@quybt93/pcgf 0.0.1

package/.agents/skills/bmad-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+---
+name: bmad-code-review
+description: 'Review code changes with several independent reviewers in parallel, then triage and present the findings. Use when the user says "run code review" or "review this code"'
+---
+
+# Code Review Workflow
+
+**Goal:** Review code changes adversarially. No noise, no filler.
+
+Subagents, when the capability is available, are an important part of this workflow. Use them as directed by the workflow steps.
+If you need an explicit user instruction to run them, ask once now for the whole workflow run.
+
+## Conventions
+
+- Bare paths (e.g. `checklist.md`) resolve from the skill root.
+- `{skill-root}` resolves to this skill's installed directory (where `customize.toml` lives).
+- `{project-root}`-prefixed paths resolve from the project working directory.
+- `{skill-name}` resolves to the skill directory's basename.
+
+## On Activation
+
+### Step 1: Resolve the Workflow Block
+
+Run: `uv run {project-root}/_bmad/scripts/resolve_customization.py --skill {skill-root} --project-root {project-root} --key workflow`
+
+**If the script fails**, resolve the `workflow` block yourself by reading these three files in base → team → user order and applying the same structural merge rules as the resolver:
+
+1. `{skill-root}/customize.toml` — defaults
+2. `{project-root}/_bmad/custom/{skill-name}.toml` — team overrides
+3. `{project-root}/_bmad/custom/{skill-name}.user.toml` — personal overrides
+
+Any missing file is skipped. Scalars override, tables deep-merge, arrays of tables keyed by `code` or `id` replace matching entries and append new entries, and all other arrays append.
+
+### Step 2: Execute Prepend Steps
+
+Execute each entry in `{workflow.activation_steps_prepend}` in order before proceeding.
+
+### Step 3: Load Persistent Facts
+
+Treat every entry in `{workflow.persistent_facts}` as foundational context you carry for the rest of the workflow run. Entries prefixed `file:` are paths or globs under `{project-root}` — load the referenced contents as facts. All other entries are facts verbatim.
+
+### Step 4: Load Config
+
+Load config from `{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/config.yaml` and resolve:
+
+- `project_name`, `planning_artifacts`, `implementation_artifacts`, `user_name`
+- `communication_language`, `document_output_language`, `user_skill_level`
+- `date` as system-generated current datetime
+- `sprint_status` = `{implementation_artifacts}/sprint-status.yaml`
+- `project_context` = `**/project-context.md` (load if exists)
+- YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT in your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+### Step 5: Greet the User
+
+Greet `{user_name}`, speaking in `{communication_language}`.
+
+### Step 6: Execute Append Steps
+
+Execute each entry in `{workflow.activation_steps_append}` in order.
+
+Activation is complete. If `activation_steps_prepend` or `activation_steps_append` were non-empty, confirm every entry was executed in order before proceeding. Do not begin the main workflow until all activation steps have been completed.
+
+## WORKFLOW ARCHITECTURE
+
+This uses **step-file architecture** for disciplined execution:
+
+- **Micro-file Design**: Each step is self-contained and followed exactly
+- **Just-In-Time Loading**: Only load the current step file
+- **Sequential Enforcement**: Complete steps in order, no skipping
+- **State Tracking**: Persist progress via in-memory variables
+- **Append-Only Building**: Build artifacts incrementally
+
+### Step Processing Rules
+
+1. **READ COMPLETELY**: Read the entire step file before acting
+2. **FOLLOW SEQUENCE**: Execute sections in order
+3. **WAIT FOR INPUT**: Halt at checkpoints and wait for human
+4. **LOAD NEXT**: When directed, read fully and follow the next step file
+
+### Critical Rules (NO EXCEPTIONS)
+
+- **NEVER** load multiple step files simultaneously
+- **ALWAYS** read entire step file before execution
+- **NEVER** skip steps or optimize the sequence
+- **ALWAYS** follow the exact instructions in the step file
+- **ALWAYS** halt at checkpoints and wait for human input
+
+## FIRST STEP
+
+Read fully and follow: `./steps/step-01-gather-context.md`

package/.agents/skills/bmad-code-review/customize.toml

@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
+# DO NOT EDIT -- overwritten on every update.
+#
+# Workflow customization surface for bmad-code-review. Mirrors the
+# agent customization shape under the [workflow] namespace.
+
+[workflow]
+
+# --- Configurable below. Overrides merge per BMad structural rules: ---
+#   scalars: override wins • arrays (persistent_facts, activation_steps_*): append
+#   arrays-of-tables with `code`/`id`: replace matching items, append new ones.
+
+# Steps to run before the standard activation (config load, greet).
+# Overrides append. Use for pre-flight loads, compliance checks, etc.
+
+activation_steps_prepend = []
+
+# Steps to run after greet but before the workflow begins.
+# Overrides append. Use for context-heavy setup that should happen
+# once the user has been acknowledged.
+
+activation_steps_append = []
+
+# Persistent facts the workflow keeps in mind for the whole run
+# (standards, compliance constraints, stylistic guardrails).
+# Distinct from the runtime memory sidecar — these are static context
+# loaded on activation. Overrides append.
+#
+# Each entry is either:
+#   - a literal sentence, e.g. "All stories must include testable acceptance criteria."
+#   - a file reference prefixed with `file:`, e.g. "file:{project-root}/docs/standards.md"
+#     (glob patterns are supported; the file's contents are loaded and treated as facts).
+
+persistent_facts = []
+
+# Scalar: executed when the workflow reaches its final step,
+# after review findings are presented and sprint status is synced. Override wins.
+# Leave empty for no custom post-completion behavior.
+
+on_complete = ""
+
+# Review layers for the review step. `instruction` is the layer's whole
+# execution recipe — subagents by default, but an override may run anything
+# (e.g. an external reviewer via bash). {diff_file} and {spec_file} are
+# substituted at run time; both are paths, and {diff_file} is the unified
+# diff file the layer reads. `when` (optional) gates a layer; empty
+# `instruction` disables it.
+
+[[workflow.review_layers]]
+id = "blind-hunter"
+name = "Blind Hunter"
+instruction = """
+Launch a context-free subagent with this prompt:
+
+Conduct a review of CONTENT.
+Look for what's missing, not only what's wrong.
+Compute your finding floor N from the diff file's size: N = min(floor(sqrt(kB) + 1), 10), where kB is the file's size in kilobytes. State the arithmetic in one line, then find at least N issues to fix or improve.
+Output a Markdown list of findings only — no severity, priority, or ranking.
+If the content is empty, stop and say so.
+If you have zero findings, re-check and keep thinking; do not stop with an empty list.
+
+CONTENT: the unified diff at `{diff_file}`. Read that file — it is the content under review.
+
+Do not invoke any skill, and do not spawn subagents of your own — you are the reviewer. Return your findings as text in your final message; do not route them through any findings-reporting tool the host may offer.
+
+"""
+
+[[workflow.review_layers]]
+id = "edge-case-hunter"
+name = "Edge Case Hunter"
+instruction = """
+Launch a context-free subagent with this prompt:
+
+Read `{skill-root}/review-prompts/edge-case-hunter.md` completely and follow it as your review instructions.
+
+claims_file (leave unread until your instructions call for it): {claims_file}
+
+Review content: the unified diff at `{diff_file}`. Read that file — it is the content under review.
+
+Do not invoke any skill, and do not spawn subagents of your own — you are the reviewer. If the instruction file is unreadable, report that exact failure and stop. Return your findings as text in your final message; do not route them through any findings-reporting tool the host may offer.
+
+"""
+
+[[workflow.review_layers]]
+id = "verification-gap"
+name = "Verification Gap Reviewer"
+instruction = """
+Launch a context-free subagent with this prompt:
+
+Read `{skill-root}/review-prompts/verification-gap.md` completely and follow it as your review instructions.
+
+Review content: the unified diff at `{diff_file}`. Read that file — it is the content under review.
+
+Do not invoke any skill, and do not spawn subagents of your own — you are the reviewer. If the instruction file is unreadable, report that exact failure and stop. Return your findings as text in your final message; do not route them through any findings-reporting tool the host may offer.
+
+"""
+
+[[workflow.review_layers]]
+id = "acceptance-auditor"
+name = "Acceptance Auditor"
+when = 'Only when {review_mode} = "full".'
+instruction = """
+Launch a subagent with this prompt:
+
+You are an Acceptance Auditor. Review the provided diff against `{spec_file}` and any loaded context docs. Check for: violations of acceptance criteria, deviations from spec intent, missing implementation of specified behavior, contradictions between spec constraints and actual code. Output findings as a Markdown list. Each finding: one-line title, which AC/constraint it violates, and evidence from the diff.
+
+Diff: the unified diff at `{diff_file}`. Read that file — it is the content under review.
+
+Do not invoke any skill, and do not spawn subagents of your own — you are the reviewer. Return your findings as text in your final message; do not route them through any findings-reporting tool the host may offer.
+
+"""

package/.agents/skills/bmad-code-review/references/claims-check.md

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+# Claims Check
+
+Final pass for the Edge Case Hunter — runs only when the message that launched you named a claims file. Read that file now, for the first time; the path tracing is finished and the claims cannot steer it retroactively.
+
+The file holds the change's own narrative — commit messages and any stated description. The narrative is the author's testimony, not evidence: a claim repeated in a code comment is still the same claim, not confirmation. Extract each checkable claim — what the change does, what it preserves, ordering, arithmetic, and parity with existing code ("exactly as X does") — then try to falsify each one against the code you have already traced. Where your trace is not enough to decide, read the code that decides it: the compared-to function, the actual callee, the state the claim assumes.
+
+Append one finding per falsified claim to the same JSON array, with the four standard fields plus:
+
+- `kind`: `"claim"`
+- `confidence`: `"high"`, `"medium"`, or `"low"`
+
+For a claim finding the standard fields read as: `location` = where the code contradicts the claim; `trigger_condition` = the claim, quoted or tightly paraphrased; `guard_snippet` = what the code actually does; `potential_consequence` = what goes wrong for someone who believed the claim.
+
+Verified claims produce nothing. Add nothing if nothing is falsified.

package/.agents/skills/bmad-code-review/references/deletion-check.md

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+# Deletion Check
+
+Secondary pass for the Edge Case Hunter — runs only when the diff removed meaningful code. Subordinate to the edge-case pass; findings are usually few or none.
+
+For each chunk of removed or replaced code (ignore pure renames and whitespace), ask: did it carry behavior or a contract that the change neither re-established nor intentionally retired? Add a finding for any resulting regression, orphaned reference, or newly-dead code. Skip anything already covered by your edge-case findings.
+
+Append each finding to the same JSON array as the edge-case findings, with the four standard fields plus:
+
+- `kind`: `"deletion"`
+- `confidence`: `"high"`, `"medium"`, or `"low"` — these are inferences; rate them
+
+For a deletion finding the standard fields read as: `location` = the removed item; `trigger_condition` = the behavior or contract it enforced; `guard_snippet` = where or how to re-establish it; `potential_consequence` = the regression or orphan.
+
+Add nothing if nothing qualifies.

package/.agents/skills/bmad-code-review/review-prompts/edge-case-hunter.md

@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
+# Edge Case Hunter Review
+
+**Goal:** You are a pure path tracer. Never comment on whether code is good or bad; only list missing handling.
+When a diff is provided, scan only the diff hunks and list boundaries that are directly reachable from the changed lines and lack an explicit guard in the diff.
+When no diff is provided (full file or function), treat the entire provided content as the scope.
+Ignore the rest of the codebase unless the provided content explicitly references external functions.
+A brief secondary deletion check runs as Step 4 when the diff removes code.
+A claims check runs as Step 5 when the launch message names a claims file.
+
+**Inputs:**
+- **content** — Content to review, or a path to read it from: diff, full file, or function
+- **also_consider** (optional) — Areas to keep in mind during review alongside normal edge-case analysis
+- **claims_file** (optional) — Path to the change's stated narrative. Do NOT read it before Step 5: the path tracing in Steps 2–3 must finish before the narrative is seen.
+
+**MANDATORY: Execute steps in the Execution section IN EXACT ORDER. DO NOT skip steps or change the sequence. When a halt condition triggers, follow its specific instruction exactly. Each action within a step is a REQUIRED action to complete that step.**
+
+**Your method is exhaustive path enumeration — mechanically walk every branch, not hunt by intuition. Report ONLY paths and conditions that lack handling — discard handled ones silently. Do NOT editorialize or add filler. Do not assign severity labels, rankings, or priority levels.**
+
+
+## EXECUTION
+
+### Step 1: Receive Content
+
+- Take the content to review from the parent message that launched you — inline, or by reading the file it points to (never from this instruction file)
+- If no content is supplied, or it is empty, unreadable, or cannot be decoded as text, return `[{"location":"N/A","trigger_condition":"Input empty or undecodable","guard_snippet":"Provide valid content to review","potential_consequence":"Review skipped — no analysis performed"}]` and stop
+- Identify content type (diff, full file, or function) to determine scope rules
+
+### Step 2: Exhaustive Path Analysis
+
+**Walk every branching path and boundary condition within scope — report only unhandled ones.**
+
+- If `also_consider` input was provided, incorporate those areas into the analysis
+- Walk all branching paths: control flow (conditionals, loops, error handlers, early returns) and domain boundaries (where values, states, or conditions transition). Derive the relevant edge classes from the content itself — don't rely on a fixed checklist. Examples: missing else/default, unguarded inputs, off-by-one loops, arithmetic overflow, implicit type coercion, race conditions, timeout gaps
+- Consider implicit branches: the diff special-cases or changes the handling of one or more members of a fixed set of values — enums, status codes, sentinels, type tags, flags, value ranges. The rest of the set is implicit branches (e.g. the diff changes the `RED` and `YELLOW` cases of a `RED`/`YELLOW`/`GREEN` enum; `GREEN` is the implicit branch)
+- Consider handle lifetime: when the changed code re-checks, re-fetches, or re-validates something it already held — a handle, index, id, pointer — the re-check exists because an intervening call can invalidate it. Identify that call, what it does to the thing held, and what the changed code silently skips when the re-check fails
+- For each call site the diff adds or changes — in test files as well as production code — read the callee's declaration and check the call against it: argument count, order, types, and defaults. Report any mismatch
+- For each path: determine whether the content handles it
+- Collect only the unhandled paths as findings — discard handled ones silently
+
+### Step 3: Validate Completeness
+
+- Revisit every edge class from Step 2 — e.g., missing else/default, null/empty inputs, off-by-one loops, arithmetic overflow, implicit type coercion, race conditions, timeout gaps
+- Add any newly found unhandled paths to findings; discard confirmed-handled ones
+
+### Step 4: Deletion Check
+
+If the diff removed or replaced meaningful code (ignore pure renames and whitespace): load `references/deletion-check.md` and follow it.
+
+### Step 5: Claims Check
+
+If the launch message provided a `claims_file` path and the file exists and is non-empty: load `references/claims-check.md` and follow it.
+
+### Step 6: Present Findings
+
+Output all findings as a single JSON array following the Output Format specification exactly.
+
+
+## OUTPUT FORMAT
+
+Return ONLY a valid JSON array of objects. Each edge-case finding contains exactly these four fields:
+
+```json
+[{
+  "location": "file:start-end (or file:line when single line, or file:hunk when exact line unavailable)",
+  "trigger_condition": "one-line description (max 15 words)",
+  "guard_snippet": "minimal code sketch that closes the gap (single-line escaped string, no raw newlines or unescaped quotes)",
+  "potential_consequence": "what could actually go wrong (max 15 words)"
+}]
+```
+
+No extra text, no explanations, no markdown wrapping. An empty array `[]` is valid when nothing is found. Deletion findings from Step 4 and claim findings from Step 5, if any, go in the same array with the extra fields defined in `references/deletion-check.md` and `references/claims-check.md`.
+
+
+## HALT CONDITIONS
+
+- If no content is supplied, or it is empty, unreadable, or cannot be decoded as text, return `[{"location":"N/A","trigger_condition":"Input empty or undecodable","guard_snippet":"Provide valid content to review","potential_consequence":"Review skipped — no analysis performed"}]` and stop
+<reference path="references/deletion-check.md">
+# Deletion Check
+
+Secondary pass for the Edge Case Hunter — runs only when the diff removed meaningful code. Subordinate to the edge-case pass; findings are usually few or none.
+
+For each chunk of removed or replaced code (ignore pure renames and whitespace), ask: did it carry behavior or a contract that the change neither re-established nor intentionally retired? Add a finding for any resulting regression, orphaned reference, or newly-dead code. Skip anything already covered by your edge-case findings.
+
+Append each finding to the same JSON array as the edge-case findings, with the four standard fields plus:
+
+- `kind`: `"deletion"`
+- `confidence`: `"high"`, `"medium"`, or `"low"` — these are inferences; rate them
+
+For a deletion finding the standard fields read as: `location` = the removed item; `trigger_condition` = the behavior or contract it enforced; `guard_snippet` = where or how to re-establish it; `potential_consequence` = the regression or orphan.
+
+Add nothing if nothing qualifies.
+</reference>
+<reference path="references/claims-check.md">
+# Claims Check
+
+Final pass for the Edge Case Hunter — runs only when the message that launched you named a claims file. Read that file now, for the first time; the path tracing is finished and the claims cannot steer it retroactively.
+
+The file holds the change's own narrative — commit messages and any stated description. The narrative is the author's testimony, not evidence: a claim repeated in a code comment is still the same claim, not confirmation. Extract each checkable claim — what the change does, what it preserves, ordering, arithmetic, and parity with existing code ("exactly as X does") — then try to falsify each one against the code you have already traced. Where your trace is not enough to decide, read the code that decides it: the compared-to function, the actual callee, the state the claim assumes.
+
+Append one finding per falsified claim to the same JSON array, with the four standard fields plus:
+
+- `kind`: `"claim"`
+- `confidence`: `"high"`, `"medium"`, or `"low"`
+
+For a claim finding the standard fields read as: `location` = where the code contradicts the claim; `trigger_condition` = the claim, quoted or tightly paraphrased; `guard_snippet` = what the code actually does; `potential_consequence` = what goes wrong for someone who believed the claim.
+
+Verified claims produce nothing. Add nothing if nothing is falsified.
+</reference>
+
+## CONTENT SOURCE
+
+"Review content:" in the message that launched you gives the content itself or a path to read it from. Read the file when it is a path; either way that is the content under review, and this instruction file never is.

package/.agents/skills/bmad-code-review/review-prompts/verification-gap.md

@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+# Verification Gap Review
+
+**Goal:** Find changed behavior that could break without reliable verification catching it. Ask one question — "if the behavior this change is supposed to produce broke where it's actually used, would verification fail?" Do not hunt for correctness bugs, but report genuine problems you notice while tracing verification.
+
+The main verification gap shapes are:
+
+1. **Regression gap:** the changed code regresses where it's used, and no test covering that use would fail.
+2. **Missing-adoption gap:** a place that should now use the new behavior doesn't; it handles the same case its own way, or not at all, and no test would flag the omission.
+3. **Broken-verification gap:** a test appears to cover the changed behavior, but would not actually protect it because it is skipped, flaky, not run in the normal verification path, or too weak to observe the regression.
+
+## Evidence Rules
+
+- Read a test before claiming what it covers, runs, asserts, or misses.
+- Before claiming no test exists, search the whole repo by the symbol under test and by import references; expected file locations are not enough.
+- Never assert what you did not verify. If a finding cannot be grounded, drop it.
+- In a finding, say what you actually checked — "none of the tests I read cover this" — and show how far you looked. Say a test doesn't exist anywhere only when the symbol/import-reference search actually shows that.
+- Do not assign severity, confidence, priority, or ranking.
+
+## Review Sequence
+
+### Step 1: Screen for behavioral change
+
+Screen each part of the change separately. If a part is non-behavioral, skip it. Call a part non-behavioral only when the changed code does not alter return values, thrown errors, caller-visible side effects, or observable state (including iteration order and emitted messages). Once a part meets that test, move on; do not inspect callers or tests for extra confirmation.
+
+Common non-behavioral examples: formatting, comments, whitespace; pure renames; trivial getters/setters and pass-throughs; type-only or compiler-enforced changes with no runtime effect; etc.
+
+Only outcomes produced by deterministic code are worth automatically testing; tests are useless on static source text and brittle on LLM output. Skip those parts.
+
+If every part is skipped, output the clean result (see Output Format).
+
+### Step 2: Find the behavior that changed
+
+Identify what behavior changed compared to the previous version: output, side effect, branch, error path, schema/event shape, config default, validation/authorization rule, external contract, etc. If the change affects more than one behavior, handle each separately.
+
+Treat broad-impact changes as behavioral even when no single changed line looks important: dependency, toolchain, build/config, data-file, etc.
+
+### Step 3: Trace where that behavior is used
+
+Trace the changed behavior to the places that observe it. Start with direct callers and registered entry points (routes, commands, DI), contract consumers (schemas, events, APIs, database readers), and reverse-dependency info if already available.
+
+Follow a path only while the changed behavior is reachable and unverified. Stop when a test at that boundary would fail, the consumer does not observe the changed behavior, or the next hop is guesswork (dynamic dispatch, reflection, outside-repo consumers, etc.). Prefer the nearest observable boundary, often one to three hops away, especially across contract, integration, or service edges. If there are more than five similar consumers, group obvious repeats and check representative paths; expand only when a consumer observes the behavior differently.
+
+### Step 4: Qualify the consumer, then check its test
+
+For each consumer, name the smallest realistic regression this consumer would observe: invert the branch, drop the default, omit the field, return the old error code, skip the integration call, etc. This is the Demonstration. If no such regression exists, drop the path; untested downstream code is not a finding.
+
+A `Missing-adoption gap` qualifies not by the adoption failure alone but by a supersession signal: the change gives clear evidence the new behavior is meant to replace the local one — PR intent, naming or docs, a replaced sibling site, deleted duplicate logic, or a test defining the new rule — and the local site shares the same observable contract. Without a supersession signal and a shared observable contract, it is a refactor suggestion, not a verification-gap finding. Once both hold, check whether any test for that site would flag the non-adoption; missing coverage of the non-adoption is the gap itself, not a disqualifier.
+
+Find and read the relevant test. Ask whether the Demonstration would make an assertion fail.
+
+- If yes, the behavior is verified. No finding.
+- For a regression-style Demonstration: if no test runs the path, the test is skipped/flaky/not run normally, or the test runs the code without checking the changed result, report a `Regression gap` or `Broken-verification gap`.
+- For a qualifying Missing-adoption case: if none of the site tests you found assert it adopts the new behavior, report a `Missing-adoption gap`.
+
+A test counts only if it runs normally and an assertion observes the changed output, branch, or contract. These do not count: no execution; source-text assertions that match a file's wording instead of running it; success/no-throw/snapshot-only checks; mock/log-call checks; human-only checks; tests that mock away the integration; e2e tests that pass through without checking the changed output; stale assertions or fixtures.
+
+For example, `expect(x ?? DEFAULT).toBe(DEFAULT)` passes when `x` is missing.
+
+Common patterns:
+
+- **Caller-path gap** — helper test covers the branch, but caller values skip it.
+- **Contract drift** — payload/schema/event changes must be verified at the consumer.
+- **Migration compatibility** — tests only create new-format rows or fresh schemas.
+- **Phantom exception** — handled partial-failure path has no test.
+- **Missing-adoption gap** — sibling site should use the new rule/helper and does not.
+- **Removed verification** — deleted test or weakened assertion leaves behavior unpinned; removing a source-text assertion is not this, since it never counted.
+
+### Step 5: Confirm each finding is real
+
+Before writing a finding, re-open the specific tests or search results the finding relies on. Verify the Demonstration would not make any test you checked fail, or that the absence claim is backed by the symbol/import-reference search. Do not claim more than you verified; drop any finding you cannot ground.
+
+Explain why the test misses the bug using what the test sets up and checks.
+
+Do not report: compiler/type-checker-enforced cases; behavior already verified by an integration, contract, or e2e test; implementation-detail or mock-only tests; low coverage or a missing test file by itself; legacy untested code the change did not affect.
+
+Report genuine problems you noticed while tracing verification, even if they are not verification gaps. Put them under `Other findings` in the output. This permits reporting what you already reached, not extra hunting. A claim that code misbehaves is a defect, not a gap — it goes under `Other findings` for standard triage, however you found it.
+
+## OUTPUT FORMAT
+
+Emit each verification-gap finding as one block. No general advice, no severity or confidence. Triage trusts a gap finding as filed and does not re-verify it, so each block must stand on its own evidence.
+
+```markdown
+### <one-line title naming the gap>
+
+- **Changed surface:** the exact behavior or contract that changed — `file:line`.
+- **Impacted consumer or site:** named concretely with `file:line` (e.g. "the `createInvoice` mutation used by the billing dashboard at `billing/dashboard.ts:88`," not "callers of this function").
+- **Existing test evidence:**
+  - `Regression gap`: what the relevant test actually asserts, with `file:line`; or, if none, the symbol/import-reference searches run and their result.
+  - `Missing-adoption gap`: tests for the impacted site, and whether any assert it adopts the new behavior.
+  - `Broken-verification gap`: the apparent test or verification path, and why it does not count.
+- **Missing verification:** the precise assertion or check that's absent.
+- **Demonstration:**
+  - `Regression gap` / `Broken-verification gap`: the concrete regression that would ship undetected, and why the tests you checked would not fail.
+  - `Missing-adoption gap`: the case the site mishandles by not adopting the new behavior, and that none of the tests you read assert adoption.
+- **Consequence:** the concrete thing that ships wrong — a regression the checked evidence would not catch, or a site that should use the new behavior and doesn't.
+- **Disposition:** `patch` — name the test to add, fit to the repo's own way of verifying (don't impose a generic test pyramid) — or `defer` when the gap is real but not worth closing as part of this change, with one sentence of why.
+```
+
+If you noticed genuine non-gap problems while tracing verification, append:
+
+```markdown
+## Other findings
+
+- <description only; no severity, confidence, priority, or ranking>
+```
+
+When you find no verification gaps and no other findings, output exactly this single line, not an empty response:
+
+`No verification gaps found.`
+
+## CONTENT SOURCE
+
+"Review content:" in the message that launched you gives the content itself or a path to read it from. Read the file when it is a path; either way that is the content under review, and this instruction file never is. If no content is supplied, or it is empty or unreadable, stop with exactly: `No verification gaps found.`

package/.agents/skills/bmad-code-review/steps/step-01-gather-context.md

@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+---
+diff_file: '' # set at runtime: path to the diff file
+claims_file: '' # set at runtime (path or empty)
+spec_file: '' # set at runtime (path or empty)
+review_mode: '' # set at runtime: full or no-spec
+story_key: '' # set at runtime when discovered from sprint status
+---
+
+# Step 1: Gather Context
+
+## RULES
+
+- YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT in your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+- The prompt that triggered this workflow IS the intent — not a hint.
+- Writing `{diff_file}` and the claims file is the only change this step may make. Otherwise it is read-only.
+
+## INSTRUCTIONS
+
+1. **Find the review target.** The conversation context before this skill was triggered IS your starting point — not a blank slate. Check in this order — stop as soon as the review target is identified:
+
+   **Tier 1 — Explicit argument.**
+   Did the user pass a PR, commit SHA, branch, spec file, or diff source this message?
+   - PR reference → resolve to branch/commit via `gh pr view`. If resolution fails, ask for a SHA or branch.
+   - Commit or branch → use directly.
+   - Spec file → set `spec_file` to the provided path. Check its frontmatter for `baseline_commit`. If found, use as diff baseline. If not found, continue the cascade (a spec alone does not identify a diff source).
+   - Also scan the argument for diff-mode keywords that narrow the scope:
+     - "staged" / "staged changes" → Staged changes only
+     - "uncommitted" / "working tree" / "all changes" → Uncommitted changes (staged + unstaged)
+     - "branch diff" / "vs main" / "against main" / "compared to <branch>" → Branch diff (extract base branch if mentioned)
+     - "commit range" / "last N commits" / "<from-sha>..<to-sha>" → Specific commit range
+     - "this diff" / "provided diff" / "paste" → User-provided diff (do not match bare "diff" — it appears in other modes)
+   - When multiple keywords match, prefer the most specific (e.g., "branch diff" over bare "diff").
+
+   **Tier 2 — Recent conversation.**
+   Do the last few messages reveal what the user wants to be reviewed? Look for spec paths, commit refs, branches, PRs, or descriptions of a change. Apply the same diff-mode keyword scan and routing as Tier 1.
+
+   **Tier 3 — Sprint tracking.**
+   Look for a sprint status file (`*sprint-status*`) in `{implementation_artifacts}` or `{planning_artifacts}`. If found, scan for stories with status `review`:
+   - **Exactly one `review` story:** Set `story_key` to the story's key (e.g., `1-2-user-auth`). HALT and give the user a choice:
+     - **Review this story** — review the detected story `<story-id>` (status `review`).
+     - **Choose another target** — pick a different review target.
+     If the user chooses **Review this story**, use the story context to determine the diff source (branch name derived from story slug, or uncommitted changes). If they choose **Choose another target**, clear `story_key` and fall through.
+   - **Multiple `review` stories:** Present them as numbered options alongside a manual choice option. Wait for user selection. If a story is selected, set `story_key` and use its context to determine the diff source. If manual choice is selected, clear `story_key` and fall through.
+   - **None:** Fall through.
+
+   **Tier 4 — Current git state.**
+   If version control is unavailable, skip to Tier 5. Otherwise, check the current branch and HEAD. If the branch is not `main` (or the default branch), confirm: "I see HEAD is `<short-sha>` on `<branch>` — do you want to review this branch's changes?" If confirmed, treat as a branch diff against `main`. If declined, fall through.
+
+   **Tier 5 — Ask.**
+   Fall through to instruction 2.
+
+   Never ask extra questions beyond what the cascade prescribes. If a tier above already identified the target, skip the remaining tiers and proceed to instruction 3 (construct diff).
+
+2. HALT. Ask the user: **What do you want to review?** Present these options:
+   - **Uncommitted changes** (staged + unstaged)
+   - **Staged changes only**
+   - **Branch diff** vs a base branch (ask which base branch)
+   - **Specific commit range** (ask for the range)
+   - **Provided diff or file list** (user pastes or provides a path)
+
+3. Write the diff for the chosen source to `{diff_file}` — a uniquely-named file in the system temp directory, so concurrent reviews cannot collide. The review layers read that file; the diff text is never pasted into their prompts.
+   - For **staged changes only**: run `git diff --cached > {diff_file}`.
+   - For **uncommitted changes** (staged + unstaged): run `git diff HEAD > {diff_file}`.
+   - For **branch diff**: verify the base branch exists, then run `git diff <base-branch>...HEAD > {diff_file}`. If it does not exist, HALT and ask the user for a valid branch.
+   - For **commit range**: verify the range resolves, then run `git diff <range> > {diff_file}`. If it does not resolve, HALT and ask the user for a valid range.
+   - For **provided diff**: validate the content is non-empty and parseable as a unified diff. If it is not parseable, HALT and ask the user to provide a valid diff. Write the validated diff to `{diff_file}`.
+   - For **file list**: validate each path exists in the working tree. Run `git diff HEAD -- <path1> <path2> ... > {diff_file}`. If any paths are untracked (new files not yet staged), append them with `git diff --no-index /dev/null <path> >> {diff_file}`. If the diff is empty (files have no uncommitted changes and are not untracked), ask the user whether to review the full file contents or to specify a different baseline.
+   - After writing `{diff_file}`, verify it is non-empty regardless of source type. If empty, HALT and tell the user there is nothing to review.
+   - Read `{diff_file}` yourself whenever you need the diff for your own context — triage and presentation later in this workflow.
+
+4. **Stage the claims file.** Collect the change's own narrative: for a branch diff or commit range, the commit messages it covers (`git log <base>..<head>`); for other sources, whatever description of the change the user or conversation supplied. Write it verbatim to a uniquely-named file in the system temp directory and set `claims_file` to its path. If there is no narrative, set `claims_file` = `''`. Do not analyze or summarize the narrative — it is input for one review layer, staged as a file precisely so the other layers never see it.
+
+5. **Set the spec context.**
+   - If the triggering request or recent conversation **explicitly** states there is no spec (e.g. "no spec", "without a spec", "no-spec"): set `review_mode` = `no-spec` and clear `spec_file` (set it to `''`). Do **not** ask for a spec. Do **not** infer no-spec mode merely because the invocation omitted a spec path.
+   - Else if `spec_file` is already set (from Tier 1 or Tier 2): verify the file exists and is readable, then set `review_mode` = `full`.
+   - Else (neither a spec path nor an explicit no-spec declaration is present): ask the user to choose:
+     1. Provide a spec or story file path for context; or
+     2. Continue without a spec.
+     - If the user provides a path: set `spec_file` to that path, verify the file exists and is readable, then set `review_mode` = `full`.
+     - If the user explicitly chooses to continue without a spec: set `review_mode` = `no-spec`.
+
+6. If `review_mode` = `full` and the file at `{spec_file}` has a `context` field in its frontmatter listing additional docs, load each referenced document. Warn the user about any docs that cannot be found.
+
+7. Sanity check: if `wc -l {diff_file}` exceeds approximately 3000 lines, warn the user and offer to chunk the review by file group.
+   - If the user opts to chunk: agree on the first group, rebuild `{diff_file}` narrowed to that group, and list the remaining groups for the user to note for follow-up runs.
+   - If the user declines: proceed as-is with the full diff.
+
+### CHECKPOINT
+
+Present a summary before proceeding: diff stats (files changed, lines added/removed), `{review_mode}`, and loaded spec/context docs (if any). HALT and wait for user confirmation to proceed.
+
+## NEXT
+
+Read fully and follow `./step-02-review.md`

package/.agents/skills/bmad-code-review/steps/step-02-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+---
+failed_layers: '' # set at runtime: comma-separated list of layers that failed or returned empty
+---
+
+# Step 2: Review
+
+## RULES
+
+- YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT in your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+- All review subagents must run at the same model capability as the current session.
+- Run subagents synchronously: launch them together as blocking calls awaited in this turn — never backgrounded or detached, never ending the turn to await results.
+
+## INSTRUCTIONS
+
+1. The review layers are `{workflow.review_layers}`, resolved during activation.
+
+2. For each layer in `{workflow.review_layers}`:
+   - `instruction` empty or missing → drop the layer silently (an override disabled it).
+   - `when` condition present and not satisfied by the current context (`{review_mode}`, `{spec_file}`) → drop the layer and tell the user, e.g. "Acceptance Auditor skipped — no spec file provided."
+   - otherwise → the layer is active.
+
+   If no layer is active, HALT with status `blocked` and blocking condition `no active review layers`.
+
+3. Announce skipped layers first, then launch every active layer before handling any layer's result. Try running all active layers simultaneously: expand `{skill-root}` in each layer's `instruction` to this skill's absolute installed directory, then substitute the runtime placeholders (`{diff_file}`, `{claims_file}`, `{spec_file}`). `{diff_file}` is a path: substitute the path itself and let the layer read the file — a launch prompt never carries diff text. For an instruction that launches a reviewer subagent, launch that child with the prompt text after placeholder substitution; do not load the reviewer instruction file yourself. For any other customized instruction, execute it as written. Do not leave `{skill-root}` unresolved in a child prompt, and resolve `{diff_file}` to an absolute path — the child's working directory is not yours. If a layer's instruction requires subagents and subagents are not available, for each such layer write under `{implementation_artifacts}` that layer's child prompt with everything after its content label replaced by the contents of `{diff_file}` (not a path-only pointer) — that session may not share this filesystem, so its prompt must be self-contained. Then HALT. Ask the user to run each in a separate session (ideally a different LLM) and paste back the findings. When findings are pasted, treat them as those layers' findings and resume from this point. This is the only allowed parent-side read of a reviewer instruction file.
+
+4. **Layer failure handling**: If any layer fails, times out, or returns empty results, append the layer's `name` to `failed_layers` (comma-separated) and proceed with findings from the remaining layers.
+
+5. Collect all findings from the completed layers, keeping track of each finding's originating layer `id`.
+
+## NEXT
+
+Read fully and follow `./step-03-triage.md`