflow-review-changes` round self-binds its OWN Step 0 review-loop obligation (and installs its own `/goal` gate WHEN available) that clears when that round reaches its internal clean pass. This OUTER loop persists across rounds and **subsumes** the inner ones (a converged loop implies every inner round ended clean). All self-clear on satisfaction — no orphaned gate. Do NOT tell the user to clear either. ## Step 1 — Round Loop (run → detect → log) For each round `R` (starting at 1), do ALL of: 1. **Snapshot before:** record the working-tree fingerprint — `git status --porcelain` + `git diff --stat` (or `git rev-parse` of `git stash create` for an exact hash). This is the fixes-applied baseline for the round. 2. **Run the workflow INLINE:** invoke `/workflow-review-changes` via the `Skill` tool (NEVER the `Agent` tool) with the recomputed `{scope}` as its prompt. Let it run its full 20-step sequence including its own internal fix→re-review loop. 3. **Detect fixes-applied (objective):** compare the working tree after the round to the before-snapshot AND read the workflow's own result: - **Fixes applied (>0)** if the working tree changed during the round OR the workflow reported its fix cycle (steps 12–15) ran / `/plan-execute` modified files. - **Zero fixes** if the working tree is byte-identical to the before-snapshot AND the workflow reported either no validated findings, or (round 2+) validated findings that are ALL LOW with the fix phase explicitly skipped. - If a claimed LOW-only exit has a changed fingerprint, re-review; it is not a no-op convergence pass. 4. **Append an Iteration Log entry** to the Goal Contract: round number, files changed this round (`file:line`), fixes-applied count, the review verdict, and remaining gaps. ## Step 2 — Convergence & Escalation Gate Evaluate after every round: | Condition | Action | | --- | --- | | Round applied **ZERO fixes** (clean no-op pass) | **CONVERGED** → mark the required criterion PASS in the Goal Satisfaction matrix → clear the `/goal` gate → go to Step 3. | | Round applied fixes AND round `< N` AND findings shrank vs prior round | Recompute `{scope}`, run round `R+1`. | | Findings did **not shrink** across 2 consecutive rounds (same/increasing count) | **STOP & escalate** via `AskUserQuestion` — a non-converging loop is a signal, not a reason to spin. | | Round `R ≥ 2` whose validated findings are **ALL LOW** (zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, so zero fixes applied) | **CONVERGED on the severity floor** → do NOT run another round for LOW alone → record every remaining LOW as a deferred finding in the recap + Goal Contract → mark the required criterion PASS → go to Step 3. | | Round cap `N` hit with CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM fixes still landing | **STOP & escalate** via `AskUserQuestion` — report the still-open findings; do not silently continue. (LOW-only at the cap converges via the severity-floor row above.) | > **Increasing findings = STOP.** If round `R` surfaces MORE findings than round `R-1`, the fixes are regressing the code — STOP and escalate immediately (mirrors the **Issue count increasing** rule under **Iteration Tracking (Conversation-Scoped)** in `workflow-review-changes/SKILL.md`). Never trade one fix for two new findings across rounds. ## Step 3 — Recap Emit a concise convergence recap: rounds run, total fixes applied per round (the shrinking sequence), the final clean-pass evidence, and the Goal Satisfaction matrix (required criterion PASS). Point to each round's report under `plans/reports/` and the Goal Contract Iteration Log. Do NOT commit or push unless the user explicitly asks. --- ## Convergence Detection — Why Two Conditions A round counts as converged ONLY when **both** hold: (a) the working tree is unchanged by the round, AND (b) the reviews reported clean at that round's bar — no validated findings in round 1, no validated CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM from round 2 (deferred LOWs listed, not fixed). Both are required because: - Working-tree-unchanged alone is ambiguous — a round can make no changes because a finding was **unfixable/escalated**, not because it was clean. That is escalation, not convergence. - Reviews-clean alone is insufficient — an orchestrator can rationalize a "clean" verdict; the objective `git`-diff comparison is the backstop that proves no fix actually landed. When (a) is true but (b) is false → **escalate** (a real finding the loop cannot close). When (b) is true but (a) is false → the round DID fix things → run another round to re-prove clean. --- **IMPORTANT MANDATORY sequence:** Step 0 (scope + Goal Contract) → Step 0b (bind the convergence loop: protocol loop primary + optional `/goal` accelerator) → Step 1 (round loop: run `/workflow-review-changes` INLINE → detect fixes → log) → Step 2 (converge on zero-fix round / escalate on non-progress) → Step 3 (recap). > **Executable review policy — one predicate, one durable transition model.** Review skills and their tooling MUST use the canonical helper `.claude/scripts/lib/review-policy.cjs` (policy version 2) for round eligibility. The helper's `blockingFindings(round, findings, hardGates)` predicate returns every validated finding in round 1, and only CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM findings in rounds 2–3; `NOT VERIFIABLE` is a separate unresolved-evidence state that remains blocking at every round. Failed binary gates are synthetic blocking findings at every round. `evaluateRound` retains round-2+ LOWs in `deferredLow` and never treats a LOW-only round as blocked after the floor applies. Severity is assigned before the predicate and never changed to obtain a PASS. > > **Round and minimum rules.** `MAX_ROUNDS` is 3 and is a ceiling, never a target. A clean review ends once `round >= minRounds`; the default minimum is 1. A caller may declare `minRounds` explicitly (for example, 2) when an independent second pass is a real requirement; the declaration is persisted and cannot be inferred from a round counter. A failing test-green, security-must-fix, required-artifact, or other binary gate is never waived by the severity floor. > > **Durable run record.** A review run MUST identify `runId`, target fingerprint, policy version, target revision, minimum/maximum rounds, completed rounds, full findings/gate evidence, interruption/resume metadata, and acceptance. Use the atomic, lock-serialized transitions in `review-policy.cjs`: `start`, `record`, `accept`, `interrupt`, `resume`, `invalidate`, and `check`. Repeating an identical completed round is idempotent and MUST NOT consume budget twice. A changed target fingerprint invalidates prior evidence and acceptance but MUST preserve the bounded round budget; stale evidence cannot be accepted. A policy-version change (including the round-2 LOW floor) invalidates old records; start a new run rather than interpreting old evidence under new semantics. Interrupted/resumed runs retain completed rounds and findings. The record is bookkeeping, not consent, native permission, or proof that a host actually performed the review. > > **CLI boundary.** The helper CLI accepts JSON on stdin and uses its own real clock; a supplied `now` is rejected. State directories must be absolute, non-root real directories, records are size-bounded, and malformed/locked state fails closed for the transition. Full reports remain on disk; an inline result envelope is only a transport summary. Any new review policy consumer must add a semantic fixture, boundary counter-cases, a seeded mutant, and a report with the target fingerprint and command exit status. > **Goal Contract Satisfaction Loop** — Persist the user goal in an external file, execute against it, and loop review/fix until every saved required criterion passes or a blocker escalates. Bounded closed loop — NEVER open-ended autonomous exploration. > > 1. **Resolve the active goal** (in order): active plan `goal.md` → `plans/goals/{YYMMDD-HHmm}-{slug}/goal.md` → create a new Goal Contract from the current user request (template: `.claude/templates/goal-contract-template.md`). > 2. **Required sections:** Original Request, Purpose, Success Criteria (checkboxes; mark required vs optional), Constraints, Evidence Required, Iteration Log, Goal Satisfaction matrix. > 3. **Before work:** read the active goal and map planned work to saved success criteria — execution serves the saved criteria, never chat memory alone. > 4. **After execution/verification:** append an Iteration Log entry — result, evidence references (`file:line`, command output, report path), remaining gaps. > 5. **Review gate:** emit a Goal Satisfaction matrix — `| Success Criterion | Evidence | Status |` with PASS/FAIL/BLOCKED. Overall PASS requires every required criterion PASS. > 6. **Loop rule (retry):** required criterion FAIL → validate the gap is real → fix → re-review only the affected criteria. Stop cleanly when all required criteria PASS. > 7. **Escalation rule (stop):** two consecutive iterations with no criterion progressing, or a blocker needing user input → mark the criterion BLOCKED with a user-facing reason and escalate. NEVER loop indefinitely. > 8. **Skip rule:** tiny conversational tasks may skip the goal file ONLY with a recorded one-line reason. User-accepted gate skips are recorded in the goal file with reason and scope. > 9. **Security:** NEVER store secrets, tokens, credentials, or private customer data in goal files — store evidence references and redact sensitive values. > > **Blocked until:** active goal resolved (or skip reason recorded) · saved success criteria read before edits · iteration evidence appended after execution · Goal Satisfaction matrix emitted before any PASS verdict. > **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. > **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. > **Trade-Off Interrogation Gate** — ALWAYS ask these THREE questions before ANY verdict, score, finding, or recommendation — about the thing under review AND about every recommendation YOU make. — why: naming a benefit without its price is an endorsement, not a review; the costliest trade-offs are the ones nobody wrote down. > > 1. **Is there any trade-off?** Name what it SACRIFICES. "None" / "pure win" is an unfinished analysis, NOT an answer — to claim none, state which dimensions you checked and why each is unaffected: future change cost · complexity · performance/latency · memory/cost · coupling · reversibility · migration burden · operational load · blast radius · security posture · testability · team skill/ramp · delivery time · UX. > 2. **Is it worth it?** Weigh gain against sacrifice EXPLICITLY — what is gained (with a metric) · what it costs · WHO pays · WHEN it comes due — then emit **WORTH IT / NOT WORTH IT / UNCLEAR**. "Better" with no metric and no cost FAILS this question. NOT WORTH IT → withdraw or replace the recommendation, never keep it as-is. > 3. **Is the trade-off material enough to CONFIRM WITH THE USER?** A material trade-off is the user's call, never yours. **MATERIAL** when ANY holds: irreversible / one-way door (data migration, public contract, storage format, vendor lock-in) · cost shifted onto someone else (another team, ops/on-call, future maintainer, end user) · one quality attribute traded for another (correctness↔speed, security↔convenience, latency↔cost, simplicity↔flexibility) · a boundary crossed (client↔server tier, service contract, event contract, shared library) · a high-consequence path (auth, money, data integrity, breaking change, High/Medium residual risk) · the worth-it verdict is UNCLEAR. > > **MATERIAL → STOP and confirm via `AskUserQuestion` BEFORE the verdict stands** — state the trade-off, both options, what each sacrifices, and your recommendation. **NOT material →** record it inline with a one-line justification and proceed. > > **Non-asking execution contexts — ESCALATE BY HANDOFF, never by silence.** `AskUserQuestion` reaches only the main interactive agent: a sub-agent cannot ask the user, and a terminal/verdict-only mode asks nothing by design. When you are running in such a context, the obligation is **redirected, never waived** — do ALL of: (a) complete questions 1 and 2 normally; (b) decide materiality and record it in the Trade-Off Assessment row with `confirmed? = NO — cannot ask from this context`; (c) **name the unconfirmed MATERIAL trade-off explicitly in your returned summary/verdict so the CALLER (or parent orchestrator) escalates it via `AskUserQuestion` on your behalf** — a material trade-off mentioned only inside a report file on disk is NOT a handoff; (d) do not emit an unqualified PASS — mark the verdict as carrying an unconfirmed material trade-off, so the caller's gate stays closed until the user answers. The caller inherits the escalation duty the moment it reads your return. > > This carve-out is about **reachability, not convenience**: it applies ONLY where the tool genuinely cannot reach the user (spawned sub-agent, terminal validate/verdict-only mode, non-interactive/headless run). It is NEVER a licence to skip the question, to self-approve a one-way door, or to downgrade materiality because asking is inconvenient — if you CAN ask, you MUST ask. > > **Emit a Trade-Off Assessment row** per reviewed decision and per recommendation: `| decision | sacrifices | gain (metric) | who pays, when | WORTH IT/NOT/UNCLEAR | material? | confirmed? |`. > > **BLOCKED until:** trade-off named (or dimensions-checked justification given) · worth-it verdict emitted · materiality decided · every MATERIAL trade-off either confirmed with the user OR — in a non-asking context — handed off in the returned verdict for the caller to confirm. A MATERIAL trade-off that is neither confirmed nor handed off can NEVER be PASS, and NEVER gets buried as a Low-severity note. > > **NEVER** answer "no trade-off" without checking · decide a material trade-off silently on the user's behalf · let convergence/delivery pressure authorize walking through a one-way door · bundle several material trade-offs into one vague "proceed?". > **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 `/.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. > **Severity Rubric** — Classify every finding by consequence, not by effort, reviewer preference, or how annoying the fix is. One scale applies to every review, skill, agent, workflow, and host so a tier has the same meaning everywhere. Choose the highest credible consequence supported by evidence; do not lower a tier to make a round pass. > > **Finding vs observation (required):** An observation becomes a finding only when it names the affected user/system/data/contract, the shipped consequence, the evidence location, and the normalized tier. `INFO`, advice, preference, duplicate wording, or an unsubstantiated concern is not a finding and must not reopen a loop. If the concern might affect a required behavior or gate but evidence is incomplete, emit `NOT VERIFIABLE` with the missing evidence and keep it unresolved; never silently convert uncertainty into LOW. > > | Severity | Action | Definition and examples | > | --- | --- | --- | > | CRITICAL | Block immediately; escalate | Immediate material risk if shipped: authentication/authorization or safety bypass; secrets/PII exposure; irreversible destructive action; data loss/corruption; or a silent failure on a critical path. A failed binary gate that makes the result untrustworthy is represented as a separate synthetic blocker by the executable policy (not as an ordinary severity judgment). | > | HIGH | Must fix before PASS/merge | Material correctness or contract risk: wrong behavior on a supported path; violated business/data invariant; meaningful privacy or authority gap; breaking API/schema/compatibility change; likely harm to users/downstream systems; or a missing proof for a behavior-changing fix. | > | MEDIUM | Must clear the current round; escalate if the fix needs an owner decision | Bounded but consequential risk: an edge case, resilience/observability/testability/maintainability gap, credible future defect, or local architectural drift whose impact is real but not immediate material loss. An explicit follow-up records the escalation/residual risk; it does not make an open MEDIUM a clean pass. | > | LOW | Record and defer; never open another fix/re-review round from round 2 onward | Non-blocking polish with no credible present correctness, security, privacy, authority, availability, or data-integrity impact: wording/formatting, minor documentation or convention drift, optional defensive cleanup, or a cosmetic/refinement suggestion. | > > **Consequence decision tree (apply in order):** (1) Is a binary gate failed? Keep it as a separate hard blocker (the executable helper represents it as synthetic CRITICAL); do not use the ordinary severity label to hide what failed. Otherwise, would shipping permit immediate material security/safety/authority harm, irreversible destruction, data loss/corruption, or a critical-path silent failure? → **CRITICAL**. (2) Otherwise, does a supported path, invariant, public contract, privacy/authority boundary, compatibility promise, or behavior-changing proof fail with material user/downstream impact? → **HIGH**. (3) Otherwise, is there a bounded but consequential edge, resilience, observability, testability, maintainability, or architectural gap with a credible impact? → **MEDIUM**. (4) Otherwise, is the evidence sufficient to show only non-blocking polish with no credible present material impact? → **LOW**. (5) If the evidence needed to choose between steps 1–4 is missing, → **NOT VERIFIABLE**, not LOW. When multiple tiers fit, select the highest credible consequence; effort, implementation cost, reviewer discomfort, frequency alone, and proximity to the round cap never decide the tier. > > **Boundary examples (normalize before applying the round predicate):** an auth bypass, exposed secret/PII, destructive command without an authority gate, or failed required test/generation/parity gate is **CRITICAL**; a wrong supported response, broken invariant/API/schema, meaningful privacy/authority defect, or unproven behavior-changing fix is **HIGH**; a bounded retry/timeout/alert/testability gap or credible maintainability drift is **MEDIUM**; a typo, formatting inconsistency, optional cleanup, or cosmetic suggestion proven not to affect present behavior is **LOW**. A missing fact about any of those boundaries is **NOT VERIFIABLE** until evidence or an explicitly documented residual-risk decision exists. > > **Classification procedure (required for every finding):** (1) state the affected user, system, data, contract, or gate; (2) assess consequence if the issue ships; (3) assess exposure/likelihood and reversibility/detectability; (4) select the highest tier justified by those facts; (5) cite `file:line` or equivalent evidence and a confidence percentage. Effort, implementation cost, reviewer discomfort, and proximity to the round cap are never severity inputs. `NOT VERIFIABLE` is a pending evidence state, not one of the four tiers and never a LOW escape hatch: if the unresolved claim could affect required behavior, security, privacy, authority, availability, data integrity, or a binary gate, it remains an open evidence blocker until resolved or explicitly owner-accepted with documented residual risk. Classify an item LOW only when evidence supports the absence of credible present material impact. > > **Hard-gate rule:** Binary gates (tests, required artifacts, security must-fix checks, generated parity, policy compliance) are not ordinary severity-rated findings. The executable helper records a failed gate as a synthetic CRITICAL blocker solely so one predicate can carry it; the report must still name the gate and failure evidence. A failed gate blocks at every round, including when all ordinary findings are LOW; never disguise a failed gate as LOW. > > **Score-based skills** map their numeric scale onto these tiers — do not invent a parallel vocabulary: > > - **0-2 criterion scoring** (e.g. production-readiness-review): `0` = CRITICAL/HIGH (criterion unmet, blocks readiness), `1` = MEDIUM (partial, consequential gap), `2` = pass (no finding). If the criterion is only polish, use LOW rather than forcing a `0`. > - **Two-axis scoring** (e.g. performance-review, impact × likelihood): high impact + high exposure → CRITICAL/HIGH; material impact with bounded exposure → HIGH/MEDIUM; low impact and low exposure → LOW. Record the axes and why the selected tier is the highest credible consequence. > - **Scorecards / `/20` grades** (e.g. architecture-scalability-review): the aggregate score and verdict band are separate from finding severity. A sub-80 area is evidence to investigate, not an automatic CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW label; classify each underlying gap by the consequence decision tree and keep advisory score deductions separate from blocking findings. > > **Domain-vocabulary normalization (mandatory):** Specialized skills may keep a local reporting vocabulary, but it MUST feed this same four-tier round predicate — never a second severity system: > > - `BLOCKED`, `HARD FAIL`, or `FAIL` is a blocking local verdict, not an automatic CRITICAL label. Classify the underlying consequence as CRITICAL when it is an immediate material risk or failed binary gate; otherwise classify it as HIGH or MEDIUM with evidence, while preserving the local block until the owning gate is satisfied. > - `WARN` is not permission to ignore a finding. Map it to MEDIUM when the gap is consequential, to LOW only when evidence supports no credible present material impact, or upward to HIGH/CRITICAL when the consequence warrants it. `PASS`/compliant is not a finding. > - UI `P0`/`P1`/`P2`/`P3`/`P4` map to CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/LOW respectively as a starting point; override upward only when the evidence shows a higher shipped consequence. A P0/P1 accessibility or task-completion floor remains a blocking gate even when a local UI report calls it a priority rather than a severity. > - Numeric SRE/readiness or impact/likelihood scores are evidence inputs, not replacement tiers. Emit the score, the consequence, and the normalized CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW tier together. `INFO`/advisory observations are not findings unless the evidence shows a material consequence. > > A finding's tier drives the gate: CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM remain actionable and blocking under the round policy; LOW may be tracked as a follow-up and, from round 2, does not by itself justify another fix/re-review. An owner decision may explain or schedule an open MEDIUM but does not turn it into a clean pass; owner acceptance never makes a failed binary gate pass and must record scope, rationale, and residual risk. - **MANDATORY** Resolve the active Goal Contract BEFORE work (active plan `goal.md` → `plans/goals/{YYMMDD-HHmm}-{slug}/goal.md` → create from current request) and read saved success criteria before editing. - **MANDATORY** Append iteration evidence after execution; emit a Goal Satisfaction matrix (PASS/FAIL/BLOCKED) before reporting PASS; loop on validated FAIL; escalate repeated no-progress or blockers. NEVER store secrets in goal files. **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 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 MUST ATTENTION ALWAYS ASK THE 3 TRADE-OFF QUESTIONS** — on the thing under review AND on every recommendation you make: (1) **is there any trade-off?** name what it SACRIFICES (change cost · complexity · perf · coupling · reversibility · migration · ops load · blast radius · security · testability · delivery time · UX) — "none"/"pure win" is an unfinished analysis, so state the dimensions checked; (2) **is it worth it?** gain (with a metric) vs cost, WHO pays, WHEN → emit **WORTH IT / NOT WORTH IT / UNCLEAR**; NOT WORTH IT → withdraw or replace it; (3) **is it material enough to confirm with the user?** irreversible/one-way door · cost shifted onto another team/ops/maintainer/user · one quality attribute traded for another · a tier/service/event/library boundary crossed · auth/money/data-integrity/breaking-change/High-or-Medium-risk path · verdict UNCLEAR → **STOP and confirm via `AskUserQuestion` BEFORE the verdict**. - **MANDATORY** A MATERIAL trade-off with no user confirmation can NEVER be PASS; NEVER bury one as a Low-severity note, NEVER decide it silently, and NEVER let delivery or convergence pressure authorize a one-way door. — why: an un-walked-back one-way door is the user's call to make, not the reviewer's. - **M …(truncated)