production-readiness-review

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

Codex compatibility note:

• Invoke repository skills with $skill-name in Codex; this mirrored copy rewrites legacy Claude /skill-name references.
• Task tracker mandate: BEFORE executing any workflow or skill step, create/update task tracking for all steps and keep it synchronized as progress changes.
• User-question prompts mean to ask the user directly in Codex.
• Ignore Claude-specific mode-switch instructions when they appear.
• Strict execution contract: when a user explicitly invokes a skill, execute that skill protocol as written.
• Subagent authorization: when a skill is user-invoked or AI-detected and its protocol requires subagents, that skill activation authorizes use of the required spawn_agent subagent(s) for that task.
• Do not skip, reorder, or merge protocol steps unless the user explicitly approves the deviation first.
• For workflow skills, execute each listed child-skill step explicitly and report step-by-step evidence.
• If a required step/tool cannot run in this environment, stop and ask the user before adapting.

Codex Project-Reference Loading (No Hooks)

Codex uses static project-reference loading instead of runtime-injected project docs. When coding, planning, debugging, testing, or reviewing, open project docs explicitly using this routing.

Always read:

• docs/project-config.json (project-specific paths, commands, modules, and workflow/test settings)
• docs/project-reference/docs-index-reference.md (routes to the full docs/project-reference/* catalog)
• docs/project-reference/lessons.md (always-on guardrails and anti-patterns)

Missing/stale context route: 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 $project-init or the narrow setup route ($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.

Situation-based docs:

• Project structure/architecture/tech-stack/deployment/setup (any layer — backend, frontend, or infra): project-structure-reference.md
• Backend/CQRS/API/domain/entity changes: backend-patterns-reference.md, domain-entities-reference.md
• Frontend/UI/styling/design-system: frontend-patterns-reference.md, scss-styling-guide.md, design-system/README.md
• Spec authoring, docs/specs/ pathing, or TC format: feature-spec-reference.md, spec-system-reference.md, spec-principles.md
• Behavior/public-contract changes or spec-test-code sync: workflow-spec-test-code-cycle-reference.md plus the spec docs above
• Derived spec indexes/ERDs/reimplementation guides: spec-system-reference.md and source Feature Specs under docs/specs/
• Integration test implementation/review: integration-test-reference.md
• E2E test implementation/review: e2e-test-reference.md
• Code review/audit work: code-review-rules.md plus domain docs above based on changed files

Do not read all docs blindly. Start from docs-index-reference.md, then open only relevant files for the task.

[BLOCKING] Execute skill steps in declared order. NEVER skip, reorder, or merge steps without explicit user approval. [BLOCKING] Before each step or sub-skill call, update task tracking: set in_progress when step starts, set completed when step ends. [BLOCKING] Every completed/skipped step MUST include brief evidence or explicit skip reason. [BLOCKING] If Task tools are unavailable, create and maintain an equivalent step-by-step plan tracker with the same status transitions.

Quick Summary

Goal: Ensure service/API changes are production-ready across observability, reliability, data integrity, and database performance: score each dimension with evidence and expose operational gaps.

Summary:

• Main steps (in order): (1) Resolve scope — args else git diff --name-only uncommitted; backend service/API files only, skip frontend/tests/docs/config-only. (2) Score 12 criteria 0-2 across the 4 dimensions (/24). (3) Extended SRE Readiness gate — 8 pass/fail deploy-time + operate-time items; an unaccepted CRITICAL/HIGH fail blocks PASS regardless of the /24 score. Gating, NOT scored — does not change the /24 math. (4) Map score + gate → verdict. (5) Structural Impact Analysis — graph gate (blast-radius, tests_for, downstream trace) when graph.db exists. (6) Validated Fix + Full Re-Review loop on any finding. (7) Emit the SRE Review Results report — file:line evidence per score and per gate item. Execute in order; NEVER skip/merge a step — why: untracked steps get silently merged and gaps reach production.
• Score 12 criteria 0-2 across four dimensions (Observability/8, Reliability/8, Data Integrity/4, DB Performance/4) for a /24 PASS (19-24) / NEEDS WORK (13-18) / NOT READY (0-12) verdict — every score needs file:line evidence or it is 0.
• The DB Performance Protocol is MANDATORY and non-advisory: ALL list queries must paginate (no unbounded GetAll/ToList) and ALL filter fields, foreign keys, and sort columns must have matching indexes.
• VERDICT is advisory only; the graph gate, validated-fix full re-review, and DB Performance Protocol are NEVER skippable regardless of change size — and when batched (≥10 files), re-score all 12 criteria holistically from combined cross-batch evidence, never by averaging per-batch scores.
• After applying any fix, validate findings first, then rerun the FULL review (fresh sub-agent with zero prior-round memory); a clean pass ENDS the loop.

Workflow:

1. Resolve scope from arguments or uncommitted changes; review only backend service/API files.
2. Score all 12 criteria across the four dimensions, then run the 8-item Extended SRE Readiness gate.
3. Map score plus gate to a verdict; run Structural Impact Analysis when graph.db exists.
4. Validate every finding, fix only validated findings, and restart a full fresh review after fixes until the exit bar is clear.
5. Emit the SRE Review Results report with file:line evidence for every score and gate item.

Key Rules:

• MUST ATTENTION give every score and gate item file:line evidence; an unprovable score is 0.
• NEVER skip the DB Performance Protocol, graph gate, validated-finding gate, or full re-review.
• MUST ATTENTION re-score all 12 criteria holistically when batching; never average per-batch scores.
• NEVER let advisory technique or scenario matrices change the /24 score, gate result, or verdict.

When to use: After implementing backend service or API changes, before committing. Frontend-only changes exempt.

Why: Working code that can't be debugged, monitored, or rolled back is technical debt in disguise.

Deployment context: Read docs/project-config.json → infrastructure section:

• containerization → check Dockerfiles, docker-compose
• orchestration → check K8s manifests, Helm charts
• cicd.tool → check pipeline configs

Your Mission

Review Mindset (NON-NEGOTIABLE)

Be skeptical. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80%.

• NEVER accept operational readiness at face value — verify by reading implementations
• Every score MUST have file:line evidence — unprovable score = 0
• Question: "Is this really handled?" → trace error/retry/timeout path to confirm
• Challenge: "Are ALL failure modes covered?" → check behavior when dependencies fail
• Verify: "Can we debug this in production?" → check logging, correlation, metrics

Scope Resolution

1. Arguments specify files/directories → review those
2. Else → review uncommitted changes (git diff --name-only)
3. Focus: backend source files under service root (per the project's structure reference / docs/project-config.json), API controllers, service classes
4. Skip: frontend files, test files, documentation, config-only changes

Production Readiness Scoring

Score each criterion 0-2: 0 = not addressed, 1 = partially, 2 = fully.

MANDATORY when batched (≥10 files, SYNC:systematic-review-batching active): score the 12 criteria holistically across the FULL cross-batch scope, NOT by merging or averaging per-batch scores. Several criteria are cross-file — e.g. "all query filter fields have indexes" can have the query in one batch, the migration in another; a per-batch score sees only its ≤8 files and false-flags 0 when the satisfying file lives in a different batch. The synthesis/reduce tier MUST therefore RE-SCORE each of the 12 criteria from combined cross-batch evidence (batch agents surface evidence per criterion; reducer assigns the score). If holistic re-score is infeasible, do NOT batch production-readiness-review — fall back to whole-scope serial scoring.

Observability (max 8)

Think: If this service errors at 3am, can on-call engineer diagnose root cause from logs alone — without reproducing?

Reliability (max 8)

Think: If the downstream dependency is down or slow, does this service degrade gracefully or cascade-fail?

Data Integrity (max 4)

Think: If database wiped and reseeded from scratch, does system still reach a valid state?

Decision test: "If the database is reset, does this data still need to exist?" Yes → must be in seeder. No → migration acceptable.

Database Performance (max 4)

Think: At 10x current data volume, do these queries still complete in <1s?

Database Performance Protocol (MANDATORY):

1. Paging Required — ALL list/collection queries use pagination. NEVER load all records into memory. Verify: no unbounded GetAll(), ToList(), or Find() without Skip/Take or cursor-based paging.
2. Index Required — ALL query filter fields, foreign keys, and sort columns have database indexes configured. Verify: entity expressions match index field order, database collections have index management methods, migrations include indexes for WHERE/JOIN/ORDER BY columns.

Spec-Loop Discipline for changed core logic (MANDATORY — gates the verdict, not a scored criterion):

1. Mutation bar, not coverage % — for changed service/API core logic the bar is the MUTATION-SCORE gate: a surviving mutant on a changed line is a release blocker (it proves an invariant the tests do not assert), NEVER a line-coverage-% question. A green coverage number over un-asserted behavior does not clear this gate.
2. Dual feedback — every production-readiness finding that changes behavior feeds BOTH the spec (NAME the contract/invariant in Section 8) AND a guarding test; a code-only fix is INCOMPLETE. A surviving mutant → add the killing test AND record the invariant it protects in the spec.

Extended SRE Readiness Gate (step-by-step, pass/fail — gating, NOT scored)

Runs as main step 3, after scoring, before verdict mapping. Deploy-time and operate-time SRE aspects the 12-criteria /24 model does NOT score. Check each item step by step; record pass / partial / fail with file:line evidence or explicit N/A — reason. Gate does not change /24 math — it overlays it: an unaccepted CRITICAL/HIGH fail blocks a PASS verdict regardless of score (per Severity Rubric — CRITICAL/HIGH must be resolved or owner-accepted before PASS). Read deployment context from docs/project-config.json → infrastructure (referenced above) to decide which items are N/A (e.g. no orchestration → readiness/liveness probes N/A with stated reason).

Gate verdict: {n}/8 pass. Any CRITICAL/HIGH fail not explicitly owner-accepted ⇒ overall verdict cannot be PASS even at a 19-24 score.

Technique Applicability (advisory — NON-SCORING, NON-GATING)

Invoke SYNC:scale-technique-gate: derive the system's scale tier from evidence (users/RPS, SLO, data volume, tenancy, topology — cite file:line/config/infra + confidence), then emit the Technique Applicability Matrix (technique | tier-warranted? | present? | verdict | advice | evidence) across the 10 concern groups. Surface warranted-but-missing reliability/scale techniques (rate limiting, backups, DR, failover, graceful degradation) as advice; flag OVER-ENGINEERED techniques the tier does not warrant.

Advisory only — this matrix does NOT add a gate item, does NOT change the {n}/8 gate result, the /24 score, or the verdict. A MISSING-WARRANTED technique is guidance to consider at this tier, NOT a gate fail. N/A-by-scale for small systems is expected, never a failure. Full catalog → .claude/docs/scale-technique-catalog.md.

Scoring

Run python .claude/scripts/code_graph connections <file> --json on service boundary files for cross-service impact.

Structural Impact Analysis (MANDATORY when graph.db exists)

• python .claude/scripts/code_graph graph-blast-radius --json → blast radius >20 nodes = high-risk deployment
• python .claude/scripts/code_graph query tests_for <function_name> --json → verify test coverage on changed functions
• python .claude/scripts/code_graph trace <service-file> --direction downstream --json → verify all downstream event handlers, bus consumers, cross-service calls have error handling

Why-Review Findings Validation Gate (MANDATORY when findings exist)

Purpose: Adversarial validation of own findings BEFORE any fix. Catches over-flagged criteria, false positives, and severity/score inflation at the source rather than letting them drive fixes or ship downstream.

Trigger: Any finding produced (any severity). Skip ONLY when the verdict is unconditional PASS with literally zero findings.

Protocol:

1. Read own finalized report from plans/reports/{skill}-{date}-{slug}.md
2. Invoke $why-review --validate-findings plans/reports/{skill}-{date}-{slug}.md — verify each finding has file:line proof, steel-man each rejected interpretation, and stress-test every severity/score classification (each finding must clear why-review's finding-survival bar to be kept)
3. Read the CLEAN / HAS-ISSUES verdict returned by why-review
4. If why-review demotes/removes any finding: UPDATE own report with revised severities, remove false positives, and add a ## Why-Review Validation Notes section citing what changed and why
5. If why-review confirms all findings: append a ## Why-Review Validation line stating "All N findings re-validated against actual code; no severity changes."

Skip conditions (record explicit reason if skipping): unconditional PASS with zero findings; why-review is itself the active context (avoid recursion).

Why this exists: SRE sub-agent reports inherit confirmation bias — the orchestrator absorbs severity claims as ground truth. Validate findings BEFORE the fix so no fix is ever driven by an inflated or false finding; this gate feeds the "Validated Fix + Full Re-Review" loop below.

Validated Fix + Full Re-Review (MANDATORY when fixes are applied)

When a review pass finds issues, validate findings before any fix. Do NOT spawn a fresh sub-agent only to re-review the same finding set before validation/fix. After validated SRE fixes applied, rerun the full SRE review. If that restarted review uses a sub-agent, spawn it with ZERO prior-round memory. A clean review pass ENDS the review.

When a fresh sub-agent is part of the restarted review, spawn via canonical template in SYNC:review-protocol-injection:

1. agent_type: code-reviewer
2. Task: "SRE production readiness review after validated fixes — score all 12 criteria (0-2) for {files reviewed in the current full scope}"
3. Review mode: "Fresh full re-review after validated fixes. Zero memory of prior rounds. Re-read ALL target files from scratch."
4. Reference Docs: docs/project-reference/code-review-rules.md
5. Target Files: same files from Scope Resolution
6. Integrate sub-agent report findings — DO NOT filter or override

Fresh re-review focus (what prior rounds typically miss):

• Operational concerns spanning multiple services
• Subtle reliability gaps (retry, circuit breakers, timeout handling)
• Missing observability (structured logging, correlation IDs, metrics)
• Data-integrity edge cases under concurrent load

Final verdict = every review pass that actually ran, combined.

Output Format

## SRE Review Results

**Scope:** {files reviewed}
**Date:** {date}
**Score:** {X}/24
**Verdict:** PASS / NEEDS WORK / NOT READY

### Observability ({X}/8)

| #   | Criterion          | Score | Evidence                   |
| --- | ------------------ | ----- | -------------------------- |
| 1   | Structured Logging | 0/1/2 | {file:line or "not found"} |
| 2   | Error Context      | 0/1/2 | ...                        |
| 3   | Metrics Awareness  | 0/1/2 | ...                        |
| 4   | Correlation        | 0/1/2 | ...                        |

### Reliability ({X}/8)

| #   | Criterion         | Score | Evidence |
| --- | ----------------- | ----- | -------- |
| 5   | Retry Strategy    | 0/1/2 | ...      |
| 6   | Timeout Config    | 0/1/2 | ...      |
| 7   | Error Handling    | 0/1/2 | ...      |
| 8   | Fallback Behavior | 0/1/2 | ...      |

### Data Integrity ({X}/4)

| #   | Criterion          | Score | Evidence |
| --- | ------------------ | ----- | -------- |
| 9   | Seed vs Migration  | 0/1/2 | ...      |
| 10  | Seeder Idempotency | 0/1/2 | ...      |

### Database Performance ({X}/4)

| #   | Criterion        | Score | Evidence |
| --- | ---------------- | ----- | -------- |
| 11  | Pagination       | 0/1/2 | ...      |
| 12  | Database Indexes | 0/1/2 | ...      |

### Extended SRE Readiness ({n}/8 gate — pass/fail, does not change /24)

| #  | Gate Item                | Status            | Evidence          |
| -- | ------------------------ | ----------------- | ----------------- |
| G1 | Rollout & Rollback       | pass/partial/fail | `file:line` / N/A |
| G2 | Health Checks            | pass/partial/fail | ...               |
| G3 | Alerting & Runbook       | pass/partial/fail | ...               |
| G4 | SLO / Error-Budget       | pass/partial/fail | ...               |
| G5 | Capacity & Resource Limits | pass/partial/fail | ...             |
| G6 | Config & Secrets         | pass/partial/fail | ...               |
| G7 | Graceful Shutdown/Startup | pass/partial/fail | ...              |
| G8 | Concurrency & Idempotency | pass/partial/fail | ...              |

_Any unaccepted CRITICAL/HIGH `fail` above blocks a PASS verdict regardless of the /24 score._

### Gaps to Address

- {specific actionable item}

### Recommendation

{Proceed / Address gaps first}

Important Notes

• Advisory (final VERDICT only) — score/verdict inform team but don't block commits; MANDATORY process steps (graph gate, validated-fix full re-review, Database Performance Protocol) are NEVER advisory
• Evidence-based — cite file:line for every score; unprovable score = 0
• Proportional — small bug fixes need less rigor than new endpoints (applies to VERDICT interpretation, NOT to skipping MANDATORY steps)
• Extended SRE Readiness gate is pass/fail, NOT scored — does not change /24 math; but an unaccepted CRITICAL/HIGH gate fail blocks a PASS verdict (Severity Rubric). Use docs/project-config.json → infrastructure to mark items N/A with stated reason
• Check framework patterns — background-job base handlers, base-controller error handling

Workflow Recommendation

MANDATORY — NO EXCEPTIONS: If NOT already in workflow, use ask the user directly to ask user:

1. Activate workflow-feature workflow (Recommended) — investigate → plan → feature-implement → review → production-readiness-review → test → docs
2. Execute $production-readiness-review directly — run standalone

Next Steps

MANDATORY — NO EXCEPTIONS — after completing, use ask the user directly:

• "$watzup (Recommended)" — wrap up + check doc staleness
• "$test" — run tests before wrapping up
• "Skip, continue manually" — user decides

Combined audit: For a whole-project architecture + compliance + production-readiness audit in one pass, run $architecture-review-full (or $start-workflow workflow-architecture-audit) — fans out this skill, architecture-review, architecture-scalability-review as parallel sub-agents and synthesizes one consolidated report.

[IMPORTANT] Use task tracking to break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting. For simple tasks, AI MUST ask user whether to skip.

• docs/project-reference/domain-entities-reference.md — Domain entity catalog, relationships, cross-service sync (read when task involves business entities/models)

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

External Memory: Complex/lengthy work → write intermediate findings + final results to plans/reports/ — prevents context loss, serves as deliverable.

Evidence Gate: MANDATORY — every claim, finding, recommendation requires file:line proof or traced evidence with confidence percentage (>80% to act, <80% verify first).

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

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

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

Task	Minimum Graph Action
Investigation	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.

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

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

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

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

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

### Actions Taken

- [file changed] [what changed]

### Blockers (if any)

- [blocker description]

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

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

Context budget — the return payload is a SUMMARY, not a transcript: ≤10 finding bullets, no raw file contents / full diffs / verbatim logs inline, no re-pasted source. Everything beyond the summary lives in the Full report on disk. A sub-agent that would exceed the summary shape MUST write the detail to its report and return only the pointer — the orchestrator's context is the scarce resource the whole map-reduce protects.

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

1. Call the current task list first. If a matching active parent workflow row exists, set nested=true and record parentTaskId; otherwise run standalone.
2. Create one task per declared phase before phase work. When nested, prefix subjects [N.M] /skill-name — phase.
3. When nested, link the parent with TaskUpdate(parentTaskId, addBlockedBy: [childIds]).
4. Orchestrators must pre-expand a child skill's phase list and link the workflow row before invoking that child skill or sub-agent.
5. Mark exactly one child in_progress before work and completed immediately after evidence is written.
6. Complete the parent only after all child tasks are completed or explicitly cancelled with reason.

Blocked until: the current task list done, child phases created, parent linked when nested, first child marked in_progress.

Project Reference Docs Gate — Run after task-tracking bootstrap and before target/source file reads, grep, edits, or analysis. Project docs override generic framework assumptions.

1. Identify scope: file types, domain area, and operation.
2. Read docs/project-config.json first — the project's machine-readable map. It is the single source of truth for THIS repo (modules/paths, framework + search keywords, test/E2E/integration run-commands, design system, architecture rules, workflow patterns); ground exact paths, run-commands, and conventions on it before investigating, planning, or coding — never assume framework defaults (CLAUDE.md + reference docs are derived from it). If it — or the docs index, lessons.md, CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, or any required reference doc — is missing or stale, auto-run $project-init or the narrow route ($project-config, $docs-init, $scan-all, $scan --target=<key>, $claude-md-init) first; if Codex mirrors or AGENTS.md are stale, ask the user to run $sync-codex (never auto-run it).
3. 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.
4. Read every required doc, then before target work state: Reference docs read: ... | Not applicable: ....

Ready when: scope evaluated, docs/project-config.json consulted, 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.

1. Create a small task breakdown before target file reads, grep, edits, or analysis. On context loss, inspect the current task list first.
2. Mark one task in_progress before work and completed immediately after evidence; never batch transitions.
3. For plan/review work, create plans/reports/{skill}-{YYMMDD}-{HHmm}-{slug}.md before first finding.
4. Append findings after each file/section/decision and synthesize from the report file at the end.
5. 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.

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) - [ ] 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 clears the round's exit bar (see Severity floor below). A clean review ENDS the loop — no further rounds required.

aka Self-Review Convergence Loop. The name is historical — there is NO 2-round cap; "double-round-trip" only means a validated-finding fix cycle forces at least one fresh re-review. It runs until a clean pass, bounded by the 3-round ceiling below.

Round cap — 3 rounds MAX (a ceiling, NEVER a target). A clean pass ENDS the loop immediately at ANY round — round 1 included; the cap never obliges you to keep spinning. Hitting round 3 with blocking findings still open (severity floor applied) → STOP and escalate by asking the user directly with the still-open findings listed; NEVER emit a silent "good enough" PASS on cap exhaustion, and NEVER let the cap substitute for the clean-review requirement. The 2-repeated-no-progress blocker rule stays an EARLIER exit — escalate at whichever trips first.

Severity floor — from round 3, LOW stops blocking. The exit bar tightens by round, so the loop converges on consequence instead of spinning on polish:

Define one predicate everywhere: blocking_findings(round, findings) returns all validated findings in rounds 1–2 and only validated CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM findings in round 3+. A binary gate (test-green, security must-fix, required artifact) is exempt only when its owning invariant explicitly says so.

Round	Exit bar — loop ENDS when the fresh full review has…	Must be fixed to continue
1-2	zero validated findings at ANY severity	CRITICAL · HIGH · MEDIUM · LOW
3+	zero validated CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM findings — LOW-only is a PASS	CRITICAL · HIGH · MEDIUM only

From round 3 onward LOW findings are NOT required to be fixed: a round whose validated findings are ALL LOW ENDS the loop immediately — do not open another round for them. Severity tiers are SYNC:severity-rubric (CRITICAL block-merge · HIGH must-fix · MEDIUM should-fix · LOW nice-to-fix); rounds 1-2 are unchanged, so an easy LOW still gets fixed early when it is cheap.

Severity-floor rules:

• Never silently drop a deferred LOW. Every unfixed LOW is listed in the final report under ## Deferred LOW Findings (severity floor, round ≥3) with file, line, and description, so the owner can schedule it. Dropping it from the report is a protocol violation, not a clean pass.
• Never re-tier a finding to trigger the exit. Downgrading a real CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM to LOW so the loop can end is a FALSE PASS. Severity is set by consequence per SYNC:severity-rubric before the round bar is applied — never after, and never with the exit in view. — why: a floor that can be reached by relabeling is not a floor.
• The floor bounds the loop, not the standard. It ends iteration; it never authorizes shipping a known CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, and it never lowers the finding-survival bar that admits a finding in the first place.
• The floor never applies to a hard gate. Test-green gates (a suite must actually pass), security must-fix gates, and any gate whose criterion is binary rather than severity-rated are unaffected — a failing test is a failure, not a LOW finding.

Universal scope (any new output/judgment): any newly produced output or judgment gets ≥1 self-review; any new judgment gets ≥1 $why-review --validate-findings pass; anything flagged to re-check is re-checked ≥1 time — before that output is treated as final. This loop is the default convergence contract for ANY work-producing skill, not review skills only.

Routing invariant (author-facing): a skill that validates findings MUST route them through $why-review --validate-findings (the terminal validator) — NEVER fork an inline finding-validation. Routing through why-review is what makes the finding-survival bar and this loop apply; the verify-review-validate-coverage sensor enforces this exact route mechanically.

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.
• blocking_findings(round, findings) is non-empty → 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 spawn_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 against that round's exit bar: bar cleared → END; blocking findings remain → validate findings → fix → restart from the first review phase. Rounds 1-2 clear on zero findings at any severity; from round 3 the bar is zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, so a LOW-only round ENDS the loop (deferred LOWs go in the report). Capped at 3 rounds. Escalate by asking the user directly at whichever comes first: the same validated finding repeats for 2 full invocations with no progress · a fix requires product/owner input · round 3 completes with CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM still open. NEVER loop past 3 rounds, and NEVER convert cap exhaustion into a PASS.

Rules:

• A clean Round 1 ENDS the review — no mandatory Round 2
• From round 3 on, a round whose validated findings are ALL LOW ENDS the loop — never open round N+1 to fix LOW alone; list those LOWs as deferred instead
• NEVER re-tier a CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM down to LOW to reach the round-3 exit — severity is assigned by consequence before the bar is applied
• NEVER fix unvalidated findings; validate first using the caller's validation gate
• Every surviving finding must additionally clear the finding-survival bar defined in why-review's Findings Validation Routine (a deliberately higher bar than the generic act-gate — "keep this finding?" is a stricter question than "act on this evidence?"); a finding below the bar is demoted or dropped, not kept
• 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
• The 3-round cap NEVER replaces the clean-review requirement — it bounds runaway looping, it does not authorize shipping an un-clean review; a clean pass ends the loop early at any round, and cap exhaustion escalates rather than passes
• Enforce the round cap of 3 alongside the 2 repeated-no-progress blocker rule; both are escalation triggers, neither is a completion criterion
• 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, plus ## Deferred LOW Findings (severity floor, round ≥3) whenever the loop ended on the round-3+ bar with LOWs still open.

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 $feature-implement) 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:

1. Start a NEW full review invocation/task breakdown; when that protocol calls for agents, spawn NEW spawn_agent tool calls — use code-reviewer agent_type for code reviews, general-purpose for plan/doc/artifact reviews
2. 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)
3. Sub-agent re-reads ALL target files from scratch via its own tool calls — never pass file contents inline in the prompt
4. Sub-agent writes structured report to plans/reports/{review-type}-round{N}-{date}.md
5. 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 spawn_agent call
• Continue until a complete full review pass clears that round's exit bar per SYNC:double-round-trip-review: rounds 1-2 → zero findings at any severity; round 3+ → zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, so a round whose validated findings are ALL LOW ENDS the loop (list those LOWs as deferred instead of spawning another round). If the same blocker repeats 3 times with no progress, escalate by asking the user directly
• 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 11 protocol blocks VERBATIM. The template below has ALL 11 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 11 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)

spawn_agent({
  description: "Fresh Round {N} review",
  agent_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)

### Spec ↔ Tests ↔ Code Triangulation
DO THIS FIRST — before any per-protocol check below. The review target is the WHOLE PACKAGE, not the diff alone: load the behavior's spec (§3 ACs / §4 BRs / §8 TCs), its tests, and the changed code TOGETHER, and reason about their mutual consistency BEFORE judging any one in isolation.
1. Locate all three faces: the Feature Spec section(s) governing the changed behavior, the tests that guard it, and the production code that implements it. A missing face is itself a finding (SPEC-GAP / TEST-GAP / DEAD-SPEC).
2. Triangulate pairwise — every disagreement is a finding; classify which face is wrong:
   - code vs spec: behavior the code does that no §3/§4/§8 rule describes → CODE-EXTRA or SPEC-STALE; a [HARD] §4 rule or §5 invariant with no enforcing code path → CODE-WRONG.
   - tests vs spec: a §8 TC with no test, or a test asserting behavior no TC/rule names → TEST-GAP or SPEC-SILENT.
   - tests vs code: a changed code path with no covering test → TEST-GAP; a test that still passes against a deliberately broken invariant → WEAK-TEST (apply the mutation thinking in Bug Detection).
3. Hidden-rule capture: any invariant the code enforces but the spec never states (SPEC-SILENT) MUST be surfaced as a finding to add into §3/§4/§8 AND guarded with a test — the enrichment loop, never a silent pass.
4. Only after the three faces agree — or every disagreement is logged as a finding — proceed to the per-protocol checks below; when enrichment adds spec/test content, re-review the package against the enriched spec.
NEVER mark review PASS while any spec/test/code face disagrees without a logged finding. The diff is the entry point; the package is the unit of judgment.

### 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: Recommend extraction when 3+ similar patterns exist OR an evidenced consumer boundary/substitution need justifies it; do not create patterns for hypothetical future use.
6. Purpose-oriented naming: Name public or cross-layer abstractions by the capability, domain purpose, or contract consumers rely on—not the current provider, SDK, framework, database, or transport. `IStorage`/`Storage` → `AzureBlobStorage`; use `IAzureStorage` only when Azure-specific semantics are intentionally part of the contract.
7. Contract-fit check: Read callers and every implementation before judging a name; narrow an over-broad abstraction (`IObjectStore`, `DocumentStore`) instead of rewarding a generic name that lies about behavior.
8. Mechanism/generic-name smell: Treat `Manager`, `Helper`, `Utils`, `Data`, `Thing`, `Service`, `Interface`, type decorations, and unexplained abbreviations as review signals—not automatic defects; flag them only when they hide purpose, scope, or responsibility.
9. Concrete implementation names: Provider, strategy, transport, or test-double names are valid on concrete types when they distinguish real behavior (`AzureBlobStorage`, `InMemoryStorage`, `RetryingStorage`); keep those details out of the caller-facing contract unless the contract promises them.
10. Language convention: Preserve local interface syntax and naming style; `.NET` `I` prefixes and Google TypeScript's unmarked interfaces are both valid local conventions.
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 task tracking. 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: 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)
- `.claude/docs/development-rules.md` — canonical development rules, code-quality guidelines, and pre-commit checklist
- 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 11 embedded protocol sections
• DO replace only the {placeholders} in Task / Round / Reference Docs / Target Files / Output sections with context-specific content
• DO choose `code-re

Truncated - read the full file at https://github.com/duc01226/easy-claude/blob/e46c5f1a56e43f9a04e7704ede06824623450bf6/.agents/skills/production-readiness-review/SKILL.md.