changes-review-loop

Imported from duc01226/easy-claude (.claude/skills/changes-review-loop/SKILL.md). Install upstream with npx skills add duc01226/easy-claude --skill changes-review-loop. Copyright stays with the author.

[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: Drive a diff scope to a clean pass by pairing /changes-review with /fix in a recursive loop — each round runs /changes-review INLINE in report-only mode to surface validated findings over a fixed diff scope, then /fix to resolve them at the owning layer, then loops again with a FRESH full /changes-review over the CHANGED diff — stopping when a complete /changes-review pass clears the round's exit bar: zero validated findings in rounds 1-2, and zero validated CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM from round 3 (LOW-only ENDS the loop, deferred not fixed).

Summary:

• Each round = /changes-review (report-only) + validate + /fix — the loop runs /changes-review as a review-PRODUCER that stops after its raw findings report (the documented /workflow-review-changes boundary: "stop after the report; parent step 2 owns validation", changes-review/SKILL.md:52,204); the loop then owns the validation gate (/why-review --validate-findings) and the dedicated /fix half, so /changes-review never self-validates or self-fixes; one without the other never converges.
• Steps (in order): (0) resolve diff scope + Goal Contract → (0b) bind the convergence loop (protocol loop primary + optional /goal accelerator) → (1) round loop { run /changes-review report-only INLINE → /why-review --validate-findings on the report → run /fix on the VALIDATED findings at the owning layer → log iteration } → (2) converge when a fresh review clears the round's exit bar (zero findings rounds 1-2; zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM round 3+) OR escalate on non-progress → (3) terminal /docs-update + recap.
• Convergence: stop ONLY when a fresh full /changes-review over the CURRENT (post-fix) diff clears the round's exit bar — not a stale clean report predating the last fix.
• Severity floor — from round 3, LOW stops blocking. Rounds 1-2 converge on zero validated findings (any severity). From round 3 the bar is zero validated CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM — a round whose validated findings are ALL LOW ENDS the loop. Never open another round to fix LOW alone; list every deferred LOW in the recap and Goal Contract instead, and NEVER re-tier a real CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM down to LOW to reach the exit. Severity tiers per SYNC:severity-rubric.
• Inline invariant: run /changes-review and /why-review via the Skill tool, NEVER the Agent tool — they self-bind their OWN review-loop obligations (and a session /goal gate WHEN available, changes-review/SKILL.md:197-223, why-review/SKILL.md:57-76), which a sub-agent cannot own or carry back to this loop. /changes-review's own dimensional reviewers (its Phase 0.7 sub-agents) stay sub-agents by its design, so context stays bounded.
• Apply ONLY validated findings: every finding is validated to the ≥85% survival bar via /why-review --validate-findings before /fix touches it; the loop applies THOSE at the lowest owning layer (Entity > Service > Handler), routed by change type — NEVER unvalidated findings.
• Scope base is FIXED; the working tree grows. Recompute the diff scope each round (branch-diff base ∪ current uncommitted changes) so convergence is measured against a stable subject as fixes accumulate.
• Bounded: round cap default 3; blocking findings not shrinking across 2 rounds, or cap hit with CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM still open → STOP & escalate via AskUserQuestion. Increasing findings → STOP (fixes regressing).

Why this skill exists (READ FIRST — it is the whole justification): standalone /changes-review COUPLES find + fix inside one skill invocation (its Phase 7 self-fix and Phase -1 self-recursive loop, changes-review/SKILL.md:53,197-223) — the review and the fix share one context, one lens, and one confirmation bias. This loop decouples them: it runs /changes-review purely as a finder (report-only, the documented /workflow-review-changes boundary where it stops after the report and the caller owns fixing, changes-review/SKILL.md:29,204,558,578), validates the findings, then hands them to a dedicated /fix half with its own intelligent routing at the lowest owning layer, and then re-runs a fresh full /changes-review over the changed diff. The value is the clean finder/fixer split plus the fresh-full re-review each round: it catches fix-induced regressions the coupled inner loop can rationalize away, and it lets /fix own the fix mechanics instead of the reviewer patching its own findings. Without this outer loop, "changes-review found issues, then something fixed them" ships those fixes without an independent fresh review.

Workflow: resolve diff scope + Goal Contract → bind the convergence loop (protocol loop + optional /goal accelerator) → round loop { run /changes-review report-only INLINE → /why-review --validate-findings → run /fix on the validated findings at owning layer → log iteration } → converge when a fresh full review clears the round's exit bar (zero validated findings rounds 1-2; zero validated CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM round 3+) → terminal /docs-update + recap.

Key Rules:

• Each round pairs /changes-review (find) + /fix (resolve). The loop runs /changes-review in report-only mode so it produces findings but does NOT self-validate or self-fix; the loop's /why-review --validate-findings gate and /fix are the halves that validate and land the change. A round is incomplete until BOTH have run (or the review returned zero findings).
• MUST run INLINE in the main session — NEVER dispatch /changes-review or /why-review as a sub-agent. They self-bind their own review-loop obligations (and a session /goal gate when available, changes-review/SKILL.md:197-223); as a sub-agent that in-session guarantee is silently lost. This loop skill therefore also runs inline. (/changes-review's internal Phase 0.7 dimensional reviewers remain sub-agents by its own design — that is bounded and correct.)
• Report-only invocation is mandatory. Tell /changes-review to run as a review producer: do its full dimensional review + Phase 6 /why-review --validate-findings gate, then STOP before Phase 7 self-fix / Phase 7.5 holistic / Phase 8 docs-update. The loop owns fixing (Step 1.3) and the terminal docs-update (Step 3). If a /changes-review invocation cannot be constrained to report-only in this environment and self-fixes anyway, fall back to detecting fixes-applied per round (like /workflow-review-changes-loop) and skip the redundant /fix half for that round — never double-fix.
• Convergence = a fresh full /changes-review over the post-fix diff clears the round's exit bar. Rounds 1-2: zero validated findings. Round 3+: zero validated CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM — LOW-only converges (record the LOWs as deferred, do not fix them). A clean report produced BEFORE the latest fix landed does NOT count — re-review the changed diff.
• The severity floor bounds ITERATION, never the standard. It ends the loop; it never authorizes shipping a known CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, never lowers the ≥85% finding-survival bar, and never applies to a binary gate (a failing test is a failure, not a LOW finding).
• /fix applies ONLY validated findings, at the lowest owning layer, routed by change type (code → /fix with its --target intelligent routing, or a direct edit at Entity/Service; spec-drift → /spec [update] + /spec [mode=tests]; docs → /docs-update; missing coverage → /integration-test; honor each finding's dual-feedback ledger, changes-review/SKILL.md:530). NEVER apply an unvalidated or demoted finding.
• The diff scope base is FIXED across rounds; its content changes as fixes land. Recompute {scope} = branch-diff base ∪ current uncommitted changes each round so the base merge-base never moves and convergence is measured against a stable subject.
• Round cap (default 3) and blocking-findings-not-shrinking / increasing → STOP & escalate via AskUserQuestion. NEVER loop open-ended. Cap exhaustion escalates only when CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM remain — a LOW-only round converges via the severity floor.

First Principle — Convergence, Not Motion

A round that changes the diff is progress only if the next fresh review finds fewer things to fix. The loop exists to reach a fixed point (no blocking findings), not to keep editing the code. The bar tightens by round: everything blocks in rounds 1-2; from round 3 only CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM block, so a LOW-only round is the fixed point. If findings stop shrinking, that is a signal to escalate, not to spin another round.

Step 0 — Resolve Diff Scope + Goal Contract (FIRST ACTION)

1. Parse the review scope from the user prompt into a stable, reusable scope string — exactly the diff kinds /changes-review resolves (changes-review/SKILL.md:96-104). It has two parts UNIONed:
   • Branch-diff base — a branch-to-branch or PR diff (e.g. 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. If the prompt names a commit range, capture it the same way.
   • 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. NEVER silently convert the diff source type.
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 fresh full /changes-review over {scope} clears the round's exit bar: rounds 1-2 → zero validated findings (no finding of any severity survives the loop's /why-review --validate-findings gate); round 3+ → zero validated CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM findings, with any remaining LOW findings recorded as deferred rather than fixed. Record the round cap (default 3) 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 /changes-review report-only INLINE over {scope} (recomputed each round). After each review, validate its findings with /why-review --validate-findings, apply every VALIDATED finding's fix via /fix at its owning layer, then re-run a FRESH full /changes-review over the CHANGED diff. Do NOT stop while the last review still produced validated findings that BLOCK at the current round's bar. Converge when a fresh full /changes-review clears that bar: rounds 1-2 → zero validated findings; round 3+ → zero validated CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM (LOW-only ENDS the loop, with the LOWs recorded as deferred). Cap at {N=5} rounds; if blocking findings do not shrink across 2 consecutive rounds, findings increase, or the cap is hit with CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM still open → 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 fix cycle. 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 changes-review convergence loop: repeatedly run /changes-review report-only INLINE over {scope} (recomputed each round). After each review, validate its findings with /why-review --validate-findings, apply every VALIDATED finding's fix via /fix at its owning layer, then re-run a FRESH full /changes-review over the CHANGED diff. If blocking validated findings>0 → apply fixes and run another round; if a fresh full /changes-review clears the round's bar (rounds 1-2: zero validated findings; round 3+: zero validated CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, LOW-only counts as clear with the LOWs recorded as deferred) → CONVERGED, run the terminal /docs-update and clear the gate. Do NOT stop while the last review still produced blocking validated findings. Cap at {N=5} rounds; if blocking findings do not shrink across 2 consecutive rounds, findings increase, or the cap is hit with CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM still open → 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 /changes-review round would self-bind its OWN Phase -1 review-loop obligation — but the loop runs it in report-only mode, where Phase -1 is deferred to the caller (the /workflow-review-changes boundary, changes-review/SKILL.md:204), so no inner self-fix gate is installed; THIS outer loop owns the single convergence gate. Each inner /why-review --validate-findings self-clears when that round's findings are all adjudicated. All self-clear on satisfaction — no orphaned gate. Do NOT tell the user to clear either.

Step 1 — Round Loop (/changes-review → validate → /fix → log)

Each round couples the two halves — review to find, fix to resolve. For each round R (starting at 1), do ALL of:

1. Snapshot before: record the working-tree fingerprint — git status --porcelain + git diff --stat. This is the fixes-applied baseline for the round and the objective backstop for convergence detection (Step 2).
2. Run /changes-review report-only INLINE on the recomputed {scope} via the Skill tool (NEVER the Agent tool). Direct it to run as a review PRODUCER: perform its full dimensional review and STOP after writing its findings report — do NOT run its Phase 6 validation, Phase 7 self-fix, Phase 7.5 holistic, or Phase 8 docs-update. This is exactly the /workflow-review-changes boundary where the caller (this loop) owns validation and fixing, so /changes-review hands the raw report back and stops (changes-review/SKILL.md:52,204,558,578). If the environment cannot constrain /changes-review to report-only and it self-fixes anyway, treat that self-fix as this round's fix half (detect fixes-applied vs the before-snapshot) and skip Steps 1.3–1.4 to avoid double-fixing.
3. Validate the findings — THE LOOP OWNS THIS GATE. Run /why-review --validate-findings <report-path> INLINE via the Skill tool over the report /changes-review just produced (plans/reports/code-review-*.md), so every finding is confirmed correct, proof-backed, reasonable, and best-practice (≥85% survival bar) before any fix. This is the parent-owned validation the report-only boundary defers to the caller (changes-review/SKILL.md:52). If the validated finding set is empty → this round converged; go to Step 2 (no fix half needed).
4. Run /fix on the validated findings (findings>0 only) — this is the half the loop owns. Resolve each validated finding at its owning layer: code → /fix (its --target intelligent routing) or a direct edit at the lowest layer (Entity > Service > Handler); spec-drift (CODE-WRONG/SPEC-STALE/SPEC-SILENT) → route per the finding's Spec Drift Adjudication verdict (/spec [update] + /spec [mode=tests]); missing coverage (GAP/SPEC-GAP) → /integration-test; docs → defer to the terminal /docs-update; behavior-changing → honor the finding's Dual-Feedback Ledger (spec verdict + test action, changes-review/SKILL.md:530). Fix ONLY validated findings — never an unvalidated or demoted one.
5. Append an Iteration Log entry to the Goal Contract: round number, validated findings count, files/artifacts changed this round (file:line), fixes applied, and remaining gaps.

Step 2 — Convergence & Escalation Gate

Evaluate after every round:

Increasing findings = STOP. If round R surfaces MORE validated findings than round R-1, the fixes are regressing the code — STOP and escalate immediately (mirrors changes-review/SKILL.md's regression stance). Never trade one fix for two new findings across rounds.

Step 3 — Terminal Docs-Update + Recap

1. Terminal /docs-update (MANDATORY once converged). The loop ran /changes-review in report-only mode, so its unconditional Phase 8 docs-update (changes-review/SKILL.md:55,68) was deferred to the caller. Once a fresh full /changes-review clears the round's exit bar (zero validated findings, or zero validated CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM from round 3), invoke /docs-update INLINE over the full changeset as the terminal step so no stale docs survive.
2. Recap. Emit a concise convergence recap: rounds run, validated findings per round (the shrinking sequence), the fixes applied at each round, the final zero-findings evidence, and the Goal Satisfaction matrix (required criterion PASS). Point to each round's /changes-review report under plans/reports/ and the Goal Contract Iteration Log. Do NOT commit or push unless the user explicitly asks.

Convergence Detection — Why a Fresh Full Re-Review Is Required

A round converges ONLY when a /changes-review that ran over the current, post-fix diff clears the round's exit bar — zero validated findings in rounds 1-2, zero validated CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM from round 3. Both properties are required because:

• Fresh over the changed diff — a clean report from a review that predates the last fix proves nothing about the fix. Every applied fix invalidates the prior verdict (changes-review/SKILL.md:72); the loop MUST re-review after fixing, never reuse a stale clean report.
• Zero validated findings — the loop's /why-review --validate-findings gate already dropped inflated/unproven findings below the ≥85% bar; convergence rides on that validated set, so the loop never chases a nit the review itself would demote.
• Working-tree unchanged backstop — the objective git-diff comparison (Step 1.1 snapshot) confirms the converging review actually landed no fix; a "clean" verdict that still mutated files means the round DID fix things → run another round to re-prove clean.

When validated findings remain but cannot be fixed (owner/product input needed) → escalate, do not loop. When a fix lands but the next fresh review still finds issues → run another round. Convergence is a fixed point, not a single clean read.

IMPORTANT MANDATORY sequence: Step 0 (resolve diff scope + Goal Contract) → Step 0b (bind the convergence loop: protocol loop primary + optional /goal accelerator) → Step 1 (round loop: run /changes-review report-only INLINE → /why-review --validate-findings → run /fix on validated findings → log) → Step 2 (converge on a zero-findings fresh review / escalate on non-progress) → Step 3 (terminal /docs-update + recap).

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?".

• 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.
• MANDATORY — non-asking 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. There the duty is REDIRECTED, not waived — still name the trade-off, still decide materiality, record confirmed? = NO — cannot ask from this context, state the unconfirmed MATERIAL trade-off in your RETURNED verdict/summary so the CALLER escalates it (a note only in an on-disk report is not a handoff), and never emit an unqualified PASS. Applies ONLY where the user is genuinely unreachable (spawned sub-agent, terminal validate mode, headless run) — if you CAN ask, you MUST ask.

Project Protocol Overlay — Before executing this skill, resolve any PROJECT overlay rules layered onto it: match this skill's name against the Target column of the project's skill-protocol index (docs/project-reference/skill-protocols-reference.md by default; a referenceDocs entry in docs/project-config.json overrides the path), taking the most specific matching tier ONLY — exact name > glob > *. That precedence orders overlays against EACH OTHER, never against this skill. Read ONLY the matched bodies, resolved as <protocols-dir>/<Name>.md; a row's Body link is display text, never a read path. A matched body that is missing or malformed is REPORTED and skipped — never reconstructed from the index Description. No index, or no match -> proceed with no overlay, silently. Full contract: .claude/skills/project-skill-protocol/references/registry.md.

Overlays are ADDITIVE ONLY: they ADD rules on top of this skill's own protocol and NEVER replace, override, disable, or reinterpret a rule it already states — removing every overlay must return this skill to exactly its documented behavior. An overlay is a BRIEF, not an authority escalation: it can NEVER waive a workflow gate, git discipline, a review gate, or a user-confirmation gate. A genuine overlay-vs-skill conflict, or two equally-specific overlays that directly contradict -> surface both to the user; NEVER resolve silently.

MUST ATTENTION resolve project protocol overlays for this skill BEFORE executing — most specific matching tier only (exact > glob > *, which ranks overlays against each other, NEVER against this skill), read only matched bodies at <protocols-dir>/<Name>.md; a missing or malformed body is reported, never reconstructed. Overlays are ADDITIVE ONLY (they never replace this skill's own rules) and are a brief, NEVER an authority escalation; an equal-specificity contradiction goes to the user.

Closing Reminders

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Goal: Pair /changes-review + /fix in a recursive loop over a fixed diff scope — /changes-review (report-only) to find validated findings → /fix to resolve them → fresh full re-review of the CHANGED diff — until a complete /changes-review pass clears the round's exit bar — zero validated findings in rounds 1-2, zero validated CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM from round 3 (LOW-only ENDS the loop, deferred not fixed).

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION main steps (in order): (0) resolve diff scope + Goal Contract → (0b) bind the convergence loop (protocol loop primary + optional /goal accelerator) → (1) round loop: run /changes-review report-only INLINE → /why-review --validate-findings → run /fix on VALIDATED findings at owning layer → append Iteration Log → (2) converge on a zero-findings fresh review / escalate on non-progress → (3) terminal /docs-update + recap.

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION [BLOCKING] plan the detailed todo tasks FIRST — before running the loop. Before the first round, create a detailed todo-task plan that enumerates every planned step and every planned round; a round MUST NOT start until that round's fresh todo-task plan exists. On EVERY re-run (each new round), REGENERATE a fresh loop todo-task plan — NEVER reuse the prior round's task list — so each round's work is explicitly planned before it executes.

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION each round pairs /changes-review (find) + /fix (resolve); the loop runs /changes-review in report-only mode (changes-review/SKILL.md:29,204) so it never self-fixes, and the loop MUST run the /fix half — one without the other never converges. IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION the convergence loop is bound by the AI-driven protocol loop (Steps 1–2) — that is the primary, host-independent mechanism you MUST self-drive whether or not any command exists. The /goal command is an OPTIONAL accelerator: invoke it (a real call) ONLY when available and permitted; if it is absent/unregistered/not-permitted, record one line in the Goal Contract and proceed — NEVER error, block, or fake a gate. Correctness must not depend on /goal. IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION run /changes-review and /why-review INLINE via the Skill tool — NEVER as a sub-agent (they self-bind their own review-loop obligations + a session /goal gate when available, changes-review/SKILL.md:197-223). /changes-review's internal Phase 0.7 dimensional reviewers remain sub-agents by its own design. IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION convergence = a fresh full /changes-review over the post-fix diff clears the round's exit bar — zero validated findings in rounds 1-2, zero validated CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM from round 3 (LOW-only ENDS the loop) — (with the working-tree-unchanged backstop) — never a stale clean report predating the last fix. IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION apply ONLY validated findings (≥85% survival bar via /why-review --validate-findings) at the lowest owning layer (Entity > Service > Handler); NEVER apply an unvalidated or demoted finding. IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION keep the diff base fixed across rounds; recompute {scope} = branch-diff base ∪ current uncommitted changes each round. IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION enforce the round cap (default 3); findings not shrinking across 2 rounds, increasing, or cap hit with findings still open → STOP & escalate via AskUserQuestion. NEVER loop open-ended. IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION run the terminal /docs-update once the loop converges (deferred from /changes-review's report-only run); do NOT commit or push unless the user explicitly asks.