Agent Skills: Cross-Service Integration Workflow

Codex compatibility note:

• Invoke repository skills with $skill-name in Codex; this mirrored copy rewrites legacy Claude /skill-name references.
• Prefer the plan-hard skill for planning guidance in this Codex mirror.
• 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 does not receive Claude hook-based doc injection. 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)

Situation-based docs:

• Backend/CQRS/API/domain/entity changes: backend-patterns-reference.md, domain-entities-reference.md, project-structure-reference.md
• Frontend/UI/styling/design-system: frontend-patterns-reference.md, scss-styling-guide.md, design-system/README.md
• Spec/test-case planning or TC mapping: feature-docs-reference.md
• 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.

Quick Summary

Goal: Design and implement cross-service communication, data sync, and service boundary patterns.

Workflow:

1. Pre-Flight — Identify source/target services, data ownership, sync vs async
2. Choose Pattern — Entity Event Bus (recommended), Direct API, never shared DB
3. Implement — Producer + Consumer with dependency waiting and race condition handling
4. Test — Verify create/update/delete flows, out-of-order messages, force sync

Key Rules:

• Never access another service's database directly
• Use LastMessageSyncDate for conflict resolution (only update if newer)
• Consumers must wait for dependencies with TryWaitUntilAsync
• Messages defined in shared project (search for: shared message definitions, bus message classes)

Be skeptical. Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence percentages (Idea should be more than 80%).

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Plan ToDo Task to READ the following project-specific reference doc:

• backend-patterns-reference.md — backend CQRS, entity event bus, message bus patterns

If file not found, search for: cross-service message definitions, entity event producers, message bus consumers.

Cross-Service Integration Workflow

When to Use This Skill

• Designing service-to-service communication
• Implementing data synchronization
• Analyzing service boundaries
• Troubleshooting cross-service issues

Pre-Flight Checklist

• [ ] Identify source and target services
• [ ] Determine data ownership
• [ ] Choose communication pattern (sync vs async)
• [ ] Map data transformation requirements

Service Boundaries

Note: Search for project-structure-reference.md or the project's service directories to discover the platform's service map, data ownership matrix, and shared infrastructure components.

Communication Patterns

Pattern 1: Entity Event Bus (Recommended)

Use when: Source service owns data, target services need copies.

Source Service                    Target Service
┌────────────┐                   ┌────────────┐
│  Employee  │──── Create ────▶ │ Repository │
│ Repository │                   └────────────┘
└────────────┘                          │
      │                                 │
      │ Auto-raise                      │
      ▼                                 ▼
┌────────────┐                   ┌────────────┐
│  Producer  │── MsgBus  ────▶ │  Consumer  │
└────────────┘                   └────────────┘

⚠️ MUST ATTENTION READ: CLAUDE.md for Entity Event Bus Producer and Message Bus Consumer implementation patterns.

Pattern 2: Direct API Call

Use when: Real-time data needed, no local copy required.

// In Service A, calling Service B API
public class ServiceBApiClient
{
    private readonly HttpClient _client;

    public async Task<UserDto?> GetUserAsync(string userId)
    {
        var response = await _client.GetAsync($"/api/User/{userId}");
        if (!response.IsSuccessStatusCode) return null;
        return await response.Content.ReadFromJsonAsync<UserDto>();
    }
}

Considerations:

• Add circuit breaker for resilience
• Cache responses when possible
• Handle service unavailability

Pattern 3: Shared Database View (Anti-Pattern!)

:x: DO NOT USE: Violates service boundaries

// WRONG - Direct cross-service database access
var accountsData = await accountsDbContext.Users.ToListAsync();

Data Ownership Matrix

Note: Search for project-structure-reference.md or the project's documentation for the entity ownership matrix. Each entity should have exactly ONE owning service; consumers receive synced copies via message bus.

Synchronization Patterns

Full Sync (Initial/Recovery)

// For initial data population or recovery
public class FullSyncJob : BackgroundJobExecutor // project background job base (see docs/project-reference/backend-patterns-reference.md)
{
    public override async Task ProcessAsync(object? param)
    {
        // Fetch all from source
        var allEmployees = await sourceApi.GetAllAsync();

        // Upsert to local
        foreach (var batch in allEmployees.Batch(100))
        {
            await localRepo.CreateOrUpdateManyAsync(
                batch.Select(MapToLocal),
                dismissSendEvent: true);
        }
    }
}

Incremental Sync (Event-Driven)

// Normal operation via message bus
internal sealed class EmployeeSyncConsumer : MessageBusConsumer<EmployeeEventBusMessage> // project message bus base (see docs/project-reference/backend-patterns-reference.md)
{
    public override async Task HandleLogicAsync(EmployeeEventBusMessage message, string routingKey)
    {
        // Check if newer than current (race condition prevention)
        if (existing?.LastMessageSyncDate > message.CreatedUtcDate)
            return;

        // Apply change
        await ApplyChange(message);
    }
}

Conflict Resolution

Use LastMessageSyncDate for ordering - only update if message is newer. See CLAUDE.md Message Bus Consumer pattern for full implementation.

Integration Checklist

Before Integration

• [ ] Define data ownership clearly
• [ ] Document which fields sync
• [ ] Plan for missing dependencies
• [ ] Define conflict resolution strategy

Implementation

• [ ] Message defined in shared project
• [ ] Producer filters appropriate events
• [ ] Consumer waits for dependencies
• [ ] Race condition handling implemented
• [ ] Soft delete handled

Testing

• [ ] Create event flows correctly
• [ ] Update event flows correctly
• [ ] Delete event flows correctly
• [ ] Out-of-order messages handled
• [ ] Missing dependency handled
• [ ] Force sync works

Troubleshooting

Message Not Arriving

# Check message broker queues (search for: queue management commands)

# Check producer is publishing
grep -r "HandleWhen" --include="*Producer.cs" -A 5

# Check consumer is registered
grep -r "AddConsumer" --include="*.cs"

Data Mismatch

# Compare source and target counts
# In source service DB
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM Employees WHERE IsActive = 1;

# In target service DB
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM SyncedEmployees;

Stuck Messages

// Check for waiting dependencies
Logger.LogWarning("Waiting for Company {CompanyId}", companyId);

// Force reprocess
await messageBus.PublishAsync(message.With(m => m.IsForceSync = true));

Anti-Patterns to AVOID

:x: Direct database access

// WRONG
await otherServiceDbContext.Table.ToListAsync();

:x: Synchronous cross-service calls in transaction

// WRONG
using var transaction = await db.BeginTransactionAsync();
await externalService.NotifyAsync();  // If fails, transaction stuck
await transaction.CommitAsync();

:x: No dependency waiting

// WRONG - FK violation if company not synced
await repo.CreateAsync(employee);  // Employee.CompanyId references Company

// CORRECT
await Util.TaskRunner.TryWaitUntilAsync(() => companyRepo.AnyAsync(...));

:x: Ignoring message order

// WRONG - older message overwrites newer
await repo.UpdateAsync(entity);

// CORRECT - check timestamp
if (existing.LastMessageSyncDate <= message.CreatedUtcDate)

Verification Checklist

• [ ] Data ownership clearly defined
• [ ] Message bus pattern used (not direct DB)
• [ ] Dependencies waited for in consumers
• [ ] Race conditions handled with timestamps
• [ ] Soft delete synchronized properly
• [ ] Force sync mechanism available
• [ ] Monitoring/alerting in place

Related

• arch-security-review
• api-design

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

• docs/project-reference/domain-entities-reference.md — Domain entity catalog, relationships, cross-service sync (read when task involves business entities/models) (read directly when relevant; do not rely on hook-injected conversation text)

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.

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: [...]."

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION cite file:line evidence for every claim. Confidence >80% to act, <60% = do NOT recommend. <!-- /SYNC:evidence-based-reasoning:reminder -->

MUST ATTENTION apply critical thinking — every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination: never present guess as fact.

MUST ATTENTION apply AI mistake prevention — holistic-first debugging, fix at responsible layer, surface ambiguity before coding, re-read files after compaction.

Next Steps

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — NO EXCEPTIONS after completing this skill, you MUST ATTENTION use a direct user question to present these options. Do NOT skip because the task seems "simple" or "obvious" — the user decides:

• "$plan-hard (Recommended)" — Create implementation plan from the cross-service integration design
• "$architecture-design" — If broader architecture concerns still need decisions
• "Skip, continue manually" — user decides

Council escalation (always-offer, second prompt)

After the existing ## Next Steps prompt above resolves, present a second, independent a direct user question call (do NOT merge into the first):

• "Skip council — proceed with integration design (Recommended)" — Continue with the message contracts / consumer topology as designed. Recommended default.
• "Escalate to $llm-council" — Run 11 sub-agent council (5 advisors + 5 reviewers + chairman). Best applied when the integration introduces a new message contract consumed by >=3 services, picks between sync API vs. async event for a hot path, or commits to a saga/outbox/orchestration pattern. Cross-service contracts are hard to reverse once consumers deploy. Cheaper alternatives: $why-review, $plan-validate (run these first if you haven't).

Closing Reminders

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION break work into small todo tasks using task tracking BEFORE starting
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION search codebase for 3+ similar patterns before creating new code
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION cite file:line evidence for every claim (confidence >80% to act)
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION add a final review todo task to verify work quality MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION READ the following files before starting:

[TASK-PLANNING] Before acting, analyze task scope and systematically break it into small todo tasks and sub-tasks using task tracking.

Hookless Prompt Protocol Mirror (Auto-Synced)

Source: .claude/hooks/lib/prompt-injections.cjs + .claude/.ck.json

[WORKFLOW-EXECUTION-PROTOCOL] [BLOCKING] Workflow Execution Protocol — MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST CRITICAL. Do not skip for any reason.

1. DETECT: Match prompt against workflow catalog
2. ANALYZE: Find best-match workflow AND evaluate if a custom step combination would fit better
3. ASK (REQUIRED FORMAT): Use a direct user question with this structure:
   • Question: "Which workflow do you want to activate?"
   • Option 1: "Activate [BestMatch Workflow] (Recommended)"
   • Option 2: "Activate custom workflow: [step1 → step2 → ...]" (include one-line rationale)
4. ACTIVATE (if confirmed): Call $workflow-start <workflowId> for standard; sequence custom steps manually
5. CREATE TASKS: task tracking for ALL workflow steps
6. EXECUTE: Follow each step in sequence [CRITICAL-THINKING-MINDSET] Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination principle: 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 Attention principle (Primacy-Recency): Put the 3 most critical rules at both top and bottom of long prompts/protocols so instruction adherence survives long context windows.

Learned Lessons

Lessons Learned

[CRITICAL] Hard-won project debugging/architecture rules. MUST ATTENTION apply BEFORE forming hypothesis or writing code.

Quick Summary

Goal: Prevent recurrence of known failure patterns — debugging, architecture, naming, AI orchestration, environment.

Top Rules (apply always):

• MUST ATTENTION verify ALL preconditions (config, env, DB names, DI regs) BEFORE code-layer hypothesis
• MUST ATTENTION fix responsible layer — NEVER patch symptom sites with caller-specific defensive code
• MUST ATTENTION use ExecuteInjectScopedAsync for parallel async + repo/UoW — NEVER ExecuteUowTask
• MUST ATTENTION name by PURPOSE not CONTENT — adding member forces rename = abstraction broken
• MUST ATTENTION persist sub-agent findings incrementally after each file — NEVER batch at end
• MUST ATTENTION Windows bash: verify Python alias (where python/where py) — NEVER assume python/python3 resolves

Debugging & Root Cause Reasoning

• [2026-04-11] Holistic-first: verify environment before code. Failure → list ALL preconditions (config, env vars, DB names, endpoints, DI regs, credentials, permissions, data prerequisites) → verify each via evidence (grep/cat/query) BEFORE code-layer hypothesis. Worst rabbit holes: diving nearest layer while bug sits elsewhere — e.g., hours debugging "sync timeout", real cause: test appsettings pointing wrong DB. ALWAYS cheapest check first.
• [2026-04-01] Ask "whose responsibility?" before fixing. Trace: bug caller (wrong data) or callee (wrong handling)? Fix responsible layer — NEVER patch symptom site masking real issue.
• [2026-04-01] Trace data lifecycle, not error site. Follow data: creation → transformation → consumption. Bug usually where data created wrong, not consumed.
• [2026-04-01] Code caller-agnostic. Functions/handlers/consumers don't know who invokes them. Comments/guards/messages describe business intent — NEVER reference specific callers (tests, seeders, scripts).

Architecture Invariants

• [2026-05-09] User name materialization MUST ATTENTION go through User.UpdateName(firstName, middleName, lastName). Domain method (src/Services/bravoTALENTS/Employee.Domain/AggregatesModel/User.cs:202-209) recomputes FullName as single source of truth. Three sites still manually patch user.FullName = user.GetFullName() after assigning name fields — src/Services/bravoTALENTS/Employee.Application/Factories/UserFactory.cs:50, src/Services/bravoSURVEYS/LearningPlatform.Application/ApplyPlatform/MessageBus/Consumers/AccountUserDeletedEventBusConsumer.cs:102, src/Services/bravoINSIGHTS/Analyze/Analyze.Application/MessageBus/Consumers/AccountUserDeletedEventBusConsumer.cs:66. Next time touching any: replace manual patch with user.UpdateName(...) to maintain invariant.
• [2026-03-31] ParallelAsync + repo/UoW MUST ATTENTION use ExecuteInjectScopedAsync, NEVER ExecuteUowTask. ExecuteUowTask creates new UoW but reuses outer DI scope (same DbContext) — parallel iterations sharing non-thread-safe DbContext silently corrupt data. ExecuteInjectScopedAsync creates new UoW + new DI scope (fresh repo per iteration).
• [2026-03-31] Bus message naming MUST ATTENTION include service name prefix — core services NEVER consume feature events. Prefix declares schema ownership (AccountUserEntityEventBusMessage = Accounts owns). Core services (Accounts, Communication) leaders. Feature services (Growth, Talents) sending to core MUST ATTENTION use {CoreServiceName}...RequestBusMessage — NEVER define own event for core to consume.

Naming & Abstraction

• [2026-04-12] Name PURPOSE not CONTENT — "OrXxx" anti-pattern. HrManagerOrHrOrPayrollHrOperationsPolicy names set members, not what guards. Add role → rename = broken abstraction. Rule: names express DOES/GUARDS, not CONTAINS. Test: adding/removing member forces rename? YES = content-driven = bad → rename to purpose (e.g., HrOperationsAccessPolicy). Nuance: "Or" fine behavioral idioms (FirstOrDefault, SuccessOrThrow) — expresses HAPPENS, not membership.

Environment & Tooling

• [2026-04-20] Windows bash: NEVER assume python/python3 resolves — verify alias first. Python may not be bash PATH under those names. Check: where python / where py. ALWAYS prefer py (Windows Python Launcher) one-liners, node if JS alternative exists.

Test-specific lessons → docs/project-reference/integration-test-reference.md Lessons Learned section. Production-code anti-patterns → docs/project-reference/backend-patterns-reference.md Anti-Patterns section. Generic debugging/refactoring reminders → System Lessons .claude/hooks/lib/prompt-injections.cjs.

Closing Reminders

• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION holistic-first: verify ALL preconditions (config, env, DB names, endpoints, DI regs) BEFORE code-layer hypothesis — cheapest check first
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION fix responsible layer — NEVER patch symptom site; trace caller (wrong data) vs callee (wrong handling), fix root owner
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION parallel async + repo/UoW → ALWAYS ExecuteInjectScopedAsync, NEVER ExecuteUowTask (shared DbContext = silent data corruption)
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION bus message prefix = schema ownership; feature services NEVER define events for core services — use {CoreServiceName}...RequestBusMessage
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION name by PURPOSE — adding/removing member forces rename = broken abstraction
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION sub-agents MUST write findings after each file/section — NEVER batch all findings into one final write
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Windows bash: NEVER assume python/python3 resolves — run where python/where py first, use py launcher or node
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION every claim needs file:line evidence — confidence >80% to act, NEVER speculate

[LESSON-LEARNED-REMINDER] [BLOCKING] Task Planning & Continuous Improvement — MANDATORY. Do not skip.

Break work into small tasks (task tracking) before starting. Add final task: "Analyze AI mistakes & lessons learned".

Extract lessons — ROOT CAUSE ONLY, not symptom fixes:

1. Name the FAILURE MODE (reasoning/assumption failure), not symptom — "assumed API existed without reading source" not "used wrong enum value".
2. Generality test: does this failure mode apply to ≥3 contexts/codebases? If not, abstract one level up.
3. Write as a universal rule — strip project-specific names/paths/classes. Useful on any codebase.
4. Consolidate: multiple mistakes sharing one failure mode → ONE lesson.
5. Recurrence gate: "Would this recur in future session WITHOUT this reminder?" — No → skip $learn.
6. Auto-fix gate: "Could $code-review/$code-simplifier/$security/$lint catch this?" — Yes → improve review skill instead.
7. BOTH gates pass → ask user to run $learn. [TASK-PLANNING] [MANDATORY] BEFORE executing any workflow or skill step, create/update task tracking for all planned steps, then keep it synchronized as each step starts/completes.