Agent skill
why-review
[Code Quality] Validate design rationale completeness in plan files before implementation
Install this agent skill to your Project
npx add-skill https://github.com/duc01226/EasyPlatform/tree/main/.claude/skills/why-review
SKILL.md
[BLOCKING] This is a validation gate. MUST use
AskUserQuestionto present review findings and get user confirmation. Completing without asking at least one question is a violation.
[IMPORTANT] Use
TaskCreateto 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 ask user whether to skip.
Evidence-Based Reasoning — Speculation is FORBIDDEN. Every claim needs
file:lineproof. Confidence: >95% recommend freely, 80-94% with caveats, <80% DO NOT recommend — gather more evidence. Cross-service validation required for architectural changes. MUST READ.claude/skills/shared/evidence-based-reasoning-protocol.mdfor full protocol and checklists.
Double Round-Trip Review — Every review executes TWO full rounds: Round 1 builds understanding (normal review), Round 2 leverages accumulated context to catch what Round 1 missed. Round 2 is MANDATORY — never skip, never combine into single pass. MUST READ
.claude/skills/shared/double-round-trip-review-protocol.mdfor full protocol and checklists. Graph Impact Analysis — Usetrace --direction downstreamon changed files to find all impacted consumers, bus message handlers, event subscribers. Verify each needs updating. MUST READ.claude/skills/shared/graph-impact-analysis-protocol.mdfor full protocol and checklists.
Critical Purpose: Ensure quality — no flaws, no bugs, no missing updates, no stale content. Verify both code AND documentation.
External Memory: For complex or lengthy work (research, analysis, scan, review), write intermediate findings and final results to a report file in
plans/reports/— prevents context loss and serves as deliverable.
Evidence Gate: MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST — every claim, finding, and recommendation requires
file:lineproof or traced evidence with confidence percentage (>80% to act, <80% must verify first).
OOP & DRY Enforcement: MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST — flag duplicated patterns that should be extracted to a base class, generic, or helper. Classes in the same group or suffix (ex *Entity, *Dto, *Service, etc...) MUST inherit a common base (even if empty now — enables future shared logic and child overrides). Verify project has code linting/analyzer configured for the stack.
Quick Summary
Goal: Validate that a plan contains sufficient design rationale (WHY, not just WHAT) before implementation begins.
Applies to: Features and refactors only — bugfixes and trivial changes exempt.
Why this exists: AI code generation optimizes mechanics but misses conceptual quality. This skill ensures the human thinking happened before the mechanical coding starts.
Your Mission
Review Mindset (NON-NEGOTIABLE)
Be skeptical. Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence percentages (Idea should be more than 80%).
- Do NOT accept plan rationale at face value — verify alternatives were genuinely considered
- Every pass/fail must include evidence (section reference, specific text quoted)
- If rationale is vague or hand-wavy, flag it — "we chose X" without WHY is a fail
- Question assumptions: "Is this really the best approach?" → check if alternatives have real trade-offs listed
- Challenge completeness: "Are all risks identified?" → think about what could go wrong that isn't mentioned
- No "looks fine" without proof — state what you verified and how
Plan Resolution
- If arguments contain a path → use that plan directory
- Else check
## Plan Contextin injected context → use active plan path - If no plan found → tell user: "No active plan found. Run
/planor/plan-hardfirst."
Validation Checklist
Read the plan's plan.md and all phase-*.md files. Check each item below. Report pass/fail for each.
Required Sections (in plan.md or phase files)
| # | Section | What to Check | Pass Criteria |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Problem Statement | Clearly states WHAT problem is being solved | 2-3 sentences describing the problem |
| 2 | Alternatives Considered | 2+ approaches with pros/cons | Minimum 2 alternatives with trade-offs |
| 3 | Design Rationale | Explains WHY chosen approach over alternatives | Explicit reasoning linking decision to trade-offs |
| 4 | Risk Assessment | Risks identified with likelihood and impact | At least 1 risk per phase |
| 5 | Ownership | Clear who maintains code post-merge | Implicit OK (author owns), explicit better |
Optional (Flag if Missing, Don't Fail)
| # | Section | When Required |
|---|---|---|
| 6 | Operational Impact | Service-layer or API changes |
| 7 | Cross-Service Impact | Changes touching multiple microservices |
| 8 | Migration Strategy | Database schema or data changes |
Output Format
## Why-Review Results
**Plan:** {plan path}
**Date:** {date}
**Verdict:** PASS / NEEDS WORK
### Checklist
| # | Check | Status | Notes |
| --- | ----------------------- | ------ | --------- |
| 1 | Problem Statement | ✅/❌ | {details} |
| 2 | Alternatives Considered | ✅/❌ | {details} |
| 3 | Design Rationale | ✅/❌ | {details} |
| 4 | Risk Assessment | ✅/❌ | {details} |
| 5 | Ownership | ✅/❌ | {details} |
### Missing Items (if any)
- {specific item to add before implementation}
### Recommendation
{Proceed to /cook | Add missing sections first}
Round 2: Focused Re-Review (MANDATORY)
Protocol:
.claude/skills/shared/double-round-trip-review-protocol.md
After completing Round 1 checklist evaluation, execute a second full review round:
- Re-read the Round 1 verdict and checklist results
- Re-evaluate ALL checklist items — do NOT rely on Round 1 memory
- Challenge Round 1 PASS items: "Is this really PASS? Did I verify with evidence?"
- Focus on what Round 1 typically misses:
- Implicit assumptions that weren't validated
- Missing acceptance criteria coverage
- Edge cases not addressed in the artifact
- Cross-references that weren't verified
- Update verdict if Round 2 found new issues
- Final verdict must incorporate findings from BOTH rounds
Scope
- Applies to: Features, refactors, architectural changes
- Exempt: Bugfixes, config changes, single-file tweaks, documentation-only
- Enforcement: Advisory (soft warning) — does not block implementation
Important Notes
- Review only — do NOT modify plan files or implement changes
- Keep output concise — actionable in <2 minutes
- If plan is simple and clear, a short "PASS" is sufficient
Next Steps
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST after completing this skill, use AskUserQuestion to recommend:
- "/cook (Recommended)" — Begin implementation after design rationale is validated
- "/code" — If implementing a simpler change
- "Skip, continue manually" — user decides
Closing Reminders
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST break work into small todo tasks using TaskCreate BEFORE starting.
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST validate decisions with user via AskUserQuestion — never auto-decide.
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST add a final review todo task to verify work quality.
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST READ the following files before starting:
- MUST READ
.claude/skills/shared/evidence-based-reasoning-protocol.mdbefore starting - MUST READ
.claude/skills/shared/double-round-trip-review-protocol.mdbefore starting - MUST READ
.claude/skills/shared/graph-impact-analysis-protocol.mdbefore starting
Recommended Agent Skills
Expand your agent's capabilities with these related and highly-rated skills.
fix-parallel
[Implementation] Analyze & fix issues with parallel fullstack-developer agents
ask
[Utilities] Answer technical and architectural questions.
claude-code
[Utilities] Claude Code CLI setup, configuration, troubleshooting, and feature guidance. Triggers on claude code setup, hook not firing, MCP connection, context limit, skill creation, slash command setup.
workflow-deployment
[Workflow] Trigger Deployment & Infrastructure workflow — CI/CD pipelines, Docker, Kubernetes setup and deployment.
workflow-idea-to-pbi
[Workflow] Trigger Idea to PBI workflow — po/ba workflow: capture idea, refine to pbi, create stories, prioritize.
easy-claude-help
[Utilities] Configuration guide for the easy-claude framework — explain settings, guide users through configuring .ck.json.
Didn't find tool you were looking for?