Agent Skills: cook

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

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

• docs/project-reference/domain-entities-reference.md — Domain entity catalog, relationships, cross-service sync (read when task involves business entities/models) (content auto-injected by hook — check for [Injected: ...] header before reading)
• docs/test-specs/ — Test specifications by module (read existing TCs; generate/update test specs via /tdd-spec after implementation)

Plan Quality — Every plan phase MUST ATTENTION include test specifications.

1. Add ## Test Specifications section with TC-{FEAT}-{NNN} IDs to every phase file
2. Map every functional requirement to ≥1 TC (or explicit TBD with rationale)
3. TC IDs follow TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN} format — reference by ID, never embed full content
4. Before any new workflow step: call TaskList and re-read the phase file
5. On context compaction: call TaskList FIRST — never create duplicate tasks
6. Verify TC satisfaction per phase before marking complete (evidence must be file:line, not TBD)

Mode: TDD-first → reference existing TCs with Evidence: TBD. Implement-first → use TBD → /tdd-spec fills after.

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

Rationalization Prevention — AI skips steps via these evasions. Recognize and reject:

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

External Memory: For complex or lengthy work (research, analysis, scan, review), write intermediate findings and final results to a report file in plans/reports/ — prevents context loss and serves as deliverable.

Quick Summary

Goal: Implement a feature step-by-step with research, planning, execution, and verification.

Workflow:

1. Question — Clarify requirements via AskUserQuestion; challenge assumptions
2. Research — Use researcher subagents in parallel; scout codebase for patterns
3. Plan — Create implementation plan, get user approval
4. Implement — Execute with skill activation, code-simplifier, review-changes

Key Rules:

• Parent skill for all cook-* variants (cook-auto, cook-fast, cook-hard, cook-parallel)
• Write research findings to .ai/workspace/analysis/ for context preservation
• Always activate relevant skills from catalog during implementation
• Break work into small todo tasks; add final review task

Frontend/UI Context (if applicable)

When this task involves frontend or UI changes,

UI System Context — For ANY task touching .ts, .html, .scss, or .css files:

MUST ATTENTION READ before implementing:

1. docs/project-reference/frontend-patterns-reference.md — component base classes, stores, forms
2. docs/project-reference/scss-styling-guide.md — BEM methodology, SCSS variables, mixins, responsive
3. docs/project-reference/design-system/README.md — design tokens, component inventory, icons

Reference docs/project-config.json for project-specific paths.

• Component patterns: docs/project-reference/frontend-patterns-reference.md
• Styling/BEM guide: docs/project-reference/scss-styling-guide.md
• Design system tokens: docs/project-reference/design-system/README.md

Pre-Implementation Granularity Gate (MANDATORY)

Plan Granularity — Every phase must pass 5-point check before implementation:

1. Lists exact file paths to modify (not generic "implement X")
2. No planning verbs (research, investigate, analyze, determine, figure out)
3. Steps ≤30min each, phase total ≤3h
4. ≤5 files per phase
5. No open decisions or TBDs in approach

Failing phases → create sub-plan. Repeat until ALL leaf phases pass (max depth: 3). Self-question: "Can I start coding RIGHT NOW? If any step needs 'figuring out' → sub-plan it."

If ANY check fails → STOP. Ask user: "Phase needs more detail before implementation. Refine with /plan? [Y/n]" DO NOT implement a phase that contains planning verbs, unnamed files, or unresolved decisions. </HARD-GATE>

Per-Phase Quality Cycle (MANDATORY)

Iterative Phase Quality — Score complexity BEFORE planning.

Complexity signals: >5 files +2, cross-service +3, new pattern +2, DB migration +2 Score >=6 → MUST ATTENTION decompose into phases. Each phase:

• ≤5 files modified
• ≤3h effort
• Follows cycle: plan → implement → review → fix → verify
• Do NOT start Phase N+1 until Phase N passes VERIFY

Phase success = all TCs pass + code-reviewer agent approves + no CRITICAL findings.

Each plan phase = one quality cycle (plan→implement→review→fix→verify). DO NOT start next phase until current phase passes VERIFY. After each phase: re-assess remaining phases for scope changes. </HARD-GATE>

TC Satisfaction Verification (Per Phase)

After implementing each phase, before marking it complete:

1. Read the phase's ## Test Specifications section
2. For each mapped TC: verify evidence exists (file:line, not TBD), grep-verify the file
3. If any TC lacks evidence → phase is NOT complete
4. Update phase file's TC table with actual evidence references

Greenfield Mode

Auto-detected when no code directories (src/, app/, lib/, packages/) or manifests (package.json/*.sln/go.mod) exist.

1. Approved plan exists in plans/ → scaffold from plan
2. No plan → redirect: "Run /plan first to create a greenfield project plan."
3. Generate folder layout, starter files, build config, CI skeleton, CLAUDE.md
4. Skip codebase pattern search. After scaffolding, run /project-config.

Variant Decision Guide

| If implementation needs... | Use | Why | | --------------------------- | --------------------- | --------------------------------------- | | Quick, straightforward | /cook-fast | Skip deep research, minimal planning | | Complex, multi-layer | /cook-hard | Maximum verification, subagent research | | Backend + frontend parallel | /cook-parallel | Parallel fullstack-developer agents | | Full autonomous execution | /cook-auto | Minimal user interaction | | Fast autonomous | /cook-auto-fast | Auto + skip deep research | | Parallel autonomous | /cook-auto-parallel | Auto + parallel agents | | General/interactive | /cook (this skill) | Step-by-step with user collaboration |

Think harder to plan & start working on these tasks: <tasks>$ARGUMENTS</tasks>

Your Approach

• MUST ATTENTION use AskUserQuestion to clarify — NEVER assume requirements
• MUST ATTENTION be brutally honest — flag unrealistic/over-engineered approaches directly
• MUST ATTENTION present 2-3 alternatives with pros/cons for non-trivial decisions
• MUST ATTENTION challenge initial approach — the best solution often differs from first instinct

Workflow

IMPORTANT: Analyze the skills catalog at .claude/skills/* and activate needed skills during the process.

Research

• Parallel researcher subagents. Reports <=150 lines with citations.
• /scout-ext (preferred) or /scout (fallback) for codebase search.
• MUST ATTENTION write findings to .ai/workspace/analysis/{task-name}.analysis.md. Re-read ENTIRE file before planning.

Plan

• planner subagent with progressive disclosure: plan.md (<=80 lines) + phase-XX-name.md per phase.
• Each phase: Context, Overview, Requirements, Architecture, Related Files, Steps, TCs, Success Criteria, Risks, Next Steps.

Implementation

• /code to implement step by step. /interface-design for product UIs. /frontend-design for marketing/creative UIs.
• ui-ux-designer subagent for frontend per ./docs/design-guidelines.md.
• MUST ATTENTION run type checking and compile after each change.

Subagent Discipline: Paste full task text (NEVER make subagent read plan file). Require "ask questions before starting". Require self-review before reporting.

Batch Checkpoint (Large Plans)

For plans with 10+ tasks, execute in batches with human review:

1. Execute batch — Complete next 3 tasks (or user-specified batch size)
2. Report — Show what was implemented, verification output, any concerns
3. Wait — Say "Ready for feedback" and STOP. Do NOT continue automatically.
4. Apply feedback — Incorporate changes, then execute next batch
5. Repeat until all tasks complete

Testing

• Real tests: happy path, edge cases, error cases. NEVER fake data/mocks just to pass build.
• tester subagent → failures → debugger subagent → fix → repeat until green.

Code Review

Two-Stage Task Review — Both stages MUST ATTENTION complete before marking task done.

Stage 1: Self-review — Immediately after implementation:

• Requirements met? No regressions? Code quality acceptable?

Stage 2: Cross-review — Via code-reviewer subagent:

• Catches blind spots, convention drift, missed edge cases

NEVER skip Stage 2. Self-review alone misses 40%+ of issues.

(1) spec-compliance-reviewer first, (2) code-reviewer after spec passes.

• Critical issues → fix → re-run tester. Report summary to user for approval.

PM, Docs & Final Report

• Approved: Parallel project-manager + docs-manager subagents. Rejected: Ask issues, fix, repeat.
• Final: summary of changes + next steps. Ask about commit/push via git-manager.

Red Flags — STOP

| Evasion thought | Correct action | | ----------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------ | | "Too simple for a plan" | Plan anyway. Hidden complexity. | | "I already know how" | Check codebase patterns first. NEVER assume. | | "Code first, test later" | Write test first. Or verify after EACH change. | | "Plan is close enough" | Follow exactly or raise concerns. Drift compounds. | | "Commit after everything" | Commit after each task. Frequent commits prevent loss. | | "This refactor will improve things" | Only refactor what's in scope. YAGNI. | | "Review is obvious, skip it" | NEVER skip. Reviews catch what authors miss. |

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

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

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

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

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

After implementing, run python .claude/scripts/code_graph connections <file> --json on modified files to verify no related files need updates.

Graph-Trace Before Implementation

MUST ATTENTION run BEFORE writing code when graph.db exists:

• python .claude/scripts/code_graph trace <file-to-modify> --direction both --json — callers + triggers
• python .claude/scripts/code_graph trace <file-to-modify> --direction downstream --json — all downstream consumers
• Prevents breaking implicit dependencies (bus consumers, event handlers) invisible in the file itself.

Workflow Recommendation

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — NO EXCEPTIONS: If you are NOT already in a workflow, you MUST ATTENTION use AskUserQuestion to ask the user. Do NOT judge task complexity or decide this is "simple enough to skip" — the user decides whether to use a workflow, not you:

1. Activate feature workflow (Recommended) — scout → investigate → plan → cook → review → sre-review → test → docs
2. Execute /cook directly — run this skill standalone

Next Steps (Standalone: MUST ATTENTION ask user via AskUserQuestion. Skip if inside workflow.)

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

• "Proceed with full workflow (Recommended)" — I'll detect the best workflow to continue from here (feature implemented). This ensures review, testing, and docs steps aren't skipped.
• "/code-simplifier" — Simplify and clean up implementation
• "/workflow-review-changes" — Review changes before commit
• "Skip, continue manually" — user decides

Standalone Review Gate (Non-Workflow Only)

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION: If this skill is called outside a workflow (standalone /cook), you MUST ATTENTION create a TaskCreate todo task for /review-changes as the last task in your task list. This ensures all changes are reviewed before commit even without a workflow enforcing it.

If already running inside a workflow (e.g., feature, bugfix), skip this — the workflow sequence handles /review-changes at the appropriate step.

Closing Reminders

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION break work into small todo tasks using TaskCreate BEFORE starting. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION validate decisions with user via AskUserQuestion — never auto-decide. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION add a final review todo task to verify work quality. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION READ the following files before starting:

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION verify all phases pass 5-point granularity check. Failing phases → sub-plan. "Can I start coding RIGHT NOW?" <!-- /SYNC:plan-granularity:reminder -->

                <!-- SYNC:understand-code-first:reminder -->
  

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION search 3+ existing patterns and read code BEFORE any modification. Run graph trace when graph.db exists.

  <!-- /SYNC:understand-code-first:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:plan-quality:reminder -->

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION include ## Test Specifications with TC IDs per phase. Call TaskList before creating new tasks.

  <!-- /SYNC:plan-quality:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:rationalization-prevention:reminder -->

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION follow ALL steps regardless of perceived simplicity. "Too simple to plan" is an evasion, not a reason.

  <!-- /SYNC:rationalization-prevention:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:ui-system-context:reminder -->

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION read frontend-patterns-reference, scss-styling-guide, design-system/README before any UI change.

  <!-- /SYNC:ui-system-context:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:iterative-phase-quality:reminder -->

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION score complexity first. Score >=6 → decompose. Each phase: plan → implement → review → fix → verify. No skipping.

  <!-- /SYNC:iterative-phase-quality:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:graph-assisted-investigation:reminder -->

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION run at least ONE graph command on key files when graph.db exists. Pattern: grep → graph trace → grep verify.

  <!-- /SYNC:graph-assisted-investigation:reminder -->