Agent Skills: performance-review

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:

• 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 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.

[IMPORTANT] MANDATORY MUST ATTENTION stay project-generic: discover local stack, conventions, query APIs, index definitions, metrics, and report paths before judging. [IMPORTANT] MANDATORY MUST ATTENTION prove every performance claim with measurement or static evidence: file:line, query text/shape, row counts, query plan/explain output, trace, profile, or logs. [IMPORTANT] MANDATORY MUST ATTENTION review performance one dimension at a time: over-fetching, filters, indexes, N+1 fan-out, batching, aggregation/join shape, materialization, writes, caching, in-process compute/algorithmic complexity, concurrency/pool saturation. [IMPORTANT] MANDATORY MUST ATTENTION include in-process compute, not just I/O: flag O(n²)+ nested scans, linear membership lookups inside loops, ReDoS-prone regex, and per-iteration serialize/clone — CPU bottlenecks need the same evidence rigor as queries. [IMPORTANT] MANDATORY MUST ATTENTION when an operation is fast but p95/p99 is high, suspect saturation not the query: measure pool/thread acquire-wait and queue depth, and size pools by Little's Law (in-use = arrival-rate × hold-time) × replica count.

Critical Thinking Mindset — Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination: Never present guess as fact — cite sources for every claim, admit uncertainty freely, self-check output for errors, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence — certainty without evidence root of all hallucination.

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

Re-read files after context changes. Context compaction, resume, or long-running work can make memory stale; verify current files before acting. Verify generated content against source evidence. AI hallucinates APIs, names, claims, and document facts. Check the relevant source before documenting or referencing. Check downstream references before deleting or renaming. Removing an artifact can stale docs, generated mirrors, configs, and callers; map references first. Trace the full impact chain after edits. Changing a definition can miss derived outputs and consumers. Follow the affected chain before declaring done. Verify ALL affected outputs, not just the first. One green check is not all green checks; validate every output surface the change can affect. Assume existing values are intentional — ask WHY before changing. Before changing a constant, limit, flag, wording, or pattern, read nearby context and history. Surface ambiguity before acting — don't pick silently. Multiple valid interpretations require an explicit question or stated assumption with risk. Keep shared guidance role-relevant. Universal guidance must help every receiving skill or agent; code-specific obligations belong only in code-specific protocols.

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

Quick Summary

Goal: Ensure every shipped performance fix removes a measured (or static-risk-labeled) real bottleneck — across database waste (rows/columns, missing/unused indexes, query-in-loop fan-out, unbounded materialization, slow joins/aggregations, write amplification), in-process compute (O(n²) scans, wrong data structures, ReDoS, serialize/clone churn), and concurrency saturation (pool/queue acquire-wait sized by Little's Law) — while preserving behavior, authorization, and semantics, proven by before/after evidence, validated via $why-review before any fix, and confirmed by a clean full Phase-0 re-review — never a guess-driven change that hides waste or breaks correctness.

Summary:

• Evidence is the gate, not intuition: capture a runtime baseline (query plan/explain, row counts, p95/p99, pool acquire-wait, microbench at worst-case N) or label the finding static risk with the exact verify command — never recommend below 60% confidence.
• Walk dimensions ONE pass at a time (query shape → index/access path → N+1 → aggregation/join → materialization → write/locks → cache → API/distributed/frontend → compute/algorithmic), never all at once; reduce rows at the source before trimming columns or caching, and size pools by Little's Law (replica count × per-instance pool) when a fast op shows high p99.
• No finding is fixable until $why-review --validate-findings confirms it (Phase 6); each validated fix then restarts the FULL review from Phase 0 over the whole target (Phase 7) — a targeted before/after check alone never earns a PASS.

Renamed: formerly /performance — that name no longer resolves as a slash command; use $performance-review.

Workflow:

1. Detect - Classify scope and bottleneck type.
2. Discover - Read local code, metrics, docs, query/index definitions, similar patterns.
3. Measure - Capture baseline or mark static-only risk.
4. Analyze - Run serial dimension passes with evidence.
5. Plan - Propose smallest fix preserving behavior.
6. Verify - Re-measure, run tests, and record evidence.
7. Validate Findings - Run $why-review --validate-findings <report-path> before any fix.
8. Fix + Full Re-Review - Fix only validated findings, then restart from Detect over the full target.

Key Rules:

• MANDATORY ALWAYS measure before/after; static review findings need explicit verification command.
• MANDATORY ALWAYS push row filters to data source before projection/caching; row-count reduction beats column trimming.
• MANDATORY ALWAYS verify index usability with query shape/order, not index existence alone.
• NEVER recommend caching until query shape, indexes, pagination, batching, and data volume are understood.
• Findings are not eligible for fix until $why-review --validate-findings confirms them; every validated fix restarts the full performance review from Phase 0.

<target>$ARGUMENTS</target>

Phase 0: Detect Scope

Classify before analysis. Detection drives dimensions, evidence, sub-agent choice.

| Scope | Signals | Primary evidence | | ------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | DB read | slow query, full scan, sort spill, high rows examined | query text/ORM expression, row count, plan/explain, indexes | | DB write | slow save, lock waits, per-row updates, transaction bloat | write loop, batch size, lock/deadlock logs, transaction scope | | N+1/fan-out | loop with query/API call, lazy loading, per-item lookup | caller trace, query count, loop source | | API latency | high p95/p99, timeout, slow endpoint/job | trace/profile/logs, call chain | | Saturation/Queueing | high p99 while the operation itself is fast, pool exhausted/timeout, threads blocked on acquire | pool active/idle/pending, acquire-wait time, threads/workers vs pool size, replica count × pool | | Memory/OOM | large materialization, blobs, no paging, buffering | allocation profile, result size, collection loads | | Frontend | slow render, huge bundle, repeated fetch, DOM churn | browser profile, network waterfall, component/render trace | | Distributed | message lag, cross-service waterfall, retry storm | trace spans, queue metrics, consumer/producer chain | | Compute/CPU | hot loop, nested iteration, quadratic scaling, regex stall, heavy serialize/clone | input N, operation count vs N, profiler/flame-graph sample, microbench |

Skip reason allowed only when target explicitly narrows scope and evidence proves dimension irrelevant.

Architecture-Altitude Performance Review

When to apply: design/architecture reviews (e.g. via the architect agent) — judging performance as a structural property of the design before it ships, not a tactical query fix after a bottleneck is observed. The dimension passes below stay the tool for tactical work; this section is the design-level lens layered on top.

Evaluate the bottleneck layer model as a design concern, not just a symptom site:

Performance as architecture
├── Database  — data access shape baked into the model (projection, paging, N+1 surface, index strategy)
├── API       — serialization/processing cost, parallel tuple queries, response-DTO contracts
├── Network   — payload size & call-count designed into the contract (batch endpoints vs chatty waterfalls)
├── Frontend  — bundle/lazy-load topology, OnPush/track-by/virtual-scroll as default architecture
└── Background jobs — bounded parallelism (`ParallelAsync` with `maxConcurrent`) + batch (`UpdateManyAsync`) as the shape, not an afterthought

Architecture-altitude rules (decide at design time — cheapest to fix here):

• Bound every result set and project only needed columns/fields in the contract itself — never design an unbounded read-all or SELECT * endpoint; unbounded reads spike memory and latency under real data volume.
• Design out N+1 at the boundary — eager-load / batch-fetch is the default access pattern; per-item lookups are a design smell, not a tuning detail.
• Caching is a design decision, not a patch — choose request-scope memoization vs bounded shared cache up front, with key dimensions (tenant/user/auth/version), TTL/invalidation, size limits, and privacy constraints specified; never cache to hide an unbounded query.
• Async I/O is structural — never design a path that blocks threads with .Result; bounded parallelism for fan-out work is part of the design, with a fresh safe scope/context per worker.
• Make the cost visible — design slow-operation logging and query logging in from the start so regressions are observable in production.
• Size pools and parallelism, never default them — derive connection/thread/permit pool size from Little's Law (in-use = arrival-rate × hold-time) and state the assumptions; shrink hold-time (release the resource across non-DB / external-wait spans) before growing the pool; size a shared backend against fleet-aggregate demand (replica count × per-instance pool), not one instance — local per-instance tuning becomes a thundering herd on the shared dependency.

For database index strategy at design time, see the database-optimization skill (composite key order, covering/partial indexes, write-cost analysis). The tactical evidence gate (measure baseline, prove with plan/explain) in the phases below still applies to every recommendation made at this altitude.

Phase 1: Discover Local Context

MANDATORY discovery before findings (MUST ATTENTION):

• ALWAYS search local standards: performance, index, query, pagination, projection, database, profiling, contributing, style guide.
• search 3+ similar local query/API patterns before proposing a fix.
• read target code and index/migration/schema files controlling the queried data.
• map callers and frequency using available graph/call-trace/profiler tools; if none exist, use grep/import/call hierarchy. When .code-graph/graph.db exists, run a graph blast-radius pass (trace --direction downstream on the hot path) to size the fan-out before proposing a fix — see the Graph-Assisted Investigation gate below.
• identify data shape: tenant/security-review filters, cardinality, expected max rows, selected columns/fields, sort, joins, aggregation/grouping, cache keys.
• NEVER hardcode project names, repository paths, ID formats, DB engines, ORMs, or framework defaults; derive from discovered files.

Phase 2: Baseline Evidence

Prefer runtime proof. If unavailable, label finding static risk and include exact command/query needed to verify.

MANDATORY baseline for DB findings:

• ALWAYS capture query source: file:line and generated SQL/query/ORM expression when available
• ALWAYS capture volume: input size, rows matched, rows returned, rows examined/scanned, page size/limit
• ALWAYS capture access path: query plan/explain, used index, sort/group strategy, join method when available
• ALWAYS capture timing: p50/p95/p99, elapsed query time, query count, allocation or response size
• ALWAYS capture context: endpoint/job/consumer frequency and worst-case fan-out

MANDATORY baseline for compute/CPU findings:

• ALWAYS capture input size N and the growth assumption (expected and worst-case N)
• ALWAYS capture operation count vs N (constant / linear / quadratic+) and the nested-loop or repeated-scan source file:line
• ALWAYS capture timing: microbench / console.time / profiler or flame-graph sample at representative AND worst-case N

MANDATORY baseline for saturation/pooling findings:

• ALWAYS capture offered concurrency and arrival rate (RPS / worker count / threads.max)
• ALWAYS capture resource hold-time vs total request time (a connection/lock/permit is held only for the fraction it is actually used, not the whole request)
• ALWAYS capture pool state: size, active/idle/pending, and acquire-wait time / queue depth at the pool entrance
• ALWAYS capture aggregate demand on shared dependencies: replica count × per-instance pool → total connections/cores the shared backend must serve

Confidence:

| Confidence | Action | | ---------- | ----------------------------------------------------- | | 95%+ | Recommend fix freely. | | 80-94% | Recommend with caveats and verification command. | | 60-79% | List unknowns first; gather more evidence before fix. | | <60% | STOP. Do not recommend. |

Phase 3: Serial Dimension Passes

MANDATORY apply one focused pass per dimension. NEVER scan all dimensions at once.

1. Query Shape And Data Minimization

Think: Which rows/columns load? Are filters, projection, sorting, and limits executed by data source before materialization?

MUST ATTENTION find:

• unbounded list/read-all APIs without page, limit, cursor, or bounded business invariant
• filter after materialization (ToList/array/load-all before Where/filter)
• projection after materialization; full entity/document loaded for list/summary view
• unused includes/joins/lookup data; large text/blob/json fields in list queries
• client-side sort/group/distinct; offset pagination on very deep pages where cursor/keyset fits better
• missing tenant/auth/status/date filters in hot-path queries

Prefer fixes: push predicates to data source, select only needed fields, bound result set, use cursor/keyset for deep sequential access, keep reusable predicates near domain/query-owner layer discovered locally.

2. Index And Access Path

Think: Can existing indexes satisfy equality/range filters, joins, sort, grouping, and projection in the actual query order?

Find:

• no index for high-cardinality filters, joins, foreign keys, sort columns, or frequent group keys
• composite index field order mismatched with equality -> range -> sort access pattern
• index exists but plan ignores it because query wraps field in function/cast, uses incompatible type/collation, leading wildcard, broad OR, negative predicate, or low selectivity
• sort spill/filesort because index order does not match filter + order by
• covering/partial/filtered index opportunity for hot narrow query
• index bloat from adding every field without write-cost analysis

Prefer fixes: add/adjust smallest useful index, reorder composite keys to match query, rewrite predicate to be sargable, verify with plan/explain before/after, include write-cost risk.

3. N+1 And Fan-Out

Think: Does work scale with item count instead of request/job count?

Find:

• query/API/cache call inside loop, map, serializer, resolver, template/render loop, event handler loop
• per-item existence/count lookup; per-item lazy-loaded relation
• repeated same lookup with different IDs that could be one IN/batch/group query
• nested fan-out across services, queues, jobs, or retries
• sequential awaits where independent calls can batch or run bounded parallel with separate safe resources

Prefer fixes: batch IDs once, join/include only needed fields, prefetch dictionaries, aggregate counts in one query, use bounded concurrency, preserve ordering/authorization semantics.

4. Aggregation, Join, And Pipeline Shape

Think: Does the pipeline reduce data before expensive join/unwind/group/sort/window stages?

Find:

• join/unwind/group before selective filter
• cartesian joins or duplicate expansion not collapsed
• grouping/sorting without pre-filter or supporting index
• aggregation loads all related rows/documents when only existence/count/min/max needed
• repeated post-processing that database can compute safely

Prefer fixes: filter early, project early, aggregate at source, reduce join cardinality, use existence/count queries, repeat necessary post-expansion filters when array/child semantics require it.

5. Materialization And Memory

Think: What enters memory? Is it bounded, streamed, and tracking-free when read-only?

Find:

• large collection materialized before paging/filtering
• read-only queries tracking entities/objects unnecessarily
• blob/file/large JSON fields loaded for lightweight responses
• buffering entire export/report when streaming/chunking fits
• accidental multiple enumeration re-running query

Prefer fixes: page/chunk/stream, use no-tracking/read-only mode when local stack supports it, project lightweight DTOs, move filter before load, memoize intentionally.

6. Write Path, Locks, And Transactions

Think: Does write work batch safely and keep locks/transactions small?

Find:

• per-row save/update/delete inside loop
• long transaction wrapping remote calls or heavy reads
• unnecessary unique checks per row instead of bulk validation
• lock escalation/hot-row contention/counter updates without batching
• parallel writes sharing unsafe session/context/unit-of-work

Prefer fixes: bulk write, chunk, shorten transaction, move remote calls outside transaction, use idempotent commands, create fresh safe scope/context per parallel worker.

7. Cache And Reuse

Think: Is repeated expensive work stable, safe to reuse, and invalidated correctly?

Find:

• same lookup repeated within request/job
• hot reference data fetched every request
• cache key missing tenant/user/auth/filter/version dimensions
• cache hides unbounded query or stale security-sensitive data

Prefer fixes: request-scope memoization first, then bounded shared cache with explicit key, TTL/invalidation, size limits, privacy constraints, and hit/miss metrics.

8. API, Distributed, Frontend

Think: Is slow work caused by network waterfall, payload size, render churn, or background fan-out?

Find:

• endpoint returns more payload than view needs
• sequential remote calls where backend aggregation or batch endpoint fits
• message consumer publishes one message per item without batching/backpressure
• frontend repeated fetch, missing list virtualization, expensive render loop, missing stable keys/track-by
• bundle or asset load dominates interaction

Prefer fixes: batch API, reduce payload, add backpressure, virtualize large lists, stabilize render keys, lazy-load cold assets/routes, measure browser/network trace.

9. Compute And Algorithmic Complexity

Think: Does in-process work grow super-linearly with input size, independent of any query or network call?

MUST ATTENTION find:

• nested iteration over the same/related collection (O(n²)+): loop-in-loop, map inside map, repeated full re-scan
• linear membership/lookup inside a loop — .find/.includes/.indexOf/in list/.contains where a Set/Map/dict gives O(1)
• wrong data structure for the access pattern: array used as a keyed store; repeated .filter().length for existence
• string built by concatenation in a loop; repeated JSON.parse/stringify/deep-clone/serialize per iteration
• catastrophic-backtracking regex on user- or attacker-sized input (ReDoS — cross-link $security-review)
• pure-CPU result recomputed every call when inputs are stable (memoization candidate, distinct from data cache)
• redundant sort/re-sort, or sorting when a single-pass min/max/partition suffices

Prefer fixes: build a Set/Map/dict index once and look up in O(1); hoist invariant work out of the loop; accumulate into an array + single join instead of +=; precompute/memoize stable pure results; anchor/bound regex and cap input length; pick the data structure that matches the access pattern. Prove with a microbench/profiler sample at representative AND worst-case N — never reasoning alone.

Phase 4: Findings And Severity

Finding format:

- [Severity] [file:line] [dimension] Problem. Evidence: metric/plan/query count. Impact: user/system effect. Fix: smallest behavior-preserving change. Verify: command/query/metric.

Severity:

• Critical: outage/OOM/data corruption risk, unbounded hot path, lock storm, runaway fan-out.
• High: p95/p99 timeout risk, full scan on large/hot table/collection, N+1 on user-visible list, missing page bound.
• Medium: avoidable over-fetch, suboptimal index, repeated lookup, moderate memory waste.
• Low: cleanup with small measurable benefit or future-proofing.

NEVER inflate severity without production-like scale/frequency evidence.

Phase 5: Optimize Plan

Before code changes (MUST ATTENTION):

• present baseline, proposed change, behavior invariants, risks, verification commands, and rollback path.
• preserve functional behavior, authorization, ordering, pagination semantics, consistency, and idempotency.
• inspect affected tests/specs/docs when behavior, SLA, public contract, or limits change.
• NEVER change query semantics only to improve speed unless user approves changed behavior.
• NEVER add broad indexes/caches without write-cost, storage-cost, invalidation, and privacy analysis.

Spec-Loop Discipline (Dual-Feedback half — tailored). Performance is orthogonal to functional correctness, so the property/metamorphic generation and the MUTATION-SCORE assertion gate are scoped to functional core-logic and do NOT apply here — N/A. Apply only the dual-feedback half: when a finding establishes or moves a behavior-defining boundary — an SLA/latency budget (p95/p99 target), a result-set bound, a max-rows/page-size limit, a pool-size assumption — feed it BOTH (a) the spec — record the SLA/limit as a §5 invariant / documented constraint so the budget is intended contract, not an undocumented tuning value — AND (b) a guarding test — a benchmark/assertion that fails when the budget or bound regresses. A fix that improves the number but leaves the boundary undocumented OR unguarded is INCOMPLETE, never a code-only change.

Sub-Agent Routing

Use specialized help when available:

| Detected focus | Sub-agent | | ------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------ | | DB/query/N+1/memory/backend hot path | performance-optimizer | | Auth, PII, tenant isolation, sensitive cache keys | security-auditor first, then performance-optimizer | | Cross-service architecture, caching policy, capacity/SLO trade-off | architecture/performance specialist | | Frontend render/bundle/network waterfall | frontend or performance specialist |

Sub-agent prompt MUST include target, detected scope, local context evidence, required dimensions, report path, and "return summary only; write full report incrementally."

Phase 6: Why-Review Findings Validation Gate (MANDATORY when findings exist)

Purpose: Validate performance findings before optimization work. Performance reports are easy to overstate when evidence is static-only, a plan lacks production-like scale, or a proposed index/cache changes write cost or data freshness risk.

Trigger: Any performance finding or optimization recommendation (Critical, High, Medium, Low, WARN, or static risk). Skip ONLY when the report's verdict is unconditional PASS with literally zero findings.

Protocol:

1. Read own finalized report from plans/reports/performance-{date}-{slug}.md or the exact report path written by the caller.
2. Invoke $why-review --validate-findings <performance-report-path>.
3. Read the validation verdict path returned by why-review, expected as plans/reports/why-review-validate-{date}.md.
4. If why-review demotes/removes any finding: update the performance report with revised severity, removed false positives, and a ## Why-Review Validation Notes section.
5. If why-review confirms all findings: append ## Why-Review Validation stating all findings were re-validated against measurement/static evidence.
6. If the report changed after validation: re-run this validation gate, maximum 2 validation passes, until the report's remaining findings are validated or zero findings remain.

Skip conditions (record explicit reason if skipping):

• Verdict is unconditional PASS with zero findings.
• Why-review skill itself is the active context.

Phase 7: Validated Fix + Full Performance Re-Review Loop (MANDATORY when validated findings remain)

Trigger: Phase 6 returns CLEAN/validated and the performance report still has one or more findings that must be fixed.

Protocol:

1. Create a fresh fix-cycle task list before editing. Do not reuse the review tasks.
2. Fix only findings that survived $why-review --validate-findings; if this skill is running inside a workflow, route implementation through the parent $plan + $feature-implement flow.
3. Re-measure or run the verification command named in the finding.
4. Restart the full $performance-review review from Phase 0 over the complete current target, not only the fixed files.
5. The restarted pass MUST create brand-new review tasks, re-detect scope, rediscover local context, rerun baseline/graph/profiler checks where applicable, and analyze all dimensions again from the beginning.
6. Repeat validate → fix → full performance re-review until a complete pass has zero findings.
7. If the same validated blocker repeats across 3 full invocations with no progress, stop and ask the user for a decision.

Non-negotiable rules:

• Never fix a performance finding before $why-review --validate-findings validates it.
• Never mark performance review clean after a targeted before/after check only; the clean verdict must come from a full Phase 0 restart.
• Never review only fixed files during the recursive pass.
• Never reuse old todo/task items for the recursive review pass.

Output

MANDATORY final report sections:

• Scope and detected bottleneck type
• Baseline evidence and unknowns
• Findings ordered by severity
• Optimization plan and rejected alternatives
• Verification plan with before/after metrics
• Test/spec/doc impact or explicit skip reason
• Confidence and assumptions

If evidence insufficient, output: Insufficient evidence. Verified: [...]. Not verified: [...]. Next evidence needed: [...].

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.

Severity Rubric — Classify every finding by consequence, not by how easy it is to fix. One scale across all reviews so a "High" means the same thing everywhere.

| Severity | Action | Definition | | -------- | ----------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | CRITICAL | Block merge | Silent runtime failure, data corruption, validation bypass, security hole | | HIGH | Must fix | Incorrect behavior, invariant gap, architectural violation | | MEDIUM | Should fix | Design debt, maintainability, likely future bug | | LOW | Nice to fix | Convention, documentation, minor clarity |

Score-based skills map their numeric scale onto these tiers — do not invent a parallel vocabulary:

• 0-2 criterion scoring (e.g. production-readiness-review): 0 = CRITICAL/HIGH (criterion unmet, blocks production readiness), 1 = MEDIUM (partial, should fix), 2 = pass (no finding).
• Two-axis scoring (e.g. performance-review, impact × likelihood): map the resulting cell to the nearest tier — high-impact + high-likelihood → CRITICAL/HIGH; low-impact OR low-likelihood → MEDIUM/LOW.

A finding's tier drives the gate: CRITICAL/HIGH must be resolved or explicitly accepted by the owner before PASS; MEDIUM/LOW may ship with a tracked follow-up.

Category Review Thinking — A thinking framework for reviewing any category of changed files. NOT a fixed checklist — derive concerns from domain knowledge; the examples are starting points only. Your knowledge of the category exceeds any list here — trust it.

Step 1 — Understand the category's role. What is this category responsible for in the overall system? What invariants must it uphold? What are its consumer contracts (who depends on it, what do they expect)?

Step 2 — Read project conventions for this category. Search for reference docs, style guides, ADRs, or READMEs specific to this area. Grep 3+ existing similar files — extract naming conventions, structural patterns, shared base classes. If no docs exist, derive conventions empirically from existing code.

Step 3 — Derive concerns from first principles. Apply all that are relevant; expand beyond this list based on the actual category:

• Correctness: Does the logic match the intent? Trace happy path AND error path.
• Boundary contracts: Are interfaces/APIs/events/protocols honored? No implicit coupling introduced?
• Project conventions: Does new code follow the patterns found in Step 2? Evidence-confirmed, not assumed.
• Security: Auth enforced at every entry point? Input validated at boundaries? No secrets in the diff?
• Performance: Unbounded operations? N+1 patterns? Blocking calls in async context? Unindexed queries?
• Maintainability: DRY? Single responsibility? Complexity within reason? Names reveal intent?
• Test coverage: Are the changed paths covered by tests? Are existing tests still valid after the change?
• Documentation: Do related docs, specs, or READMEs reflect the changes?

Step 4 — Create sub-tasks and execute. For each identified concern: create a task tracking sub-task, work through it with file:line evidence, mark done. No findings without proof.

Illustrative concern examples by category type (not exhaustive — trust your knowledge beyond this):

• Server-side logic: handler/service structure conventions, validation layer placement, side-effect isolation, cross-service boundary enforcement, data-access layer separation, error propagation strategy
• Client-side logic: component lifecycle management, resource cleanup (subscriptions, listeners, timers), state management patterns, API integration layer separation, reactive stream composition
• Data/Schema: migration reversibility (rollback script), lock impact on table volume, backfill idempotency, index coverage for query patterns, deployment ordering
• Configuration: present in ALL environments? No secrets in diff? App fails fast if config missing (not silently null)? Documented in setup guide?
• Infrastructure: dev/prod parity? No hardcoded dev values (localhost, debug flags)? Pinned image/dependency versions? CI/CD secret requirements documented?
• Styles/Assets: follows project naming conventions? Uses design variables/tokens (no hardcoded magic values)? Correct scope (no global side effects from component styles)?
• Documentation: accurate? Links valid? Examples still match current code/behavior? Covers new scenarios?
• Tests: assertions verify specific outcomes (not just "no exception")? Idempotent (repeatable N times)? Covers edge cases, not just happy path?
• Security artifacts: all code paths reach the gate? Negative tests exist (unauthorized denied)? Both enforcement AND display control updated?
• Build/Tooling: rule changes apply consistently? No exceptions that silently swallow violations? Impact on CI runtime documented?

• MANDATORY Large changeset → batch by size cap (≤8 files OR ≤2000 diff-lines), one parallel sub-agent per batch; never review many files one-by-one.
• MANDATORY > 6 categories OR > 40 files → add the hierarchical synthesis tier; each concern-synthesizer emits cross-concern interaction candidates and the orchestrator runs the cross-concern pass before concluding.

• MANDATORY Classify findings Critical/High/Medium/Low by consequence; Critical/High block PASS until fixed or owner-accepted.
• MANDATORY Score-based skills (sre 0-2, perf two-axis) map onto the same four tiers — no parallel severity vocabulary.

• MANDATORY Derive review categories from file language + directory semantics + change nature; create a sub-task per category.
• MANDATORY Derive each category's concerns from first principles with file:line evidence — never a fixed checklist.

Closing Reminders

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Goal: Ensure every shipped performance fix removes a measured (or static-risk-labeled) bottleneck while preserving behavior, authorization, and semantics — proven by before/after evidence, validated via $why-review before any fix, and confirmed by a clean full Phase-0 re-review — never a guess-driven change that hides waste or breaks correctness.

Protocols in force (concise digest of the SYNC/shared blocks this skill carries):

• Critical Thinking: Traced file:line proof per claim; NEVER present a guess as fact.
• AI Mistake Prevention: verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references, verify all affected outputs, re-read after context loss, surface ambiguity.
• Graph-Assisted Investigation: ALWAYS run a graph trace on key files when graph.db exists.
• Severity Rubric: Classify by consequence; Critical/High block PASS until resolved.
• Category Review Thinking: Derive per-category concerns from first principles, NEVER a fixed checklist.
• Systematic Batching: Large changeset → size-capped parallel batches, then reduce.

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION prove every performance claim with measurement or static evidence — file:line, query text/shape, row counts, query plan/explain, trace, profile, or logs; confidence >80% to act, 60-79% gather more, <60% STOP — why: a number without a measured baseline is a guess that ships unverified waste. IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION review performance one dimension at a time — over-fetching, filters, indexes, N+1 fan-out, batching, aggregation/join shape, materialization, writes, caching, in-process compute/algorithmic complexity, concurrency/pool saturation — why: split attention misses violations. MANDATORY search 3+ similar local query/API patterns before proposing a fix, and read the index/migration/schema files controlling the data — why: local conventions override generic framework defaults; the closest example must match preconditions (base class, scope, cardinality) before you copy it. MANDATORY ALWAYS measure before/after; static review findings need an explicit verification command attached. MANDATORY ALWAYS verify index usability with actual query shape/order and plan/explain — index existence alone is not proof. IMPORTANT MANDATORY MUST ATTENTION ALWAYS push row filters to the data source before projection/caching; row-count reduction beats column trimming — why: fewer columns from too many rows still scans the rows. MANDATORY size pools/parallelism by Little's Law (in-use = arrival-rate × hold-time) × replica count, and shrink hold-time before growing the pool — why: a fast op with high p99 is saturation at the pool entrance, not a slow query. MANDATORY Break work into small tracked tasks before starting; one in_progress at a time; mark each completed immediately after its evidence lands — why: compaction wipes memory and untracked review scope silently goes uncovered. MANDATORY when a finding moves a behavior-defining boundary (SLA/p95 budget, result-set bound, page-size limit, pool-size assumption), feed it BOTH the spec (record as a §5 invariant) AND a guarding test/benchmark — why: a faster number left undocumented OR unguarded regresses silently. MANDATORY add a final review task checking doc/test/spec staleness.

Anti-Rationalization:

| Evasion | Rebuttal | | --------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | "Bottleneck obvious, skip baseline" | No measurement = guess. Capture metric or label static risk with the verify command. | | "Index exists, so query fine" | Show plan/explain and access path. Existing unused index proves nothing. | | "Projection enough" | First reduce rows. Loading fewer columns from too many rows still wastes work. | | "Just cache it" | Fix query shape/index/bounds first. Cache can hide stale, unsafe, unbounded work. | | "Only one query in code" | Trace loops, serializers, resolvers, consumers, and retries. Fan-out often hides upstream. | | "Loop is fine, the list is small" | Show N and worst-case N. O(n²) that's fine at 10 melts at 10k. Bench at real scale. | | "Query is fast, so the endpoint is fast" | Measure pool acquire-wait and queue depth. A 2ms query behind a saturated pool still yields a 200ms p99 — the wait is at the pool entrance, not in the query. | | "Found one similar pattern, good enough" | Grep 3+ and verify preconditions match. One nearby example ≠ a fit; cite file:line. | | "Fix it where it errors/spikes" | Trace caller (wrong data) vs callee (wrong handling); fix at the layer owning the invariant, not the symptom site. | | "Validated nothing, just fix the obvious one" | No fix until $why-review --validate-findings confirms it; then restart the FULL review from Phase 0. |

[TASK-PLANNING] Break work into small tracked tasks before starting; update each status immediately.

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION prove every claim with measurement/static evidence + file:line (confidence >80% to act, <60% STOP). IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION push row filters to the data source before projection/caching; verify index usability via plan/explain, never existence alone. IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION no fix before $why-review --validate-findings; after every validated fix restart the full review from Phase 0 before claiming PASS.

Systematic Review Batching (map-reduce) — When a changeset is large, do NOT review files one-by-one. Partition into size-capped batches, fire one specialized sub-agent per batch in parallel, then reduce. This bounds EVERY context — each batch agent AND the orchestrator — so coverage stays complete as file count grows.

Trigger ladder (one ordered escalation — not competing thresholds):

1. < 10 changed files → sequential per-file review (default; no batching).
2. ≥ 10 changed files → switch to systematic parallel mode. Announce: "Detected {N} changed files. Switching to systematic parallel review protocol." Then: categorize → size-capped batches → flat consolidation.
3. categories > 6 OR files > 40 → additionally insert the hierarchical synthesis tier (below). Everything from rung 2 still applies.

Step 1 — Categorize. Group changed files into logical categories derived from the project's actual structure (not forced). Category is the concern axis; orient with these examples, derive what fits the repository:

| Category Type | Example Groupings | | ------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Agent/Tooling | AI scripts, hooks, skill definitions, workflow configs, linting rules | | Root config/docs | Root README, project config, CI/CD pipeline configs | | Reference docs | Architecture docs, patterns references, setup guides | | Feature/domain docs | Business feature documentation, spec files, ADRs | | Backend logic | Service/handler/controller source (infer from project structure) | | Frontend logic | UI component/state/API source (infer from project structure) | | Data/Schema | Migrations, schema files, seed data | | Tests | Unit, integration, E2E test files | | Infrastructure | Docker, k8s, CI/CD, cloud manifests |

Step 2 — Size-capped batches. One sub-agent per batch of ≤8 files OR ≤2000 diff-lines, whichever hits first. Category stays the concern axis, but any category exceeding a cap splits into multiple size-capped batches (30 backend files → 4 batches). Size caps — not category caps — make "many files" safe: a category cap alone lets one giant category blow a single agent's context.

Step 2a — Sub-agent type per batch (match the batch's dominant concern):

• Code logic (any stack) → code-reviewer
• Security-sensitive changes → security-auditor
• Performance-critical paths → performance-optimizer
• Docs, plans, specs, configs, infra → general-purpose

Each batch sub-agent receives: its full file list; SYNC:category-review-thinking as its primary thinking model — derive each category's concerns from first principles, NOT a fixed checklist (if the consuming skill does not carry that block, apply category-first thinking directly); project reference docs relevant to its concern (discover via *patterns*, *conventions*, *style-guide*); cross-reference verification instructions (counts, tables, links). All batch agents run in parallel and write findings to plans/reports/ (per SYNC:task-tracking-external-report); reducers read from disk, never from memory.

Step 3 — Reduce.

• Flat reduction (rung 2, ≤6 categories AND ≤40 files): the orchestrator collects each batch report, cross-references counts/tables/contracts ACROSS batches, detects gaps visible only across categories (feature in code but missing from docs; new API endpoint with no client call), and consolidates into one categorized holistic report.
• Hierarchical reduction (rung 3, > 6 categories OR > 40 files): insert a mid-tier — each concern gets ONE synthesizer agent that reads only its own batch reports and emits a single concern-synthesis. The orchestrator reads the concern-syntheses (~5), never the raw batch reports — keeping the reducer's context O(#concerns), not O(#files).
  • Cross-concern interaction pass (mandatory at rung 3 — closes the synthesis-tier blind spot): concern-siloed synthesis can drop an interaction spanning two concerns AND two batches (tainted source in data-layer/batch 7 → sink in api/batch 3). So: (a) each concern-synthesizer MUST emit an explicit "cross-concern interaction candidates" list — entities/symbols/contracts it touched that plausibly bind to another concern (shared DTOs, event names, table/collection names, exported symbols); (b) the orchestrator MUST run the Step-3 cross-reference/gap step over those candidate lists across all concern-syntheses, not only within a batch, before concluding. Without this pass the tier trades completeness for context-bounding on exactly the large diffs it targets.

Step 4 — Holistic assessment. With all findings combined, judge: overall coherence as a unified intent; cross-category sync (docs match code? contracts match callers?); risk areas where categories interact; missing doc/spec updates for changed artifacts.

No silent truncation. If any cap forces sampling or a batch is dropped for budget, ANNOUNCE the dropped/sampled scope explicitly — bounded coverage must never read as complete coverage.

MUST ATTENTION apply critical + sequential thinking — every claim needs appropriate traced evidence (file:line for repo/code claims; source URL or artifact section for research, product, content, and docs claims); confidence >80% to act, <60% DO NOT recommend. Anti-hallucination: never present guess as fact, admit uncertainty freely, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence.

MUST ATTENTION apply AI mistake prevention — verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references before deleting or renaming, verify all affected outputs, re-read files after context loss, and surface ambiguity before acting.

Hookless Prompt Protocol Mirror (Auto-Synced)

Source: .claude/.ck.json + .claude/skills/shared/sync-inline-versions.md (:full blocks) + .claude/scripts/lib/hookless-prompt-protocol.cjs

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

Generic portability boundary: Reusable skills and protocol text stay project-neutral; project-specific conventions are discovered from docs/project-config.json and docs/project-reference/. Apply shared AI-SDD from shared/sdd-artifact-contract.md. Read docs/project-config.json and docs/project-reference/docs-index-reference.md, then open the project reference docs named there. For spec, test-case, behavior-change, public-contract, or docs/specs/ work, route through the local spec docs named by the docs index: feature-spec-reference.md, spec-system-reference.md, spec-principles.md, and workflow-spec-test-code-cycle-reference.md when specs/tests/code must stay synchronized. If either file or a required reference doc is missing or stale, auto-run $project-init (or the narrow lower-level route such as $project-config, $docs-init, $scan-all, or $scan --target=<key>) before ordinary project-specific work. Any supported AI tool may execute when this shared context and local docs are available.

1. DETECT: If the prompt starts with an explicit slash skill/workflow command, execute it directly. Otherwise match the prompt against the workflow catalog and skill list.
2. ANALYZE: Choose the best option: execute directly, invoke a skill, activate a standard workflow, or compose a custom step combination.
3. AUTO-SELECT: Pick the best option yourself. Do not ask the user to choose between direct execution, skill, standard workflow, or custom workflow.
4. ACTIVATE: For a selected workflow, call $start-workflow <workflowId>; for a selected skill, invoke that skill; for a custom workflow, sequence custom steps directly; for direct execution, proceed with the task.
5. CREATE TASKS: task tracking for ALL workflow/skill/custom steps before execution when the selected path has multiple steps.
6. EXECUTE: Advance per the Workflow Step Advancement & Parallel Phases rule in your context instructions — model-driven; a sub-agent completion advances a step identically to an inline call; a parallel-phase group is an all-return barrier (advance only after ALL members return, never serialize it)

Shared AI-SDD Protocol Markers

Source: .claude/skills/shared/sync-inline-versions.md

SYNC:ai-sdd-artifact-contract

AI-SDD Artifact Contract — Shared spec-driven development rules stay portable and source-owned.

1. Keep reusable AI-SDD principles in .claude; put repository-specific paths, commands, owners, products, and formats in project config/reference docs.
2. Preserve cycle: spec -> plan -> tasks -> implement -> verify -> update spec/docs.
3. Trace every requirement or invariant through decision, task, TC/test, source evidence, and docs/spec update.
4. Treat code-to-spec extraction as reference-only until accepted by the canonical spec owner.
5. Any supported AI tool may plan, implement, review, or verify with synced context; using multiple tools is optional.
6. Update .claude source first, then sync generated mirrors; do not manually edit .agents, .codex, or AGENTS.md. — why: mirrors are generated artifacts; hand-edits are overwritten on the next sync
7. If docs/project-config.json, root instruction files, or a required project-reference doc is missing or stale, auto-run $project-init or the narrow lower-level route before ordinary project-specific work.

Active reference: shared/sdd-artifact-contract.md in the active skills root.

SYNC:ai-sdd-artifact-contract:reminder

• MANDATORY Apply shared/sdd-artifact-contract.md; keep reusable AI-SDD in .claude and local rules in project docs.
• MANDATORY Code-to-spec extraction is reference-only until canonical acceptance; any supported AI tool may execute with synced context.
• MANDATORY Update .claude source before syncing generated mirrors; do not manually edit .agents, .codex, or AGENTS.md.
• MANDATORY Missing or stale project config, root instruction files, or required reference docs route project-specific work through $project-init or the narrow setup route automatically. [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.

[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/$security-review/$lint catch this?" — Yes → improve review skill instead.
7. BOTH gates pass → ask user to run $learn. [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. Goal-driven execution: Define success criteria first, loop until verified, and stop only when observable checks pass. Tests verify intent: Tests must protect business rules/invariants and fail when the protected intent breaks, not only mirror current behavior.

Common AI Mistake Prevention (System Lessons)

• Re-read files after context compaction. Edit requires prior Read in same context; compaction wipes read state. Re-read before editing.
• Grep for old terms after bulk replacements. AI over-trusts find/replace completeness. Grep full repo after bulk edits for missed refs in docs/configs/catalogs.
• Check downstream references before deleting. Deletions cascade doc/code staleness. Map referencing files before removal.
• After memory loss, check existing state before creating new. Compaction wipes prior-work memory. Query current state to resume — never blindly duplicate.
• Verify AI-generated content against actual code. AI hallucinates APIs, class names, method signatures. Grep to confirm existence before documenting/referencing.
• Trace full dependency chain after edits. Changing a definition misses downstream consumers. Trace the full chain.
• When renaming, grep ALL consumer file types. Some file types silently ignore missing refs (no compile error). Search code, templates, configs, generated files.
• Trace ALL code paths when verifying correctness. Code existing ≠ code executing. Trace early exits, error branches, conditional skips — not just happy path.
• Update docs that embed canonical data when source changes. Docs inlining derived data (workflows, schemas, configs) go stale silently. Update all embedding docs alongside source.
• Verify sub-agent results after context recovery. Background agents may finish while parent compacted — grep-verify output, don't trust assumed completion.
• Cross-check full target list against sub-agent assignments. Parallel sub-agents by category miss boundary items. Reconcile union of assignments against target list before proceeding.
• Sub-agents inherit knowledge only from their agent .md definition — use custom agent types, not built-in Explore. Tool adoption = permission + knowledge + enforcement (numbered workflow step).
• Persist sub-agent findings incrementally, not as a final batch. Long sub-agents hit cutoffs before final write — findings lost. Instruct append-per-section to report file.
• When debugging, ask "whose responsibility?" before fixing. Trace caller (wrong data) vs callee (wrong handling). Fix at responsible layer — never patch symptom site.
• Grep ALL removed names after extraction/refactoring. Primary file "done" ≠ secondary files clean. Grep entire scope for every removed symbol before declaring complete.
• Assume existing values are intentional — ask WHY before changing. Pattern-matching as "wrong" skips context. Before changing any constant/limit/flag: read comments, git blame, surrounding code.
• Verify ALL affected outputs, not just the first. One build green ≠ all green. Multi-stack changes (backend/frontend/tests/docs) require verifying EVERY output.
• Evaluate fit before copying a nearby pattern. Closest example ≠ matching preconditions — verify the new context shares the same constraints, base classes, scope, lifetime.
• Holistic-first debugging — resist nearest-attention trap. Don't dive into first plausible cause. List EVERY precondition (config, env vars, paths, DB, endpoints, creds, versions, DI, data). Verify each against evidence (grep/query — not reasoning). Ask "what would falsify this?" — if nothing, it's not a hypothesis. Most expensive failure: going deeper in "obvious" layer while bug sits in layer never questioned.
• Surgical changes — apply the diff test (context-aware). Two modes: (1) Bug fix → every line traces to the bug; no restyling; orphan cleanup only for imports YOUR changes made unused. (2) Review/enhancement → implement improvements AND announce as "Enhancement beyond main request: [what]". Never silently scope-creep. Diff test: "Would this line exist if I wasn't asked to do X?" — if no, delete or announce.
• Surface ambiguity before coding — don't pick silently. Multiple valid interpretations → present each with effort: "[Request] could mean (1) [N h], (2) [N h]. Which matters?" List scope/format/volume/constraints assumptions first. If simpler path exists, say so. Never silently pick.
• [MANDATORY FIRST ACTION] ALWAYS activate a suitable skill or workflow BEFORE responding. Match task against workflow catalog + skill list; invoke via skill invocation or $start-workflow <workflowId>. NEVER answer or write code before checking. Skip = protocol violation.
• Why-Review adversarial mindset — apply when reviewing any plan, decision, or design. Default SKEPTIC not VALIDATOR: steel-man a rejected alternative, invert each stated reason ("what does it sacrifice?"), stress-test top 2-3 assumptions, run pre-mortem ("ships, fails in 3 months — what breaks?"), surface 1-2 alternatives author missed. Section presence ≠ quality; quality = causal reasoning + concrete mitigations + evidence, not "it's better" or "monitor closely".
• Front-load report-write in sub-agent prompts for large reviews. Many-file sub-agents hit budget before final write — findings lost. Design prompts so: (1) report-write is first explicit deliverable, (2) append per-file/section (not batched), (3) scope bounded so reads don't exhaust budget. Truncated mid-sentence with no report file → spawn narrower scope, don't retry same prompt.
• After context compaction, re-verify all prior phase outcomes before continuing. Summaries describe intent, not environment state (git index, filesystem, processes). On resume, FIRST audit: git status, re-read modified files, verify filesystem. Every "completed" claim is an untested hypothesis until evidence confirms.
• OOM/memory: check row count before row size. Triage: (1) Unbounded query — no DB filter for trigger? Push filter to DB; eliminates OOM. (2) Large rows? Projection reduces proportionally. Row reduction > projection in ROI.
• Keep domain concepts out of generic/shared/infrastructure layers. Reusable layer (shared library, framework, infra module) must reference NO consumer-specific domain concept — tenant/customer/product IDs, business entities, feature rules. Leak compiles + runs → passes review silently while coupling the "reusable" layer to one consumer. Keep shared type domain-free; push domain fields/logic down into the consumer via subclass/composition. — why: a layer coupled to one consumer's domain is no longer reusable.