SuperAPI AI Directory
Partner with us中文AI newsFavorites
Skillsfix-test

fix-test

Testing & quality

View repository

Updated 10-15 21:35

About this skill

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 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: Run test suites, analyze failures, and fix the underlying code or test issues.

Workflow:

  1. Run — Execute test suite and capture results
  2. Analyze — Identify failing tests, classify as code bug vs test issue
  3. Fix — Apply targeted fix to code or test

Key Rules:

  • Debug Mindset: every claim needs file:line evidence
  • Distinguish between code bugs and flawed test expectations
  • Run tests again after fix to confirm all pass

Analyze the skills catalog and activate the skills that are needed for the task during the process.

Debug Mindset (NON-NEGOTIABLE)

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

  • Verify each hypothesis against an actual code trace before acting — never assume the first hypothesis is correct — why: the first guess is often the nearest-attention trap, not the cause
  • Every root cause claim must include file:line evidence
  • If you cannot prove a root cause with a code trace, state "hypothesis, not confirmed"
  • Question assumptions: "Is this really the cause?" → trace the actual execution path
  • Challenge completeness: "Are there other contributing factors?" → check related code paths
  • No "should fix it" without proof — verify the fix addresses the traced root cause

⚠️ MANDATORY: Confidence & Evidence Gate

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION declare Confidence: X% with evidence list + file:line proof for EVERY claim. 95%+ recommend freely | 80-94% with caveats | 60-79% list unknowns | <60% STOP — gather more evidence.

⚠️ Validate Before Fix (NON-NEGOTIABLE): After root cause analysis + plan creation, MUST ATTENTION present findings + proposed fix to user via a direct user question and get explicit approval BEFORE any code changes. No silent fixes.

Reported Issues:

$ARGUMENTS

Workflow:

  1. Use tester subagent to compile the code and fix all syntax errors if any.
  2. Use tester subagent to run the tests and report back to main agent.
    • External Memory: Write test failure analysis to .ai/workspace/analysis/{test-issue}.analysis.md. Re-read before fixing.
  3. If there are issues or failed tests, use debugger subagent to find the root cause of the issues, then report back to main agent.
  4. Use planner subagent to create an implementation plan based on the reports, then report back to main agent.
  5. 🛑 Present root cause + fix plan → a direct user question → wait for user approval.
  6. Use main agent to implement the plan step by step.
  7. Use tester agent to test the fix and make sure it works, then report back to main agent.
  8. Use code-reviewer subagent to quickly review the code changes and make sure it meets requirements, then report back to main agent.
  9. If there are issues or failed tests, repeat from step 2.
  10. After finishing, respond back to user with a summary of the changes and explain everything briefly, guide user to get started and suggest the next steps.
  • After fixing, MUST ATTENTION run $prove-fix — build code proof traces per change with confidence scores. Never skip.

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

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

  • docs/project-reference/integration-test-reference.md — Integration test patterns, fixture setup, seeder conventions, lessons learned (MUST READ before reviewing/writing integration tests)

  • docs/specs/ — Test specifications by module (read existing TCs for expected behavior context when diagnosing failures)

Skill Variant: Variant of $fix — test suite failure diagnosis and resolution.

End-to-Start Debugger Trace — For non-trivial bugs, failed verification, regression fixes, behavior-changing code, or unclear code flow, start from the observed final state and walk backward before proposing a fix.

  1. Frame 0: observed end state — Name the exact user-visible output, failing assertion, log line, persisted value, API response, rendered UI, or aggregate bucket. Record the reader/query/renderer that produced it with file:line evidence.
  2. Walk backward one hop at a time — Trace final reader -> projection/cache/storage -> writer -> consumer/handler/job -> producer/caller -> original trigger. At every hop record: input, transformation, output, owner, and evidence.
  3. Enumerate all feeder paths — Find every upstream producer/caller/event/job that can write into the final path, including retry, async, cache, background, and alternate UI/API paths. Mark each path verified, ruled out, or still unknown.
  4. Build the hypothesis matrix — For each plausible cause, list evidence for, evidence against, how to reproduce/verify, blast radius, and status (primary, contributing, ruled out, latent). Do not fix until competing causes are explicitly resolved or bounded.
  5. Choose the owning fix layer — Identify the invariant owner and the lowest shared point that protects all downstream consumers. A fix at the symptom site is rejected unless the symptom site owns the invariant.
  6. Prove convergence forward — After choosing the fix, walk start -> end again and show how the corrected state reaches the observed final output. Map each root cause to a fix part and each fix part to a test/proof.

BLOCKED until: final state named · backward trace written · all feeder paths enumerated · hypothesis matrix completed · owning fix layer justified · forward convergence proof mapped to tests.

NEVER: Start at the first suspicious code path. Collapse multiple producers into one "flow". Treat duplicate symptoms as duplicate records without proving the read model. Skip ruled-out hypotheses.

Source/test drift check. For coding, fix, debug, investigation, test, or review work: when source behavior changes, inspect affected unit/integration/E2E tests and decide from evidence whether tests should change to match intended behavior or the source change is an unintended bug to fix. Do not write tests for migration code; schema/data migrations are one-time execution paths, not core application logic.

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.

Root Cause Debugging — Systematic approach, never guess-and-check.

  1. Reproduce — Confirm the issue exists with evidence (error message, stack trace, screenshot)
  2. Isolate — Narrow to specific file/function/line using binary search + graph trace
  3. Trace — Follow data flow from input to failure point. Read actual code, don't infer.
  4. Hypothesize — Form theory with confidence %. State what evidence supports/contradicts it
  5. Verify — Test hypothesis with targeted grep/read. One variable at a time.
  6. Fix — Address root cause, not symptoms. Verify fix doesn't break callers via graph connections

NEVER: Guess without evidence. Fix symptoms instead of cause. Skip reproduction step.

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.

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. — why: long context drifts from the file; the file is ground truth
  7. NEVER invent new patterns when existing ones work — match exactly or document deviation. — why: divergent patterns fragment the codebase and slow every future reader

BLOCKED until: - [ ] Read target files - [ ] Grep 3+ patterns - [ ] Graph trace (if graph.db exists) - [ ] Assumptions verified with evidence

Evidence-Based Reasoning — Speculation is FORBIDDEN. Every claim needs proof.

  1. Cite file:line, grep results, or framework docs for EVERY claim
  2. Declare confidence: >80% act freely, 60-80% verify first, <60% DO NOT recommend
  3. Cross-service validation required for architectural changes
  4. "I don't have enough evidence" is valid and expected output

BLOCKED until: - [ ] Evidence file path (file:line) - [ ] Grep search performed - [ ] 3+ similar patterns found - [ ] Confidence level stated

Forbidden without proof: "obviously", "I think", "should be", "probably", "this is because" If incomplete → output: "Insufficient evidence. Verified: [...]. Not verified: [...]."

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
  • MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION search 3+ existing patterns and read code BEFORE any modification. Run graph trace when graph.db exists.
  • MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION cite file:line evidence for every claim. Confidence >80% to act, <60% = do NOT recommend.
  • 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.

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

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

  • 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.

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION debugger trace gate: for non-trivial bug/fix/investigation/review work, start at the observed final output and trace backward through reader -> storage/projection -> writer -> consumer/job -> producer/trigger. Enumerate all feeder paths and hypotheses before fixing. BLOCKED until trace, hypothesis matrix, owning fix layer, and forward convergence proof exist.

  • 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

  • MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION break work into small todo tasks using task tracking BEFORE starting
  • MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION search codebase for 3+ similar patterns before creating new code
  • MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION cite file:line evidence for every claim (confidence >80% to act)
  • MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION add a final review todo task to verify work quality
  • MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION STOP after 3 failed fix attempts — report outcomes, ask user before #4 MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION READ the following files before starting:

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

Hookless Prompt Protocol Mirror (Auto-Synced)

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

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

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. Any supported AI tool may execute when this shared context and local docs are available.

  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 unless the user explicitly invoked a workflow/skill and the local protocol treats explicit invocation as confirmation:
    • 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. 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.

[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.