Why Review

why-review

[Code Quality] Use when reviewing rationale and change quality for plans, PBIs, commits, diffs, docs, specs, reports, or explicit artifacts.

duc01226/EasyPlatform·0installs10stars

SKILL.md

Full skill instructions

[GOAL REMINDER — MUST ATTENTION CRITICAL]

Ensure every review target is reasonable, correct, proof-backed, and best-practice aligned.

[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: Resolve the requested review target and apply the matching adversarial review path (plan/PBI rationale, code changes, docs/spec/report, findings, or explicit artifact) so decisions, findings, and plans survive adversarial rationale review before downstream work proceeds.

Workflow: Detect mode/target → route path/docs/graph/sub-agent focus → review dimensions/adversarial gates/Easy-to-Change → validate findings via terminal --validate-findings → ask next step in full mode.

Key Rules: MUST ATTENTION resolve target type BEFORE review. MUST ATTENTION every finding needs file:line, severity, confidence, best-practice rationale. NEVER say "No active plan" except unresolved plan-rationale request. NEVER call /why-review from validate-findings. MUST ATTENTION judge by Easy-to-Change: lower future change cost or reject.

Your Mission

<task> $ARGUMENTS </task>

Review Mode (DETECT FIRST — recursion control)

Detect mode from $ARGUMENTS BEFORE any review work:

Mode	Trigger in `$ARGUMENTS`	What it runs	Recursion
full (default)	no `validate-findings` token	Full design-rationale review (Validation Checklist + Adversarial Rounds below), THEN the Findings Validation Gate closing task — which re-invokes THIS skill in `validate-findings` mode on its own findings.	May call itself ONCE in `validate-findings` mode (same session).
validate-findings	`$ARGUMENTS` contains `--validate-findings` / `mode=validate-findings` / `validate findings in`	ONLY the Findings Validation Routine against the supplied findings/report — verify each finding is correct, proof-backed, reasonable, best-practice; surface missed enhancements; emit a CLEAN / HAS-ISSUES verdict.	TERMINAL — NEVER calls `/why-review`, NEVER runs the gate, NEVER spawns a sub-agent. Stops recursion.

Recursion guard (NON-NEGOTIABLE): validate-findings terminates. MUST NOT invoke /why-review or validation gate — prevents infinite recursion. Re-do loop lives in CALLER, max 2 re-dos, SAME main-agent session, NEVER spawned sub-agent.

In validate-findings mode: skip full Validation Checklist, Adversarial Rounds, Task Bootstrap, Next-Steps council gate. Jump straight to Findings Validation Routine, emit verdict, return to caller.

Task Bootstrap (full mode — do at skill START)

Before review work, TaskCreate phase tasks AND required closing task:

[Why-Review] Findings Validation Gate — if ANY findings exist, run /why-review --validate-findings on them; re-do until CLEAN (max 2) — pending (MANDATORY CLOSING TASK)

Create at START. Keep pending until findings exist; then execute before skill completes. In validate-findings mode, do NOT create it.

First Principle — Easy to Change

Success metric: future change cost. DRY, SRP, abstraction, design patterns, naming, layering, tests exist to make next change cheaper.

When reviewing 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.
Prefer simple design easy to change over sophisticated design hard to change.

Apply before any rule/checklist below; if downstream rule raises change cost, this principle wins.

Adversarial Review Mindset (NON-NEGOTIABLE)

Default stance: SKEPTIC, not validator. Your job is to find what's wrong, not confirm what's right.

Confirmation bias trap: After reading a coherent plan, AI naturally finds reasons to agree. Current context (post-plan, post-fix) amplifies this — you already saw the reasoning and rationalized it. This section breaks that loop. — why: a reviewer who already endorsed the reasoning cannot also be its skeptic without a forced reset.

Adversarial Techniques (apply ALL before concluding)

Technique	Think
Steel-Man	Argue FOR rejected alternative. Would a 10-year domain senior choose it? If yes, dismissal needs stronger proof.
Why NOT?	For every "chose X because Y", ask what X sacrifices.
Assumption Stress Test	List top 3 assumptions; ask impact if wrong. Strong plan survives 2/3 false.
Pre-Mortem	Assume 3-month production failure; write one plausible scenario.
Unseen Alternatives	Identify 1-2 approaches not mentioned; absence without exclusion reasoning = weak coverage.
Pros/Cons Symmetry	Count chosen-approach pros/cons. Pros > cons by 2:1 means likely bias.
Contrarian Pass	Before finding/verdict, argue opposite conclusion in 2 sentences; choose stronger argument.

Forbidden Patterns

Forbidden pattern	Required correction
"Looks good because..."	Lead with challenges first.
Presence = quality	Test quality depth; real alternatives, causal rationale.
Vague rationale	Demand metric + cost: better at what cost?
Asymmetric trade-offs	Treat 3 pros / 1 con as incomplete analysis.
"Looks fine"	Provide adversarial challenge evidence.

Anti-Bias Gate (MANDATORY before finalizing verdict)

Complete ALL checks before writing the final verdict:

MUST ATTENTION steel-man at least one rejected alternative (argue FOR it)
MUST ATTENTION identify at least 1 alternative NOT in the plan
MUST ATTENTION list 2-3 arguments AGAINST the chosen approach
MUST ATTENTION surface 2-3 hidden assumptions with stress tests
MUST ATTENTION run the pre-mortem (one concrete failure scenario)
MUST ATTENTION check pros/cons symmetry

Any check incomplete → adversarial review NOT complete. Go back.

Target Resolution (DO THIS BEFORE REVIEW)

Analyze user request, not only literal argument shape. Determine target, then choose matching path.

User request / evidence	Review path	Required target work
Explicit plan directory, `plan.md`, phase files	Plan-rationale review	Read `plan.md` and all `phase-*.md` files.
PBI/story/spec planning artifact, rationale request	PBI/artifact rationale review	Read the named artifact and related acceptance/design/risk sections; if it references plan files, read those too.
Commit SHA, `Commit: ...`, PR/merge commit, git diff	Code-change review	Establish the diff range, read changed files, run graph impact when available, and apply code-review/adversarial review protocols.
Branch comparison or uncommitted changes	Code-change review	Use the requested branch/diff or `git diff`; read changed files and tests/docs touched by the diff.
Docs/spec/report/findings path	Artifact review	Read the target artifact and verify claims against source evidence; use rationale checklist only where the artifact is a plan/PBI.
Ambiguous request	Infer from evidence; ask if unsafe	Prefer a reasonable target from the request and repo evidence. Ask only when two plausible review paths would produce different work.

Important defaults:

Commit hash / Commit: block => code-change review, not "no active plan."
PBI file => review that PBI/artifact; no plans/**/plan.md wrapper required.
"No active plan found. Run /plan first." valid ONLY for unresolved plan-rationale requests.
MUST ATTENTION record target type, evidence, confidence; NEVER silently convert target types.

Active-goal read (BEFORE judging rationale): Resolve active Goal Contract per goal-contract-satisfaction-loop protocol (active plan goal.md → plans/goals/{YYMMDD-HHmm}-{slug}/goal.md). When one exists, review artifact's rationale AGAINST saved Original Request, Purpose, Success Criteria — flag rationale justifying work the saved goal never asked for, and saved required criteria the artifact's reasoning never addresses. When none exists, record No active goal — rationale reviewed against the current request only. Full mode only; --validate-findings terminal mode skips this read.

Review Focus Routing

Detected concern	Primary focus / sub-agent route
Source code / diff	`code-reviewer` + embedded code-review protocols.
Auth, secrets, permissions, data	`security-auditor` if available; otherwise `code-reviewer` with explicit security pass.
Latency, scale, memory, queries	`performance-optimizer` if available; otherwise `code-reviewer` with explicit performance pass.
Plan / PBI / doc / spec	`general-purpose` with rationale/artifact dimensions.
Mixed target	Split focused passes by concern; aggregate findings after all passes.

Code-Change Review Path

When target is code changes:

Resolve the diff source:
- Commit SHA: use git show --name-status and diff against its first parent.
- Merge commit: default to first-parent diff unless the user specifies another parent/range.
- Branch/range: use the user-supplied range.
- Uncommitted changes: use git diff plus staged diff if relevant.
Read the changed files and any nearby tests/docs required to prove behavior.
Read project reference docs based on changed file types before judging patterns.
If .code-graph/graph.db exists, run graph blast-radius or trace on key changed files before concluding.
Apply embedded code-review protocols by serial focused pass: bug detection, design patterns quality, logic/intention, test/spec verification, graph investigation, Easy-to-Change.
Output findings first, with file:line evidence, severity, confidence, and tests/docs gaps.

Rationale / Artifact Review Dimensions

Run one focused pass per applicable dimension; do NOT scan all dimensions simultaneously.

Dimension	Think
Target fit	Did we resolve what user asked, with evidence and confidence?
Goal alignment	Does the rationale serve the saved Goal Contract's purpose and success criteria — or drift past them?
Rationale depth	Are alternatives real, causal, symmetric, assumption-aware?
Behavioral risk	What breaks in happy, error, edge, and rollback paths?
Test/spec/doc sync	Does evidence prove tests/specs/docs protect the intended invariant and avoid stale claims?
Future change cost	Does recommendation reduce coupling, hidden state, duplication, unclear intent?

Validation Checklist

For plan/PBI/artifact rationale reviews, read resolved target first. If plan directory, read plan.md and all phase-*.md files. Check presence AND quality depth.

For code-change reviews, use Code-Change Review Path instead of forcing plan checklist. Still include adversarial analysis, pre-mortem, assumptions, evidence, findings validation.

Rule: Presence alone is NOT a pass. A section that exists but contains weak, asymmetric, or unverified reasoning FAILS quality depth.

Required Sections (in plan.md or phase files)

#	Section	Presence Check	Quality Depth Check (adversarial)
1	Problem Statement	2-3 sentences describing the problem	Is the problem scoped correctly? Could it be framed differently to lead to a different solution? Are symptoms confused with root cause?
2	Alternatives Considered	Minimum 2 alternatives listed with pros/cons	Are alternatives real (not strawmen)? Would a domain expert seriously consider each? Are the cons of the CHOSEN approach listed, not just cons of the others?
3	Design Rationale	Explicit reasoning linking decision to trade-offs	Is reasoning causal (X leads to Y) or just descriptive (X is better)? Are hidden assumptions surfaced? Does it address failure modes, not just success modes?
4	Risk Assessment	At least 1 risk per phase	Are risks ranked by severity? Are mitigations concrete actions or vague intentions ("monitor closely")? Is there at least one risk about the approach itself (not just execution)?
5	Ownership	Clear who maintains code post-merge	Implicit OK (author owns), explicit better

Residual Risk Gate

Challenge over-broad scope, weak rejected alternatives, and any High/Medium residual risk.
High/Medium risks must be fixed, reduced, or explicitly accepted by user/owner before PASS.
AI-extracted specs/TCs are not accepted evidence unless the canonical owner/review gate accepted them.

Optional (Flag if Missing, Don't Fail)

#	Section	When Required	Quality Depth Check
6	Operational Impact	Service-layer or API changes	Are rollback steps defined? What breaks if this is reverted?
7	Cross-Service Impact	Changes touching multiple microservices	Are all downstream consumers identified? Who needs to be notified?
8	Migration Strategy	Database schema or data changes	Is there a rollback plan? Is it tested on a data sample?

Output Format

## Why-Review Results

**Plan:** {plan path}
**Target Type:** {plan/PBI/code changes/docs/spec/report/artifact}
**Target:** {path, commit, branch range, or artifact}
**Date:** {date}
**Verdict:** PASS / NEEDS WORK

### Checklist

| #   | Check                   | Presence  | Quality Depth | Notes                                                                |
| --- | ----------------------- | --------- | ------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 1   | Problem Statement       | ✅/❌     | ✅/⚠️/❌      | {what's strong / what's weak}                                        |
| 2   | Alternatives Considered | ✅/❌     | ✅/⚠️/❌      | {are they real or strawmen?}                                         |
| 3   | Design Rationale        | ✅/❌     | ✅/⚠️/❌      | {causal or just descriptive?}                                        |
| 4   | Risk Assessment         | ✅/❌     | ✅/⚠️/❌      | {concrete mitigations or vague?}                                     |
| 5   | Ownership               | ✅/❌     | ✅/⚠️/❌      | {details}                                                            |
| 6   | Bugfix Debugger Trace   | ✅/❌/N/A | ✅/⚠️/❌      | {final state, feeder paths, hypothesis matrix, owner, forward proof} |

> ✅ Strong ⚠️ Weak/Partial ❌ Missing

### Adversarial Analysis

**Strongest arguments AGAINST the chosen approach:**

1. {argument 1 — cite specific plan text that weakens under this pressure}
2. {argument 2}
3. {argument 3 if applicable}

**Unexamined alternatives** (not mentioned in the plan):

- {alternative A} — why it might be worth considering
- {alternative B if applicable}

**Weakest assumptions** (if wrong, the plan breaks):

1. {assumption} — impact if false: {consequence}
2. {assumption} — impact if false: {consequence}

**Bugfix trace challenge** (required for bugfix, failed verification, stale/incorrect final output, regression, or behavior-changing fix plans):

- Observed final state and final reader proven? {yes/no/N/A}
- All feeder paths enumerated or explicitly bounded? {yes/no/N/A}
- Hypothesis matrix includes ruled-out and latent causes, not only the chosen cause? {yes/no/N/A}
- Owning fix layer protects all downstream consumers? {yes/no/N/A}
- Forward convergence proof and tests/proof mapping make the symptom impossible or detect recurrence? {yes/no/N/A}

**Pre-mortem** (assume it ships and fails in 3 months):

> {One concrete, plausible failure scenario based on the plan's approach}

**Pros/Cons symmetry:** Pros listed: {N} | Cons listed: {N} | Bias: {balanced / leans toward pros / leans toward cons}

### Missing Items (if any)

- {specific item to add before implementation}

### Recommendation

{Proceed to /cook | Add missing sections first | Add adversarial analysis to plan/PBI | Fix code findings | Update docs/specs | Continue manually}

Round 2: Adversarial Re-Review (MANDATORY)

Protocol: Deep Multi-Round Review (inlined via SYNC:double-round-trip-review above)

After Round 1, execute second full adversarial round:

Assume Round 1 was wrong — start with: "Round 1 missed something. Find it."
Challenge every PASS item from Round 1 — generate at least 2 sentences arguing the opposite for each
Complete the Anti-Bias Gate (all 6 boxes from Adversarial Review Mindset section)
Populate Adversarial Analysis — MANDATORY:
- At least 2 arguments against the chosen approach
- At least 1 unexamined alternative
- At least 2 hidden assumptions with failure consequences
- Pre-mortem scenario
- Pros/Cons symmetry count
Focus on Round-1 misses:
- Alternatives that are strawmen (too easy to dismiss)
- Risks stated vaguely without concrete mitigations
- Assumptions embedded in the problem statement itself
- Scope creep disguised as "related improvements"
Update verdict if Round 2 found new issues
Final verdict incorporates BOTH rounds + Adversarial Analysis

Scope

Applies to: Features, refactors, architectural changes, commits/diffs/code changes, docs/spec/report reviews
Exempt from plan-rationale advisory only: trivial config changes, tiny single-file tweaks when active workflow permits documented skip
Enforcement: Advisory (soft warning) — does not block implementation

Important Notes

Review only — do NOT modify target files or implement changes
Keep output concise — actionable in <2 minutes
Simple plans still require Anti-Bias Gate; findings may be brief, but gate cannot be skipped

Findings Validation Gate (full mode — MANDATORY CLOSING TASK when findings exist)

Purpose: Before handoff, re-validate THIS review's OWN findings: correct, proof-backed, reasonable, best-practice. Catch finding issues and missed enhancements.

Trigger: Full mode with ANY finding, weakness, missing item, or NEEDS WORK verdict. Skip ONLY unconditional PASS with zero findings/missing items; record skip reason. NEVER run in validate-findings mode.

Caller-side re-do loop (bounded — owned HERE, not by validate mode):

Ensure findings written to a report (plans/reports/why-review-{date}.md).
Invoke /why-review --validate-findings plans/reports/why-review-{date}.md in SAME main-agent session, NOT sub-agent. Returns CLEAN / HAS-ISSUES. Each call terminal.
CLEAN → append ## Findings Validation line to report ("All N findings re-validated; correct, proof-backed, reasonable, best-practice; no changes."), gate PASSES, exit loop.
HAS ISSUES → reconcile: drop/demote unproven or inflated findings, fix proof gaps, add surfaced findings/enhancements, re-derive verdict, record ## Findings Validation Notes citing what changed and why.
RE-DO — re-invoke on UPDATED report ONLY because findings changed. Repeat until CLEAN or max 2 re-do rounds. Still not CLEAN → record unresolved state and ask user in ## Next Steps.

Findings Validation Routine (validate-findings mode body — TERMINAL)

Executed ONLY in validate-findings mode. TERMINAL: do NOT call /why-review, do NOT run gate, do NOT spawn sub-agent, do NOT create closing task. Validate, emit verdict, return.

Read supplied findings/report (path from $ARGUMENTS). For EACH finding, weakness, missing item, adversarial argument, assumption, verify ALL four:

Correct — re-trace cited plan text / file:line; finding actually holds (not a misread or stale reference).
Proof-backed — concrete file:line or quoted plan/report section present; reject "probably / should be / I think".
Reasonable — severity/weight proportionate, not inflated; steel-man of opposing view does not dissolve it.
Best-practice — recommendation reflects project conventions and Easy-to-Change metric (lowers future change cost), not preference or speculative generality.

Then sweep for misses — apply Adversarial Techniques once more: unexamined alternative, hidden assumption, enhancement opportunity?

Emit a verdict to plans/reports/why-review-validate-{date}.md:

CLEAN — every finding passes all four checks AND nothing new surfaced.
HAS ISSUES — list each finding to drop/demote/fix (reason + file:line) and each newly surfaced finding/enhancement (file:line).

Return verdict path + status. Caller owns reconciliation and bounded re-do; routine does NOT modify caller report and does NOT loop.

Next Steps

EXEMPT in validate-findings mode: terminal mode returns verdict; skip ## Next Steps, AskUserQuestion, council gate.

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — FULL MODE: after review, use AskUserQuestion; user owns next step.

"/cook (Recommended)" — Begin implementation after design rationale is validated
"/code" — If implementing a simpler change
"Skip, continue manually" — user decides

Additionally — conditional /llm-council escalation

After first next-step question, evaluate gate:

Workflow suppression first: read plans/.workflow-state.json or equivalent workflowId. Suppress council for workflow-refactor, workflow-bugfix, and test-*. Rationale: council costs 11 LLM calls; these workflows are routine/reversible/test-only enough for /why-review. Matches .claude/skills/llm-council/SKILL.md "Workflow Integration".
Frontmatter gate: read active plan.md or PBI frontmatter. Gate fires when ANY true: cross_service_impact != NONE; breaking_changes; complexity in {high, critical} or story_points >= 13; new_framework; irreversible; security_critical; performance_critical; cost_high.
Override/defaults: absent fields default no-fire; council_suppress: true skips prompt and logs reason.

If suppressed or no-fire, do NOT mention /llm-council. If gate fires, ask a SECOND separate follow-up question:

"Escalate to /llm-council (Recommended)" — Gate fired (high-stakes signal detected). Run 11 sub-agent council (5 advisors + 5 reviewers + chairman). Use when /why-review alone is insufficient. Cheaper alternatives already exhausted at this point: /plan-validate is the prior rung.
"Skip — proceed without council" — Acknowledge the gate; proceed with current decision anyway.

[BLOCKING — full mode only] MUST ATTENTION ask at least one user question before completing. validate-findings asks nothing because it only returns verdict. [IMPORTANT] Use TaskCreate before work, including file-read tasks; simple tasks need documented skip decision. Critical Purpose: Ensure quality: no flaws, bugs, missing updates, or stale content. Verify code AND documentation. External Memory: Long reviews write intermediate + final results to plans/reports/. Evidence Gate: MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION every claim/finding/recommendation requires file:line proof or trace with confidence (>80% act, <80% verify). OOP & DRY Enforcement: MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION flag 3+ duplicated patterns for extraction; same-group/suffix classes (*Entity, *Dto, *Service) should share a base when it lowers future change cost.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Behavioral Delta Matrix — MANDATORY for bugfix reviews. Produce this table BEFORE PASS/FAIL verdict. Narrative descriptions don't substitute.

Input state Pre-fix behavior Post-fix behavior Delta
{condition} {current behavior} {fixed behavior} Preserved ✓ / Fixed ✓ / REGRESSION ✗

Rules: ≥3 rows · ≥1 row the bug report did NOT mention · REGRESSION delta → FAIL until a preservation test covers it (spec-tests-template.md#preservation-tests-mandatory-for-bugfix-specs)

BLOCKED until: ≥3 rows · ≥1 row outside bug report · no unmitigated REGRESSION

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

Call TaskList first. If a matching active parent workflow row exists, set nested=true and record parentTaskId; otherwise run standalone.

Create one task per declared phase before phase work. When nested, prefix subjects [N.M] $skill-name — phase.

When nested, link the parent with TaskUpdate(parentTaskId, addBlockedBy: [childIds]).

Orchestrators must pre-expand a child skill's phase list and link the workflow row before invoking that child skill or sub-agent.

Mark exactly one child in_progress before work and completed immediately after evidence is written.

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.

Identify scope: file types, domain area, and operation.

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.

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

Before target work, state: Reference docs read: ... | Not applicable: ....

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

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

Create a small task breakdown before target file reads, grep, edits, or analysis. On context loss, inspect the current task list first.

Mark one task in_progress before work and completed immediately after evidence; never batch transitions.

For plan/review work, create plans/reports/{skill}-{YYMMDD}-{HHmm}-{slug}.md before first finding.

Append findings after each file/section/decision and synthesize from the report file at the end.

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):

Thought N/M: [aspect] — one aspect per thought, state assumptions/uncertainty

Thought N/M [REVISION of Thought K]: ... — when prior reasoning invalidated; state Original / Why revised / Impact

Thought N/M [BRANCH A from Thought K]: ... — explore alternative; converge with decision rationale

Thought N/M [HYPOTHESIS]: ... then [VERIFICATION]: ... — test before acting

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).

AI Mistake Prevention — Failure modes to avoid on every task:

Check downstream references before deleting. Deleting components causes documentation and code staleness cascades. Map all referencing files before removal. Verify AI-generated content against actual code. AI hallucinates APIs, class names, and method signatures. Always grep to confirm existence before documenting or referencing. Trace full dependency chain after edits. Changing a definition misses downstream variables and consumers derived from it. Always trace the full chain. Trace ALL code paths when verifying correctness. Confirming code exists is not confirming it executes. Always trace early exits, error branches, and conditional skips — not just happy path. When debugging, ask "whose responsibility?" before fixing. Trace whether bug is in caller (wrong data) or callee (wrong handling). Fix at responsible layer — never patch symptom site. Assume existing values are intentional — ask WHY before changing. Before changing any constant, limit, flag, or pattern: read comments, check git blame, examine surrounding code. Verify ALL affected outputs, not just the first. Changes touching multiple stacks require verifying EVERY output. One green check is not all green checks. Holistic-first debugging — resist nearest-attention trap. When investigating any failure, list EVERY precondition first (config, env vars, DB names, endpoints, DI registrations, data preconditions), then verify each against evidence before forming any code-layer hypothesis. Surgical changes — apply the diff test. Bug fix: every changed line must trace directly to the bug. Don't restyle or improve adjacent code. Enhancement task: implement improvements AND announce them explicitly. Surface ambiguity before coding — don't pick silently. If request has multiple interpretations, present each with effort estimate and ask. Never assume all-records, file-based, or more complex path. Keep domain concepts out of generic/shared/infrastructure layers. A reusable layer (shared library, framework, infra module) must reference NO consumer-specific domain concept — tenant/customer/product IDs, business entities, feature rules. The leak compiles and runs, so it passes review silently while coupling the "reusable" layer to one consumer. Push domain fields/logic down into the consumer via subclass or composition.

Evidence-Based Reasoning — Speculation is FORBIDDEN. Every claim needs proof.

Cite file:line, grep results, or framework docs for EVERY claim

Declare confidence: >80% act freely, 60-80% verify first, <60% DO NOT recommend

Cross-service validation required for architectural changes

"I don't have enough evidence" is valid and expected output

BLOCKED until: - [ ] Evidence file path (file:line) - [ ] Grep search performed - [ ] 3+ similar patterns found - [ ] Confidence level stated

Forbidden without proof: "obviously", "I think", "should be", "probably", "this is because" If incomplete → output: "Insufficient evidence. Verified: [...]. Not verified: [...]."

Validated-Finding Fix + Full Re-Review Loop — Re-review is triggered by a validated finding fix cycle, not by a round number. Review purpose: review → validate findings → fix validated findings → full re-review until a complete review pass finds no issues. A clean review ENDS the loop — no further rounds required.

Round 1: Main-session review. Read target files, build understanding, note issues. Output findings + verdict (PASS / FAIL).

Decision after Round 1:

No issues found (PASS, zero findings) → review ENDS. Do NOT spawn a fresh sub-agent for confirmation.

Issues found (FAIL, or any non-zero findings) → run the active review skill's findings-validation gate first; for review skills the default gate is /why-review --validate-findings <report-path>, fix only validated findings, then restart the full review protocol from the beginning with a fresh task breakdown.

Fresh full re-review after every fix cycle: Re-run the whole review protocol over the current full target. When sub-agents are part of that protocol, spawn NEW Agent calls — never reuse prior agents. Reviewers re-read ALL files from scratch with ZERO memory of prior rounds. See SYNC:fresh-context-review for the spawn mechanism and SYNC:review-protocol-injection for the canonical Agent prompt template. Each fresh full review must catch:

Cross-cutting concerns missed in the prior round

Interaction bugs between changed files

Convention drift (new code vs existing patterns)

Missing pieces that should exist but don't

Subtle edge cases the prior round rationalized away

Regressions introduced by the fixes themselves

Loop termination: After each full re-review, repeat the same decision: clean → END; issues → validate findings → fix → restart from the first review phase. Continue until a complete review pass finds zero issues. If the same validated finding repeats for 3 full invocations with no progress, or a fix requires product/owner input, escalate via AskUserQuestion.

Rules:

A clean Round 1 ENDS the review — no mandatory Round 2

NEVER fix unvalidated findings; validate first using the caller's validation gate

NEVER skip the full re-review after a fix cycle (every fix invalidates the prior verdict)

NEVER reuse a sub-agent across rounds — every iteration that uses sub-agents spawns NEW Agent calls

Main agent READS sub-agent reports but MUST NOT filter, reinterpret, or override findings

No arbitrary sub-agent-round cap replaces the clean-review requirement; use the 3 repeated-no-progress blocker rule only to avoid infinite spinning

Track recursive invocation count and repeated blockers in conversation context (session-scoped)

Final verdict must incorporate ALL rounds executed

Report must include ## Round N Findings (Fresh Sub-Agent) for every round N≥2 that was executed.

Fresh Context Re-Review — Eliminate orchestrator confirmation bias after fixes by restarting the full review with isolated sub-agents where applicable.

Why: The main agent knows what it (or /cook) just fixed and rationalizes findings accordingly. A fresh sub-agent has ZERO memory, re-reads from scratch, and catches what the main agent dismissed. Sub-agent bias is mitigated by (1) fresh context, (2) verbatim protocol injection, (3) main agent not filtering the report.

When: ONLY after a validated-finding fix cycle. A review round that finds zero issues ENDS the loop — do NOT spawn a confirmation sub-agent. A review round that finds issues triggers: validate findings → fix → full review restart from the first phase.

How:

Start a NEW full review invocation/task breakdown; when that protocol calls for agents, spawn NEW Agent tool calls — use code-reviewer subagent_type for code reviews, general-purpose for plan/doc/artifact reviews

Inject ALL required review protocols VERBATIM into the prompt — see SYNC:review-protocol-injection for the full list and template. Never reference protocols by file path; AI compliance drops behind file-read indirection (see SYNC:shared-protocol-duplication-policy)

Sub-agent re-reads ALL target files from scratch via its own tool calls — never pass file contents inline in the prompt

Sub-agent writes structured report to plans/reports/{review-type}-round{N}-{date}.md

Main agent reads the report, integrates findings into its own report, DOES NOT override or filter

Rules:

SKIP fresh sub-agent when the prior full review found zero issues (no fixes = nothing new to verify)

NEVER skip the full review restart after a fix cycle — every fix invalidates the prior verdict

NEVER reuse a sub-agent across rounds — every fresh round spawns a NEW Agent call

Continue until a complete full review pass has zero findings; if the same blocker repeats 3 times with no progress, escalate via AskUserQuestion

Track iteration count and repeated blockers in conversation context (session-scoped, no persistent files)

Review Protocol Injection — Every fresh sub-agent review prompt MUST embed 10 protocol blocks VERBATIM. The template below has ALL 10 bodies already expanded inline. Copy the template wholesale into the Agent call's prompt field at runtime, replacing only the {placeholders} in Task / Round / Reference Docs / Target Files / Output sections with context-specific values. Do NOT touch the embedded protocol sections.

Why inline expansion: Placeholder markers would force file-read indirection at runtime. AI compliance drops significantly behind indirection (see SYNC:shared-protocol-duplication-policy). Therefore the template carries all 10 protocol bodies pre-embedded.

Subagent Type Selection

code-reviewer — for code reviews (reviewing source files, git diffs, implementation)
general-purpose — for plan / doc / artifact reviews (reviewing markdown plans, docs, specs)

Canonical Agent Call Template (Copy Verbatim)

Agent({
  description: "Fresh Round {N} review",
  subagent_type: "code-reviewer",
  prompt: `
## Task
{review-specific task — e.g., "Review all uncommitted changes for code quality" | "Review plan files under {plan-dir}" | "Review integration tests in {path}"}

## Round
Round {N}. You have ZERO memory of prior rounds. Re-read all target files from scratch via your own tool calls. Do NOT trust anything from the main agent beyond this prompt.

## Protocols (follow VERBATIM — these are non-negotiable)

### Evidence-Based Reasoning
Speculation is FORBIDDEN. Every claim needs proof.
1. Cite file:line, grep results, or framework docs for EVERY claim
2. Declare confidence: >80% act freely, 60-80% verify first, <60% DO NOT recommend
3. Cross-service validation required for architectural changes
4. "I don't have enough evidence" is valid and expected output
BLOCKED until: Evidence file path (file:line) provided; Grep search performed; 3+ similar patterns found; Confidence level stated.
Forbidden without proof: "obviously", "I think", "should be", "probably", "this is because".
If incomplete → output: "Insufficient evidence. Verified: [...]. Not verified: [...]."

### Bug Detection
MUST check categories 1-4 for EVERY review. Never skip.
1. Null Safety: Can params/returns be null? Are they guarded? Optional chaining gaps? .find() returns checked?
2. Boundary Conditions: Off-by-one (< vs <=)? Empty collections handled? Zero/negative values? Max limits?
3. Error Handling: Try-catch scope correct? Silent swallowed exceptions? Error types specific? Cleanup in finally?
4. Resource Management: Connections/streams closed? Subscriptions unsubscribed on destroy? Timers cleared? Memory bounded?
5. Concurrency (if async): Missing await? Race conditions on shared state? Stale closures? Retry storms?
6. Stack-Specific: Check the configured language/runtime pitfalls and framework-specific failure modes discovered from local code.
Classify: CRITICAL (crash/corrupt) → FAIL | HIGH (incorrect behavior) → FAIL | MEDIUM (edge case) → WARN | LOW (defensive) → INFO.

### Design Patterns Quality
Priority checks for every code change:
1. DRY via OOP: Same-suffix classes (*Entity, *Dto, *Service) MUST share base class. 3+ similar patterns → extract to shared abstraction.
2. Right Responsibility: Logic in LOWEST layer (Entity > Domain Service > Application Service > Controller). Never business logic in controllers.
3. SOLID: Single responsibility (one reason to change). Open-closed (extend, don't modify). Liskov (subtypes substitutable). Interface segregation (small interfaces). Dependency inversion (depend on abstractions).
4. After extraction/move/rename: Grep ENTIRE scope for dangling references. Zero tolerance.
5. YAGNI gate: NEVER recommend patterns unless 3+ occurrences exist. Don't extract for hypothetical future use.
Anti-patterns to flag: God Object, Copy-Paste inheritance, Circular Dependency, Leaky Abstraction.

### Logic & Intention Review
Verify WHAT code does matches WHY it was changed.
1. Change Intention Check: Every changed file MUST serve the stated purpose. Flag unrelated changes as scope creep.
2. Happy Path Trace: Walk through one complete success scenario through changed code.
3. Error Path Trace: Walk through one failure/edge case scenario through changed code.
4. Acceptance Mapping: If plan context available, map every acceptance criterion to a code change.
5. Tests Verify Intent: For test/spec changes, verify tests name the protected business rule or invariant and would fail if that intent breaks.
6. Migration Test Exclusion: Do not write tests for migration code. Schema/data migrations are one-time execution paths, not core application logic.
NEVER mark review PASS without completing both traces (happy + error path).

### Test Spec Verification
Map changed code to test specifications.
1. Identify the project's test/spec format from existing docs, test-case files, BDD feature files, or spec folders.
2. Every changed code path MUST map to a corresponding test case/spec (or flag as "needs test case").
3. New functions/endpoints/handlers → flag for test spec creation.
4. Migration files are excluded from test/spec creation; schema/data migrations are one-time execution paths, not core application logic.
5. If spec evidence fields exist, verify they point to actual code (file:line, not stale references).
6. Verify each meaningful test case names the business intent/invariant; flag behavior-only cases that only mirror implementation details.
7. Auth/data changes → verify corresponding authorization and data-state test cases exist.
8. If no specs exist for a changed path → log the gap and recommend the project's test-spec workflow.
NEVER skip test mapping. Untested code paths are the #1 source of production bugs.

### Behavioral Delta Matrix
MANDATORY for any bugfix review. Produce input-state × pre-fix × post-fix × delta table BEFORE writing verdict.
- Minimum 3 rows; include at least one row OUTSIDE the original bug report.
- Any "REGRESSION" delta → review returns FAIL until a preservation test is added.
- Narrative descriptions do NOT substitute for the matrix.
Example rows (external-record sync fix):
| Input                 | Pre-fix | Post-fix                  | Delta      |
| --------------------- | ------- | ------------------------- | ---------- |
| Record exists (valid) | Reused  | Always recreated → orphan | REGRESSION |
| Record missing (404)  | Error   | Recreated                 | Fixed      |

### Fix-Layer Accountability
NEVER fix at the crash site. Trace the full flow, fix at the owning layer. The crash site is a SYMPTOM, not the cause.
MANDATORY before ANY fix:
1. Trace full data flow — Map the complete path from data origin to crash site across ALL layers (storage → backend → API → frontend → UI). Identify where bad state ENTERS, not where it CRASHES.
2. Identify the invariant owner — Which layer's contract guarantees this value is valid? Fix at the LOWEST layer that owns the invariant, not the highest layer that consumes it.
3. One fix, maximum protection — If fix requires touching 3+ files with defensive checks, you are at the wrong layer — go lower.
4. Verify no bypass paths — Confirm all data flows through the fix point. Check for direct construction skipping factories, clone/spread without re-validation, raw data not wrapped in domain models, mutations outside the model layer.
BLOCKED until: Full data flow traced (origin → crash); Invariant owner identified with file:line evidence; All access sites audited (grep count); Fix layer justified (lowest layer that protects most consumers).
Anti-patterns (REJECT): "Fix it where it crashes" (crash site ≠ cause site, trace upstream); "Add defensive checks at every consumer" (scattered defense = wrong layer); "Both fix is safer" (pick ONE authoritative layer).

### Rationalization Prevention
AI skips steps via these evasions. Recognize and reject:
- "Too simple for a plan" → Simple + wrong assumptions = wasted time. Plan anyway.
- "I'll test after" → RED before GREEN. Write/verify test first.
- "Already searched" → Show grep evidence with file:line. No proof = no search.
- "Just do it" → Still need TaskCreate. Skip depth, never skip tracking.
- "Just a small fix" → Small fix in wrong location cascades. Verify file:line first.
- "Code is self-explanatory" → Future readers need evidence trail. Document anyway.
- "Combine steps to save time" → Combined steps dilute focus. Each step has distinct purpose.

### Graph-Assisted Investigation
MANDATORY when .code-graph/graph.db exists.
HARD-GATE: MUST 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.
- 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.

### 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.
7. NEVER invent new patterns when existing ones work — match exactly or document deviation.
BLOCKED until: Read target files; Grep 3+ patterns; Graph trace (if graph.db exists); Assumptions verified with evidence.

## Reference Docs (READ before reviewing)
- docs/project-reference/code-review-rules.md
- {skill-specific reference docs — e.g., integration-test-reference.md for integration-test-review; backend-patterns-reference.md for backend reviews; frontend-patterns-reference.md for frontend reviews}

## Target Files
{explicit file list OR "run git diff to see uncommitted changes" OR "read all files under {plan-dir}"}

## Output
Write a structured report to plans/reports/{review-type}-round{N}-{date}.md with sections:
- Status: PASS | FAIL
- Issue Count: {number}
- Critical Issues (with file:line evidence)
- High Priority Issues (with file:line evidence)
- Medium / Low Issues
- Cross-cutting findings

Return the report path and status to the main agent.
Every finding MUST have file:line evidence. Speculation is forbidden.
`
})

Rules

DO copy the template wholesale — including all 10 embedded protocol sections
DO replace only the {placeholders} in Task / Round / Reference Docs / Target Files / Output sections with context-specific content
DO choose code-reviewer subagent_type for code reviews and general-purpose for plan / doc / artifact reviews
DO NOT paraphrase, summarize, or skip any protocol section
DO NOT pass file contents inline — the sub-agent reads via its own tool calls so it has a fresh context
DO NOT reference protocols by file path or tag name — the bodies are already embedded above
DO NOT introduce placeholder markers for the protocols — they must stay literally expanded

Graph Impact Analysis — When .code-graph/graph.db exists, run blast-radius --json to detect ALL files affected by changes (7 edge types: CALLS, MESSAGE_BUS, API_ENDPOINT, TRIGGERS_EVENT, PRODUCES_EVENT, TRIGGERS_COMMAND_EVENT, INHERITS). Compute gap: impacted_files - changed_files = potentially stale files. Risk: <5 Low, 5-20 Medium, >20 High. Use trace --direction downstream for deep chains on high-impact files.

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 After task-tracking bootstrap and before target/source work, read required project-reference docs and cite Reference docs read: ....
MANDATORY Always include lessons.md; project conventions override generic defaults.
MANDATORY If project config, root instruction files, or any required reference doc is missing, stop and run or ask the user to run /project-init.

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION debugger trace gate: for non-trivial bug/fix/investigation/review work, start at the observed final output and trace backward through reader -> storage/projection -> writer -> consumer/job -> producer/trigger. Enumerate all feeder paths and hypotheses before fixing. BLOCKED until trace, hypothesis matrix, owning fix layer, and forward convergence proof exist.

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.

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.

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

Closing Reminders

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Goal: Ensure decisions, findings, and plans survive adversarial rationale review before downstream work proceeds. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION break work into small todo tasks using TaskCreate BEFORE starting. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION resolve the user's requested review target BEFORE reviewing: plan/PBI rationale, code changes, docs/spec/report, findings, or another artifact. Commit/PR/diff input defaults to code-change review; "no active plan" applies ONLY to unresolved plan-rationale requests. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION validate decisions with user via AskUserQuestion — why: review gate needs user-owned next step, not AI auto-proceed. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION add a final review todo task to verify work quality. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION in full mode, create the Findings Validation Gate closing task at skill START (see Task Bootstrap); whenever findings exist, run it before completing — re-invoke /why-review --validate-findings (TERMINAL mode, SAME session) to verify every finding is correct, proof-backed, reasonable, best-practice; RE-DO it ONLY if it surfaces finding issues or enhancement opportunities (max 2 re-dos, then escalate via AskUserQuestion). validate-findings mode is terminal — it NEVER re-invokes why-review. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION read reference docs chosen by Project Reference Docs Gate; always include docs/project-reference/lessons.md.

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION cite file:line evidence for every claim. Confidence >80% to act, <60% do NOT recommend.
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION execute the review loop: review → validate findings → fix validated findings → full re-review. A complete review pass with zero findings ENDS the review.
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION run graph blast-radius on changed files to find potentially stale consumers/handlers (when graph.db exists).
MUST ATTENTION apply critical thinking — every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination: never present guess as fact.

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 — holistic-first debugging, fix at responsible layer, surface ambiguity before coding, re-read files after compaction.

[IMPORTANT] Analyze how big the task is and break it into many small todo tasks systematically before starting — this is very important.