nesalia-inc Review Rules
Review all project rules to identify issues.
When to Use
- Periodic review (monthly/quarterly)
- User asks to "review our rules" or "audit our conventions"
- After major project changes
Review Checklist
1. Check for Contradictions
Read all convention files and look for conflicts
Examples:
- One rule says "use async/await" another says "use callbacks"
- One pattern says "use repository" another says "use direct queries"
2. Verify Alignment with Project Definition
Compare rules against .context/project/definition/:
- Do conventions match the target architecture?
- Are patterns aligned with stated principles?
3. Identify Gaps
| Area | Questions |
|---|---|
| Conventions | Is there a convention for X? (file naming, error handling, etc.) |
| Patterns | Do we have patterns for common problems? |
| Methodologies | Are processes documented? |
| Constraints | Are all hard constraints documented? |
4. Check for Stale Content
Check updated frontmatter:
- Conventions not updated in 6+ months
- Patterns that reference outdated tech
Output Format
## Rules Review
### Contradictions Found ⚠️
- [[conventions/a.md]] and [[conventions/b.md]] conflict on [topic]
### Gaps Identified
- No convention for [topic] — consider adding
- No pattern for [common problem]
### Stale Content
- [[conventions/old.md]] — not updated in 8 months
### Recommendations
1. Resolve contradiction between A and B
2. Add convention for [missing area]
3. Update [stale file]
Rule for Critical Review
When reviewing rules, apply the "devil's advocate" test:
- Does this rule make sense?
- Is it enforced?
- Is it still relevant?
- What happens if we break it?
If No Issues Found
✓ Rules review complete
No contradictions found.
All rules appear current and aligned.
Consider adding rules for: [identified gaps]
Update README
After review, offer to update .context/project/rules/README.md with any changes.