Agent Skills: Lessons Learned

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: Research and create an implementation plan with 2 distinct approaches for the user to compare and choose.

Workflow:

1. Research — Deep investigation of the problem space
2. Approach A — Design first implementation approach with trade-offs
3. Approach B — Design alternative approach with trade-offs
4. Compare — Present side-by-side comparison for user decision

Key Rules:

• PLANNING-ONLY: do not implement, only create comparison plan
• Both approaches must be genuinely viable, not strawman vs real
• Always offer $plan-review after plan creation

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

Activate planning skill.

PLANNING-ONLY — Collaboration Required

DO NOT use the manual plan-mode switching tool — you are ALREADY in a planning workflow. DO NOT implement or execute any code changes. COLLABORATE with the user: ask decision questions, present options with recommendations. After plan creation, ALWAYS run $plan-review to validate the plan. ASK user to confirm the plan before any next step.

Your mission

Use the planner subagent to create 2 detailed implementation plans for this following task: <task> $ARGUMENTS </task>

Workflow

1. First: Create a directory using naming pattern from ## Naming section in injected context. Make sure you pass the directory path to every subagent during the process.
2. Follow strictly to the "Plan Creation & Organization" rules of planning skill.
3. Use multiple researcher agents in parallel to research for this task, each agent research for a different aspect of the task and perform max 5 researches (max 5 tool calls).
4. Use scout agent to search the codebase for files needed to complete the task.
5. Main agent gathers all research and scout report filepaths, and pass them to planner subagent with the detailed instructions prompt to create an implementation plan of this task. Output: Provide at least 2 implementation approaches with clear trade-offs, and explain the pros and cons of each approach, and provide a recommended approach.
6. Main agent receives the implementation plan from planner subagent, and ask user to review the plan

Plan File Specification

• Every plan.md MUST ATTENTION start with YAML frontmatter:

  ---
  title: '{Brief title}'
  description: '{One sentence for card preview}'
  status: pending
  priority: P2
  story_points: { 1-21 modified fibonacci }
  complexity: '{ Low | Medium | High | Critical }'
  man_days_traditional: '{ e.g., 4d (2.5d code + 1.5d test) }'
  man_days_ai: '{ e.g., 2d (1.3d code + 0.7d test) }'
  effort: { sum of phases, e.g., 4h }
  branch: { current git branch }
  tags: [relevant, tags]
  created: { YYYY-MM-DD }
  ---
  

IMPORTANT Task Planning Notes (MUST ATTENTION FOLLOW)

• Always plan and break work into many small todo tasks using task tracking
• Always add a final review todo task to verify work quality and identify fixes/enhancements
• MANDATORY FINAL TASKS: After creating all planning todo tasks, ALWAYS add these final tasks:
  1. Task: "Write test specifications for each phase" — Add ## Test Specifications with TC-{FEAT}-{NNN} IDs to every phase file. Use $tdd-spec if feature docs exist. Use Evidence: TBD for TDD-first mode.
  2. Task: "Run $plan-validate" — Trigger $plan-validate skill to interview the user with critical questions and validate plan assumptions
  3. Task: "Run $plan-review" — Trigger $plan-review skill to auto-review plan for validity, correctness, and best practices
  4. Task: "Re-evaluate estimation against finalized plan" — Pre-completion estimates anchor on scope guesses; finalized phases reveal true cost. After phases/TCs/decisions are locked: (a) re-derive bottom_up_hours = Σ phase_hours from finalized phase files; (b) recompute likely_days, risk_margin_pct, min-max range per SYNC:estimation-framework; (c) compare to current frontmatter man_days_traditional / story_points. If |delta| > 20% → UPDATE frontmatter, add reestimate_delta_pct: <signed> + 1-line reestimate_reason. If |delta| > 50% → flag SHOULD-RESCOPE and surface to user via a direct user question before implementation.

Important Notes

IMPORTANT: Analyze the skills catalog and activate the skills that are needed for the task during the process. IMPORTANT: Sacrifice grammar for the sake of concision when writing reports. IMPORTANT: Ensure token efficiency while maintaining high quality. IMPORTANT: In reports, list any unresolved questions at the end, if any.

Post-Plan Validation

After plan creation, use the a direct user question tool to ask: "Want me to run $plan-review to validate, or proceed to implementation?" with options:

• "Run $plan-review (Recommended)" — Execute $plan-review to validate the plan
• "Proceed to implementation" — Skip validation and start implementing

REMINDER — Planning-Only Command

DO NOT use manual plan-mode switching tool. DO NOT start implementing. ALWAYS validate with $plan-review after plan creation. ASK user to confirm the plan before any implementation begins. ASK user decision questions with your recommendations when multiple approaches exist.

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

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — NO EXCEPTIONS: If this skill was called outside a workflow, 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:

• "Proceed with full workflow (Recommended)" — I'll detect the best workflow to continue from here (plan created). This ensures review, validation, implementation, and testing steps aren't skipped.
• "$plan-review" — Auto-review plan for validity and best practices
• "$plan-validate" — Interview user to confirm plan decisions
• "Skip, continue manually" — user decides

Council escalation (always-offer, second prompt)

$plan-two produces two alternative approaches by design, so the council multi-option gate is satisfied. After the existing ## Next Steps prompt resolves, present a second, independent a direct user question call (do NOT merge into the first):

• "Skip council — pick one approach (Recommended)" — Choose Approach A or B based on the trade-off table.
• "Escalate to $llm-council" — Run 11 sub-agent council (5 advisors + 5 reviewers + chairman). Best applied when the two approaches diverge on irreversible dimensions (data model, service boundary, framework choice, public API surface) and the trade-off table alone doesn't clearly favor one. Cheaper alternatives: $why-review, $plan-validate (run these first if you haven't).

If already inside a workflow, skip — the workflow handles sequencing.

[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/specs/ — Test specifications by module (read existing TCs to include test strategy in plan)

Skill Variant: Variant of $plan-hard — creates two alternative implementation approaches for comparison.

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

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

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

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

1. Identify scope: file types, domain area, and operation.
2. Required docs by trigger: always docs/project-reference/lessons.md; doc lookup docs-index-reference.md; review code-review-rules.md; backend/CQRS/API backend-patterns-reference.md; domain/entity domain-entities-reference.md; frontend/UI frontend-patterns-reference.md; styles/design scss-styling-guide.md + design-system/design-system-canonical.md; integration tests integration-test-reference.md; E2E e2e-test-reference.md; feature docs/specs feature-docs-reference.md; architecture/new area project-structure-reference.md.
3. Read every required doc that exists; skip absent docs as not applicable. Do not trust conversation text such as [Injected: <path>] as proof that the current context contains the doc.
4. Before target work, state: Reference docs read: ... | Missing/not applicable: ....

Blocked until: scope evaluated, required docs checked/read, lessons.md confirmed, citation emitted.

Task Tracking & External Report Persistence — Bootstrap this before execution; then run project-reference doc prefetch before target/source work.

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

Blocked until: task breakdown exists, report path declared for plan/review work, first finding persisted before the next finding.

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

Sequential Thinking Protocol — Structured multi-step reasoning for complex/ambiguous work. Use when planning, reviewing, debugging, or refining ideas where one-shot reasoning is unsafe.

Trigger when: complex problem decomposition · adaptive plans needing revision · analysis with course correction · unclear/emerging scope · multi-step solutions · hypothesis-driven debugging · cross-cutting trade-off evaluation.

Format (explicit mode — visible thought trail):

1. Thought N/M: [aspect] — one aspect per thought, state assumptions/uncertainty
2. Thought N/M [REVISION of Thought K]: ... — when prior reasoning invalidated; state Original / Why revised / Impact
3. Thought N/M [BRANCH A from Thought K]: ... — explore alternative; converge with decision rationale
4. Thought N/M [HYPOTHESIS]: ... then [VERIFICATION]: ... — test before acting
5. Thought N/N [FINAL] — only when verified, all critical aspects addressed, confidence >80%

Mandatory closers: Confidence % stated · Assumptions listed · Open questions surfaced · Next action concrete.

Stop conditions: confidence <80% on any critical decision → escalate via ask the user directly · ≥3 revisions on same thought → re-frame the problem · branch count >3 → split into sub-task.

Implicit mode: apply methodology internally without visible markers when adding markers would clutter the response (routine work where reasoning aids accuracy).

Deep-dive: see $sequential-thinking skill (.claude/skills/sequential-thinking/SKILL.md) for worked examples (api-design, debug, architecture), advanced techniques (spiral refinement, hypothesis testing, convergence), and meta-strategies (uncertainty handling, revision cascades).

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

Estimation Framework — Bottom-up first; SP DERIVED; output min-max range when likely ≥3d. Stack-agnostic. Baseline: 3-5yr dev, 6 productive hrs/day. AI estimate assumes Claude Code + project context.

Method:

1. Blast Radius pass (below) — drives code AND test cost
2. Decompose phases → hours/phase → bottom_up_hours = Σ phase_hours
3. likely_days = ceil(bottom_up_hours / 6) × productivity_factor
4. Sum Risk Margin (base + add-ons) → max_days = likely_days × (1 + margin)
5. min_days = likely_days × 0.9
6. Output as range when likely_days ≥3; single point allowed <3 (still record margin)
7. man_days_ai = same range × AI speedup
8. story_points DERIVED from likely_days via SP-Days — NEVER driver. Disagreement >50% → trust bottom-up

Productivity factor: 0.8 strong scaffolding+codegen+AI hooks · 1.0 mature default · 1.2 weak patterns · 1.5 greenfield

Cost Driver Heuristic (apply BEFORE work-type row):

• UI dominates in CRUD/business apps — 1.5-3x backend (states, validation, responsive, a11y, polish)
• Backend dominates ONLY: multi-aggregate invariants, cross-service contracts, schema migrations, heavy query/perf, new event flows

Reuse-vs-Create axis (PRIMARY lever, per layer):

| UI tier | Cost | | -------------------------------------------- | -------- | | Reuse component on existing screen | 0.1-0.3d | | Add control/column to existing screen | 0.3-0.8d | | Compose components into NEW screen | 1-2d | | NEW screen, custom layout/states/validation | 2-4d | | NEW shared/common component (themed, tested) | 3-6d+ |

| Backend tier | Cost | | ---------------------------------------------------- | --------- | | Reuse query/handler from new place | 0.1-0.3d | | Small update existing handler/entity | 0.3-0.8d | | NEW query on existing repo/model | 0.5-1d | | NEW command/handler on existing aggregate (additive) | 1-2d | | NEW aggregate/entity (repo, validation, events) | 2-4d | | NEW cross-service contract OR schema migration | 2-4d each | | Multi-aggregate invariant / heavy domain rule | 3-5d |

Rule: Sum tiers across UI+backend+tests, apply productivity factor. Reuse short-circuits tiers — call out.

Test-Scope drivers (compute test_count EXPLICITLY — "+tests" hand-wave is #1 failure):

| Driver | Count | | --------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------ | | Happy-path journeys | 1 per story / AC main flow | | State-machine transitions | reachable transitions × allowed actors | | Multi-entity state combos | state(A) × state(B) — REACHABLE only, not Cartesian | | Authorization matrix | (owner, non-owner, elevated, unauth) × each mutation | | Validation rules | 1 per required field / boundary / format / cross-field | | UI states (per new screen/dialog) | happy, loading, empty, error, partial — present only | | Negative paths / invariants | 1 per violatable business rule |

| Test tier (Trad, incl. setup+assert+flake) | Cost | | ------------------------------------------ | -------- | | 1-5 cases, fixtures reused | 0.3-0.5d | | 6-12 cases, 1 new fixture | 0.5-1d | | 13-25 cases, multi-entity setup | 1-2d | | 26-50 cases OR new state-machine coverage | 2-3d | | >50 cases OR full E2E journey | 3-5d |

Test multipliers: new fixture/seed harness +0.5d · cross-service/bus assertion +0.3d each · UI E2E ×1.5 · each new role +1-2 cases

Blast Radius (mandatory pre-pass — affects code AND test):

1. Files/components directly modified — count
2. Of those, "complex" (>500 LOC, multi-handler, central, frequently-modified) — count
3. Downstream consumers (callers, event subscribers, cross-service) — list
4. Shared/common code touched (multi-app blast) — yes/no
5. Regression scope — areas needing re-test

Rule: Complex touch → add risk_factors. Each downstream consumer → +1-3 regression cases. Blast >5 areas OR >2 complex → re-evaluate SPLIT before estimating.

Risk Margin (drives max bound):

| likely_days | Base margin | | ------------------- | ------------------------------- | | <1d trivial | +10% | | 1-2d small additive | +20% | | 3-4d real feature | +35% | | 5-7d large | +50% | | 8-10d very large | +75% | | >10d | +100% AND flag SHOULD SPLIT |

Risk-factor add-ons (additive — enumerate in risk_factors):

| Factor | +margin | | --------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | | touches-complex-existing-feature (>500 LOC, multi-handler, central) | +20% | | cross-service-contract change | +25% | | schema-migration-on-populated-data | +25% | | new-tech-or-unfamiliar-pattern | +30% | | regression-fan-out (≥3 downstream areas re-test) | +20% | | performance-or-latency-critical | +20% | | concurrency-race-event-ordering | +25% | | shared-common-code (multi-consumer/multi-app) | +25% | | unclear-requirements-or-design | +30% |

Collapse rule: total margin >100% → STOP, split (padding past 2x is dishonesty). Margin <15% on likely_days ≥5 → under-estimated, widen.

Work-Type Caps (hard ceilings on likely_days): | Work type | Max SP | Max likely | | --- | --- | --- | | Single field / config flag / style fix | 1 | 0.5d | | Add property to existing model + bind to existing UI | 2 | 1d | | Additive endpoint + minor UI control (button/menu/column), reuses fixtures | 3 | 2-3d | | Additive endpoint + NEW UI surface OR additive multi-layer + new domain rule + 2+ test files | 5 | 3-5d | | NEW model/aggregate OR migration OR cross-module contract OR heavy test (>1.5d) OR NEW UI + non-trivial backend | 8 | 5-7d | | NEW UI surface + (NEW aggregate OR migration OR cross-service contract) | 13 | SHOULD split | | Cross-service contract + migration combined | 13 | SHOULD split | | Beyond | 21 | MUST split |

SP→Days (validation only): 1=0.5d/0.25d · 2=1d/0.35d · 3=2d/0.65d · 5=4d/1.0d · 8=6d/1.5d · 13=10d/2.0d (Trad/AI likely) AI speedup: SP 1≈2x · 2-3≈3x · 5-8≈4x · 13+≈5x. AI cost = (code_gen × 1.3) + (test_gen × 1.3) (30% review overhead).

MANDATORY frontmatter:

story_points: <n>
complexity: low | medium | high | critical
man_days_traditional: '<min>-<max>d' # range when likely ≥3d; '<N>d' when <3d
man_days_ai: '<min>-<max>d'
risk_margin_pct: <n> # base + add-ons
risk_factors: [touches-complex-existing-feature, regression-fan-out] # closed-list from add-ons; [] if none
blast_radius:
    touched_areas: <n>
    complex_touched: <n>
    downstream_consumers: [list or count]
    shared_common_code: yes | no
estimate_scope_included: [code, integration-tests, frontend, i18n, docs]
estimate_scope_excluded: [unit-tests, e2e, perf, deployment, code-review-rounds]
estimate_reasoning: |
    5-7 lines covering:
    (a) UI tier — row applied
    (b) Backend tier — row applied
    (c) Test scope — case breakdown by driver, file count, fixtures, tier row
    (d) Cost driver — dominant tier + why
    (e) Blast radius — touched, complex, regression scope
    (f) Risk factors — list driving margin; why not larger/smaller
    Example: "UI: compose Form/Table/Dialog → NEW screen (~1.5d). Backend: NEW command on existing aggregate,
    reuses validation+repo (~1d). Tests: 4 transitions × 2 actors + 3 validation + 2 UI states = 13 cases,
    1 new fixture → tier 13-25 ~1.5d. Driver: UI composition + new states. Blast: 4 areas, 1 complex.
    Risk: base 35% + touches-complex +20% = 55% → max 3.9d → range 2.5-4d."

Sanity self-check:

• likely_days ≥3d and single-point? → reject, must be range
• Margin <15% on likely_days ≥5d? → under-estimated, widen
• Margin >100%? → STOP, split instead of buffer
• Complex existing feature touched, no regression budget in (c)? → reject
• Blast >5 areas OR >2 complex, no split discussion? → reject
• Purely additive on existing model AND existing UI? → cap SP 3 unless tests >1.5d
• NEW UI surface (page/complex form/dashboard)? → SP 5+ even if backend one endpoint
• Backend cross-service / migration / multi-aggregate? → SP 8+ regardless of UI
• bottom_up_hours / 6 vs SP-Days disagreement >50%? → trust bottom-up, downgrade SP
• Without tests, SP drops ≥1 bucket? → tests dominate; state explicitly
• Reasoning called out UI vs backend vs blast vs risk factors? → if missing, add

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 the current task list and re-read the phase file
5. On context compaction: call the current task list 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.

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.

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.

• MANDATORY MUST ATTENTION estimation: bottom-up phase hours drive man_days_traditional (Σh/6 × productivity_factor); SP DERIVED. UI cost usually dominates — bump SP one bucket if NEW UI surface (page/complex form/dashboard). Frontmatter MUST include story_points, complexity, man_days_traditional, man_days_ai, estimate_scope_included, estimate_scope_excluded, estimate_reasoning (UI vs backend cost driver). Cap SP 3 for additive-on-existing-model+existing-UI unless test scope >1.5d. SP 13 SHOULD split, SP 21 MUST split. <!-- /SYNC:estimation-framework:reminder -->

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION include ## Test Specifications with TC IDs per phase. Call the current task list before creating new tasks.

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

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

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

MUST ATTENTION apply sequential-thinking — multi-step Thought N/M, REVISION/BRANCH/HYPOTHESIS markers, confidence % closer; see $sequential-thinking skill.

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

• MANDATORY Bootstrap task tracking before target work; transition one task at a time.
• MANDATORY Persist plan/review findings to plans/reports/ incrementally and synthesize from disk.

• MANDATORY After task-tracking bootstrap and before target/source work, read required project-reference docs and cite Reference docs read: ....
• MANDATORY Always include lessons.md; project conventions override generic defaults.

• MANDATORY Parent workflow rows do not replace child phase tracking; expand phases and link the parent when nested.
• MANDATORY Orchestrators pre-expand child skill phases before invocation; use [N.M] $skill-name — phase prefixes and one-in_progress discipline.

Closing Reminders

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION break work into small todo tasks using task tracking BEFORE starting IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION search codebase for 3+ similar patterns before creating new code IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION cite file:line evidence for every claim (confidence >80% to act) IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION add a final review todo task to verify work quality IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION include Test Specifications section and story_points in plan frontmatter

[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.