Duc01226 Easyplatform Code Review

[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: Ensure reviewed code is correct, easy to change, convention-aligned, and verification-backed before acceptance or handoff — via receiving feedback with verification (not performative agreement), requesting targeted systematic reviews through the code-reviewer subagent, and enforcing verification gates before completion claims.

Routing boundary: If the user asks to review current changes, uncommitted work, staged/unstaged diffs, or a branch-to-branch diff, use review-changes instead.

Shared engine (keep in sync): code-review and review-changes share the same review-protocol SYNC: blocks. Canonical source: .claude/skills/shared/sync-inline-versions.md; policy: SYNC:shared-protocol-duplication-policy. When you change a shared block in one skill, update the canonical file AND the sibling skill so the two never drift. The skills differ only in entry intent (explicit scope / feedback / completion-gate vs git diff) — not in review quality.

MANDATORY MUST ATTENTION Before reviewing, search for project-specific reference docs:

Coding standards — search: code-review-rules, coding-standards, style-guide, contributing Architecture — search: patterns-reference, architecture, adr Test conventions — search: integration-test-reference, test-guide, test-conventions Design system — search: design-system, design-tokens, component-library

Read found docs before reviewing. None found → rely on tech stack knowledge from file extensions/directory structure.

Workflow:

1. Create Review Report — Init plans/reports/code-review-{date}-{slug}.md
2. Phase 0: Blast Radius — Run graph analysis first if .code-graph/graph.db exists
3. Phase 0.3: Risk Detection — Detect dependency, migration, bus/event, API, security, config, and infra risks
4. Phase 0.5: Plan Compliance — Verify changed files and tests against active plan when present
5. Phase 0.7: Surface Detection — Classify files by language + directory semantics + change nature → route sub-agents; invoke /review-ui when frontend/UI files are present
6. Phase 1: File-by-File — Review each file, update report with correctness, convention, DRY, intent, test, and docs checks
7. Phase 2: Holistic — Re-read accumulated report, assess overall approach, architecture, duplication, and cross-boundary behavior
8. Phase 3: Final Result — Update report with overall assessment, critical issues, recommendations, docs staleness, and test gaps
9. Fix Loop: Validate → Fix → Full Re-Review — When findings exist, validate them first, fix only validated findings, then restart the full review after the fix cycle

Key Rules:

• Report-Driven: Build report incrementally; re-read for big picture
• Detect First: Run graph blast radius when available, then classify change types and file surfaces before any review
• Easy to Change for Code: Treat future change cost as the primary code-quality metric; DRY, SOLID, abstraction, and patterns are tools only when they reduce change amplification
• No Performative Agreement: Technical evaluation only ("You're right!" banned)
• Verification Gates: Evidence required before completion claims
• Review Current Diffs Elsewhere: Current changes, staged/unstaged diffs, and branch diffs belong to review-changes
• A clean review pass ENDS the review. Do not spend a fresh-context pass re-reviewing known findings before validation/fix; only re-review after fixes change the target.

Code Review

Three practices: receiving feedback with technical rigor, requesting systematic reviews via code-reviewer subagent, enforcing verification gates before completion claims.

Run python .claude/scripts/code_graph query tests_for <function> --json on changed functions to flag coverage gaps.

Review Mindset (NON-NEGOTIABLE)

Skeptical. Every claim needs traced proof file:line. Confidence >80% to act.

• NEVER accept code correctness at face value — trace call paths
• NEVER include finding without file:line evidence (grep results, read confirmations)
• ALWAYS question: "Does this actually work?" → trace it. "Is this all?" → grep cross-service
• ALWAYS verify side effects: check consumers + dependents before approving

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.

When evaluating code, a refactor, a test, or an abstraction, ask: does this make the next change cheaper or more expensive?

• Reject "best practices" that raise change cost (premature abstraction, speculative generality, leaky indirection, ceremony without payoff).
• Name the real enemies in findings: coupling, hidden state, duplicated knowledge, unclear intent, irreversible decisions exposed too early.
• Favor project-owned boundaries around external libraries, for example component/service input-output contracts, when they localize future library changes; reject pass-through wrappers that add ceremony without lowering change cost.
• A simpler design that is easy to change beats a sophisticated design that isn't.

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

Core Principles (ENFORCE ALL)

Technical correctness over social comfort. Verify before implementing. Evidence before claims.

Graph-Enhanced Review (RECOMMENDED if graph.db exists)

1. python .claude/scripts/code_graph graph-blast-radius --json — prioritize files by impact (most dependents first)
2. python .claude/scripts/code_graph query tests_for <function_name> --json — flag untested changed functions
3. python .claude/scripts/code_graph trace <file> --direction downstream --json — downstream impact (events, bus, cross-service)
4. python .claude/scripts/code_graph trace <file> --direction both --json — full flow context for controllers/commands/handlers
5. Wide blast radius (>20 impacted nodes) = high-risk. Flag in report.

Review Approach (Report-Driven Two-Phase — CRITICAL)

MANDATORY FIRST: Create Todo Tasks

Step 0: Create Report File

Create plans/reports/code-review-{date}-{slug}.md with Scope, Files to Review sections.

Phase 0: Graph Blast Radius (FIRST WHEN AVAILABLE)

If .code-graph/graph.db exists, run graph impact analysis before reviewing:

• python .claude/scripts/code_graph graph-blast-radius --json or the project equivalent
• Record impacted files count, untested changed functions, and risk level in the report
• Prioritize high-impact files during Phase 1

If graph data is unavailable, record "Graph not available — skipping blast radius" and continue.

Phase 0.3: Detect High-Risk Change Types

Before file review, inspect the target diff or explicit file set for:

• Bugfix, failed verification, stale/incorrect final output, regression, or behavior-changing fix — require Debugger Trace: End -> Start, all feeder paths, hypothesis matrix, owning fix layer, and forward convergence proof; missing trace evidence is a High/Critical review finding
• Dependency upgrades — semver, breaking changes, advisories, peer compatibility
• Migrations or schema changes — rollback, lock/volume impact, zero-downtime deployment, idempotent backfill
• Bus events/messages — consumer existence, idempotency, retries, poison/dead-letter handling
• API contract changes — backward compatibility, caller alignment, auth, required response fields
• Security changes — enforcement coverage, privilege escalation, negative tests, duplicated permission strings
• Config/env changes — all environments covered, no secrets, fail-fast behavior, setup docs
• Infra changes — dev/prod parity, pinned versions, CI/CD permissions, reproducible builds

Create focused review tasks for every true signal and complete them before dimensional review.

Phase 0.5: Plan Compliance Check (CONDITIONAL)

If active plan context exists, verify scope, test evidence, and success criteria against the plan before file review; otherwise record the skip reason.

Goal Contract mapping (CONDITIONAL — when an active goal exists): Resolve the active Goal Contract per the goal-contract-satisfaction-loop protocol (active plan goal.md → plans/goals/{YYMMDD-HHmm}-{slug}/goal.md). When found, map the reviewed changes to the saved success criteria in the report — which criteria this changeset advances (with file:line evidence), which it leaves untouched, and any change serving NO saved criterion (flag as scope drift unless justified). Record No active goal — mapping skipped. when none exists; do NOT create a goal file from inside a review.

Phase 0.7: Detect Review Categories

Before any review — classify the changeset and route sub-agents:

Phase 0.7b: Frontend/UI Sub-Review (CONDITIONAL — /review-ui)

If the changeset contains any frontend/UI files matching the project's configured UI patterns (components, templates, .html/.scss/.css, design-system tokens), invoke the /review-ui skill as a sub-review so UI-specific concerns are covered — long-content overflow (wrap vs ellipsis+tooltip), responsive multi-screen flex, flex-grow with min/max over fixed px, semantic z-index discipline (no raw numbers, no !important), and BEM classes on all template elements. Fold its findings into this report's Phase 3 results.

Skip (record reason) when no frontend/UI files are present in the changeset — log "Skipped Phase 0.7b — no frontend/UI files in changeset".

Phase 0.8: Derive Review Categories

Group changed files by: file language (extension), directory semantics (path), change nature (new entity, schema, config, UI, test).

For each category: name it, create sub-task, derive concerns using SYNC:category-review-thinking (first principles — NOT a fixed checklist).

Category list = Phase 1 work breakdown. Each category → own section in report.

Phase 1: File-by-File Review (Build Report)

For EACH file, immediately update report:

• File path, Change Summary, Purpose, Issues Found
• Convention check: Grep 3+ similar patterns — does new code follow existing convention?
• Correctness check: Trace logic — null, empty, boundary, error cases handled?
• DRY check: Grep for similar/duplicate code — does this logic exist elsewhere?
• Intention check: Does the change serve the stated purpose? Flag unrelated modifications
• Test check: Changed behavior has corresponding test/spec coverage or a documented gap
• Documentation check: Related docs/specs/READMEs still match the changed behavior

Phase 2: Holistic Review (Re-read Report)

After all files reviewed, re-read accumulated report:

• Technical Solution: Overall approach coherent as unified plan?
• Responsibility: Logic in LOWEST layer? Business logic not in controllers?
• Data ownership: Constants/config in model/entity, not controller/component?
• Duplication: Grep to verify — duplicated logic across changes?
• Architecture: Clean Architecture? Service boundaries respected?
• Plan Compliance: If active plan → check ## Plan Context: impl matches requirements, TCs have code evidence (not "TBD"), no requirement unaddressed
• Design Patterns: Pattern opportunities (switch→Strategy)? Anti-patterns (God Object, Copy-Paste, Circular Dep)? DRY via base classes?
• Cross-Boundary Behavior: Callers/callees aligned? API/event contracts consistent? New wiring reachable?
• Test Sync: Business logic changes have corresponding tests or explicit user-facing gap
• Translation Sync: Multilingual UI text changes have translation updates or explicit risk acceptance
• Bugfix Trace Completeness: If the diff is a bugfix or behavior-changing fix, the review report must state whether final-state trace, feeder paths, hypothesis matrix, owning fix layer, forward convergence proof, and tests/proof mapping are complete

MUST ATTENTION CHECK — Clean Code: YAGNI (unused params, speculative interfaces)? KISS (simpler exists)? Methods >30 lines or nesting >3?

MUST ATTENTION CHECK — Correctness: Null/empty/boundary handled? Error paths caught? Async race conditions? Trace happy + error paths.

Documentation Staleness Check:

For each changed file — grep file name/module across docs/ and AI tooling dirs. Changed behavior → flag stale doc (specific section + what changed). Flag the staleness only — never auto-fix docs here.

Common staleness patterns: count/limit changed → docs embedding that number | API/contract changed → API usage docs | hook/skill added/removed → catalogs/README | schema changed → entity reference docs.

Phase 3: Final Review Result

Update report: Overall Assessment, Critical Issues, High Priority, Architecture Recommendations, Documentation Staleness, Positive Observations.

If documentation staleness is detected, recommend docs-update and list exact stale sections; do not silently pass stale docs.

Validated Fix + Full Re-Review (MANDATORY when findings are fixed)

After Phase 3, do not spawn a fresh reviewer just to re-review the same finding set. First validate findings, then fix only validated findings. Because fixes change the review target, restart the full review after the fix cycle. If that restarted protocol uses sub-agents, construct each Agent call with the canonical template from SYNC:review-protocol-injection:

1. Copy Agent call shape from SYNC:review-protocol-injection verbatim
2. Embed full verbatim body of all 10 SYNC blocks: SYNC:evidence-based-reasoning, SYNC:bug-detection, SYNC:design-patterns-quality, SYNC:complexity-prevention, SYNC:logic-and-intention-review, SYNC:test-spec-verification, SYNC:fix-layer-accountability, SYNC:rationalization-prevention, SYNC:graph-assisted-investigation, SYNC:understand-code-first
3. Task: "Run a full fresh code-review pass over the current assigned scope after validated fixes were applied. Focus: cross-cutting concerns, interaction bugs, convention drift, missing pieces, subtle edge cases, logic errors, test spec gaps, and regressions introduced by the fixes."
4. Target Files: "use the explicit files, plan scope, or reviewer-provided target range"
5. Report: plans/reports/code-review-rerun{N}-{date}.md

After sub-agent returns:

1. Read report from plans/reports/code-review-rerun{N}-{date}.md
2. Integrate findings as ## Re-Review {N} Findings — DO NOT filter or override
3. If findings remain: validate the new finding set before any additional fixes
4. Repeat only after another fix cycle: restart the full review again after validated fixes are applied; if the same blocker repeats across 3 full invocations with no progress, escalate via AskUserQuestion

Clean Code Rules (MUST ATTENTION CHECK)

Data Lifecycle Rules (MUST ATTENTION CHECK)

Decision test: "Delete the DB and start fresh — does this data still need to exist?" Yes → Seeder/fixture. No → Migration.

Apply project's language/framework conventions. Principle universal — implementation project-specific.

Legacy Pattern Compliance

When reviewing files with legacy and modern patterns:

1. Detect legacy signals — search project-config.json, package.json, or equivalent for "legacy", version flags, feature annotations
2. Read what "legacy" means — grep 3+ legacy files to understand pattern constraints vs. modern files
3. Derive compliance rules — what lifecycle/memory management differences exist between legacy/modern for this tech stack?
4. Apply tech stack knowledge to flag anti-patterns

NEVER assume any specific framework's lifecycle. Derive from codebase evidence.

When to Use This Skill

Quick Decision Tree

SITUATION?
│
├─ Received feedback
│  ├─ Unclear items? → STOP, ask for clarification first
│  ├─ From human partner? → Understand, then implement
│  └─ From external reviewer? → Verify technically before implementing
│
├─ Completed work
│  ├─ Major feature/task? → Request code-reviewer subagent review
│  └─ Before merge? → Request code-reviewer subagent review
│
└─ About to claim status
   ├─ Have fresh verification? → State claim WITH evidence
   └─ No fresh verification? → RUN verification command first

Receiving Feedback Protocol

Pattern: READ → UNDERSTAND → VERIFY → EVALUATE → RESPOND → IMPLEMENT

• NEVER use performative agreement ("You're right!", "Great point!", "Thanks for...")
• NEVER implement before verification
• MUST ATTENTION restate requirement, ask questions, or push back with technical reasoning
• MUST ATTENTION ask for clarification on ALL unclear items BEFORE starting
• MUST ATTENTION grep for usage before implementing suggested "proper" features (YAGNI check)

Source handling: Human partner → implement after understanding. External reviewer → verify technically, push back if wrong.

Full protocol: references/code-review-reception.md

Requesting Review Protocol

1. Get git SHAs: BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1) and HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
2. Dispatch code-reviewer subagent with: WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED, PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS, BASE_SHA, HEAD_SHA, DESCRIPTION
3. Act on feedback: Critical → fix immediately. Important → fix before proceeding. Minor → note for later.

Full protocol: references/requesting-code-review.md

Verification Gates Protocol

Iron Law: NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE

Gate: IDENTIFY command → RUN it → READ output → VERIFY it confirms claim → THEN claim. Skip any step = lying.

Red Flags — STOP: "should"/"probably"/"seems to", satisfaction before verification, committing without verification, trusting agent reports.

Full protocol: references/verification-before-completion.md

Related

• code-simplifier
• debug-investigate
• refactoring

Systematic Review Protocol (10+ changed files)

For large changesets: categorize files by concern → fire parallel code-reviewer sub-agents per category → synchronize findings → holistic assessment. See review-changes/SKILL.md § "Systematic Review Protocol" for full 4-step protocol.

Workflow Recommendation

MANDATORY MUST ATTENTION — NO EXCEPTIONS: If NOT already in a workflow, use AskUserQuestion to ask user:

1. Activate workflow-review-changes workflow (Recommended) — full review → validated fix cycle → re-review until clean
2. Execute /code-review directly — run standalone

Architecture Boundary Check

For each changed file, verify no forbidden layer imports:

1. Read rules from docs/project-config.json → architectureRules.layerBoundaries
2. Determine layer — match file path against each rule's paths glob patterns
3. Scan imports — grep for the configured language's import/include statements
4. Check violations — import path contains forbidden layer name → violation
5. Exclude framework — skip files matching architectureRules.excludePatterns
6. BLOCK on violation — "BLOCKED: {layer} layer file {filePath} imports from {forbiddenLayer} ({importStatement})"

If architectureRules absent in project-config.json → skip silently.

Phase 4: Why-Review Self-Validation Gate (MANDATORY when findings exist)

Purpose: Adversarial validation of own findings BEFORE handoff. Catches over-flagged Highs, false positives, and severity inflation at the source rather than letting them propagate downstream.

Trigger: Any finding produced (Critical, High, Medium, OR Low). Skip ONLY when the report's verdict is unconditional PASS with literally zero findings.

Protocol:

1. Read own finalized report from plans/reports/{skill}-{date}-{slug}.md
2. Invoke /why-review skill with arg: validate findings in plans/reports/{skill}-{date}-{slug}.md — verify each finding has file:line proof, steel-man each rejected interpretation, and stress-test severity classifications
3. Read the validation verdict path returned by why-review, expected as plans/reports/why-review-validate-{date}.md
4. If why-review demotes/removes any finding: UPDATE own finalized report with revised severities, remove false positives, and add a ## Why-Review Validation Notes section citing what changed and why
5. If why-review confirms all findings: Append ## Why-Review Validation line to own report stating "All N findings re-validated against actual code; no severity changes."

Skip conditions (record explicit reason if skipping):

• Verdict is unconditional PASS with zero findings → log "Skipped — no findings to validate"
• Why-review skill itself is the active context (avoid recursion)

Why this exists: AI sub-agent reports inherit confirmation bias — the orchestrator absorbs severity claims as ground truth. The 2026-05-09 review incident produced 5 Highs; adversarial validation demoted 3 of them. Codify this as standard practice.

Next Steps

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

• "/fix (Recommended)" — review found issues needing fixes
• "/watzup" — review clean, wrap up session
• "Skip, continue manually" — user decides

AI Agent Integrity Gate (NON-NEGOTIABLE)

Completion ≠ Correctness. Before reporting ANY work done:

1. Grep every removed name. Extraction/rename/delete → grep confirms 0 dangling refs across ALL file types.
2. Ask WHY before changing. Existing values intentional until proven otherwise.
3. Verify ALL outputs. One build passing ≠ all builds passing.
4. Evaluate pattern fit. Copying nearby code? Verify preconditions match — scope, lifetime, base class, constraints.
5. New artifact = wired artifact. Created something? Prove it's registered, imported, reachable by all consumers.

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

Critical Purpose: Ensure quality — no flaws, bugs, missing updates, stale content. Verify code AND documentation.

External Memory: Complex work → write findings incrementally to plans/reports/ — prevents context loss, serves as deliverable.

Evidence Gate: MANDATORY MUST ATTENTION — every claim, finding, recommendation requires file:line proof + confidence % (>80% act, <80% verify first).

OOP & DRY: MANDATORY MUST ATTENTION — flag patterns extractable to base class/generic/helper. Same-suffix/lifecycle/responsibility classes MUST ATTENTION share common base. Apply idiomatic abstraction (base class, mixin, trait, protocol) for project's language. Verify linting/analyzer configured.

End-to-Start Debugger Trace — For non-trivial bugs, failed verification, regression fixes, behavior-changing code, or unclear code flow, start from the observed final state and walk backward before proposing a fix.

1. Frame 0: observed end state — Name the exact user-visible output, failing assertion, log line, persisted value, API response, rendered UI, or aggregate bucket. Record the reader/query/renderer that produced it with file:line evidence.
2. Walk backward one hop at a time — Trace final reader -> projection/cache/storage -> writer -> consumer/handler/job -> producer/caller -> original trigger. At every hop record: input, transformation, output, owner, and evidence.
3. Enumerate all feeder paths — Find every upstream producer/caller/event/job that can write into the final path, including retry, async, cache, background, and alternate UI/API paths. Mark each path verified, ruled out, or still unknown.
4. Build the hypothesis matrix — For each plausible cause, list evidence for, evidence against, how to reproduce/verify, blast radius, and status (primary, contributing, ruled out, latent). Do not fix until competing causes are explicitly resolved or bounded.
5. Choose the owning fix layer — Identify the invariant owner and the lowest shared point that protects all downstream consumers. A fix at the symptom site is rejected unless the symptom site owns the invariant.
6. Prove convergence forward — After choosing the fix, walk start -> end again and show how the corrected state reaches the observed final output. Map each root cause to a fix part and each fix part to a test/proof.

BLOCKED until: final state named · backward trace written · all feeder paths enumerated · hypothesis matrix completed · owning fix layer justified · forward convergence proof mapped to tests.

NEVER: Start at the first suspicious code path. Collapse multiple producers into one "flow". Treat duplicate symptoms as duplicate records without proving the read model. Skip ruled-out hypotheses.

Graph-Assisted Investigation — MANDATORY when .code-graph/graph.db exists.

HARD-GATE: MUST ATTENTION run at least ONE graph command on key files before concluding any investigation.

Pattern: Grep finds files → trace --direction both reveals full system flow → Grep verifies details

Task	Minimum Graph Action
Investigation/Scout	trace --direction both on 2-3 entry files
Fix/Debug	callers_of on buggy function + tests_for
Feature/Enhancement	connections on files to be modified
Code Review	tests_for on changed functions
Blast Radius	trace --direction downstream

CLI: python .claude/scripts/code_graph {command} --json. Use --node-mode file first (10-30x less noise), then --node-mode function for detail.

Category Review Thinking — For each category of changed files, think from first principles. Do NOT use a fixed checklist — derive concerns based on the category's domain.

Step 1: Understand the category's role What is this category responsible for? What are its invariants? Who are its consumers (callers, dependents, downstream systems)?

Step 2: Read project conventions for this category Grep 3+ existing similar files in this category. What patterns do they follow? What base classes/interfaces/abstractions do they use?

Step 3: Derive concerns from first principles Given the category's role and invariants, what could go wrong? Start from universal concerns, then expand with category-specific knowledge:

• Correctness: Does the change do what it claims? Are contracts maintained?
• Contracts: Does the change preserve consumer-facing behavior?
• Security: What trust assumptions does this category make? Are they still valid?
• Performance: Does the change introduce O(n²), unbounded queries, or unnecessary I/O?
• Maintainability: Does the change follow existing patterns? Does it introduce hidden coupling?
• Tests: Is the changed behavior observable and testable?
• Documentation: Does the change invalidate any existing docs or specs?

These are starting points — your domain knowledge of the tech stack should expand this list. Do NOT limit yourself to what's listed above.

Step 4: Create sub-tasks and execute with file:line evidence Convert derived concerns into concrete review tasks. Each task must produce file:line evidence. No findings without proof.

Examples of categories (illustrative — NOT exhaustive):

• Logic/domain files (business rules, handlers, services)
• Data/schema files (migrations, models, ORM definitions)
• API/contract files (controllers, routes, serializers, proto definitions)
• Configuration/environment files (env vars, feature flags, secrets)
• Infrastructure files (Dockerfiles, CI pipelines, manifests)
• UI/style files (components, templates, stylesheets)
• Test files (unit, integration, e2e)
• Documentation files (markdown, specs, ADRs)
• Security artifacts (auth middleware, permission definitions, crypto)
• Tooling/build files (build configs, linting rules, dependency manifests)

Sub-Agent Return Contract — When this skill spawns a sub-agent, the sub-agent MUST return ONLY this structure. Main agent reads only this summary — NEVER requests full sub-agent output inline.

## Sub-Agent Result: [skill-name]

Status: ✅ PASS | ⚠️ PARTIAL | ❌ FAIL
Confidence: [0-100]%

### Findings (Critical/High only — max 10 bullets)

- [severity] [file:line] [finding]

### Actions Taken

- [file changed] [what changed]

### Blockers (if any)

- [blocker description]

Full report: plans/reports/[skill-name]-[date]-[slug].md

Main agent reads Full report file ONLY when: (a) resolving a specific blocker, or (b) building a fix plan. Sub-agent writes full report incrementally (per SYNC:incremental-persistence) — not held in memory.

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.

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. 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.
3. Rea

…(truncated)