bmad-method-quarkus 1.0.0

package/src/bmm-skills/ship/bmad-checkpoint-preview/step-02-walkthrough.md

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+# Step 2: Walkthrough
+
+Display: `Orientation → [Walkthrough] → Detail Pass → Testing`
+
+## Follow Global Step Rules in SKILL.md
+
+- Organize by **concern**, not by file. A concern is a cohesive design intent — e.g., "input validation," "state management," "API contract." One file may appear under multiple concerns; one concern may span multiple files.
+- The walkthrough activates **design judgment**, not correctness checking. Frame each concern as "here's what this change does and why" — the human evaluates whether it's the right approach for the system.
+
+## BUILD THE WALKTHROUGH
+
+### Identify Concerns
+
+**With Suggested Review Order** (`full-trail` mode — the normal path, including when step-01 generated a trail):
+
+1. Read the Suggested Review Order stops from the spec (or from conversation context if generated by step-01 fallback).
+2. Resolve each stop to a file in the current repo. Output in `path:line` format per the standing rule.
+3. Read the diff to understand what each stop actually does.
+4. Group stops by concern. Stops that share a design intent belong together even if they're in different files. A stop may appear under multiple concerns if it serves multiple purposes.
+
+**Without Suggested Review Order** (fallback when trail generation failed, e.g., git unavailable):
+
+1. Get the diff against the appropriate baseline (same rules as step 1).
+2. Identify concerns by reading the diff for cohesive design intents:
+   - Functional groupings — what user-facing behavior does each cluster of changes support?
+   - Architectural layers — does the change cross boundaries (API → service → data)?
+   - Design decisions — where did the author choose between alternatives?
+3. For each concern, identify the key code locations as `path:line` stops.
+
+### Order for Comprehension
+
+Sequence concerns top-down: start with the highest-level intent (the "what and why"), then drill into supporting implementation. Within each concern, order stops so each one builds on the previous. The reader should never encounter a reference to something they haven't seen yet.
+
+If the change has a natural entry point (e.g., a new public API, a config change, a UI entry point), lead with it.
+
+### Write Each Concern
+
+For each concern, produce:
+
+1. **Heading** — a short phrase naming the design intent (not a file name, not a module name).
+2. **Why** — 1–2 sentences: what problem this concern addresses, why this approach was chosen over alternatives. If the spec documents rejected alternatives, reference them here.
+3. **Stops** — each stop on its own line: `path:line` followed by a brief phrase (not a sentence) describing what this location does for the concern. Keep framing under 15 words per stop.
+
+Target 2–5 concerns for a typical change. A single-concern change is fine — don't invent groupings. A change with more than 7 concerns is a signal the scope may be too large, but present it anyway.
+
+## PRESENT
+
+Output the full walkthrough as a single message with this structure:
+
+```
+Orientation → [Walkthrough] → Detail Pass → Testing
+```
+
+Then each concern group using this format:
+
+```
+### {Concern Heading}
+
+{Why — 1–2 sentences}
+
+- `path:line` — {brief framing}
+- `path:line` — {brief framing}
+- ...
+```
+
+End the message with:
+
+```
+---
+
+Take your time — click through the stops, read the diff, trace the logic. While you are reviewing, you can:
+- "run advanced elicitation on the error handling"
+- "party mode on whether this schema migration is safe"
+- or just ask anything
+
+When you're ready, say **next** and I'll surface the highest-risk spots.
+```
+
+## EARLY EXIT
+
+If at any point the human signals they want to make a decision about this {change_type} (e.g., "let's ship it", "this needs a rethink", "I'm done reviewing", or anything suggesting they're ready to decide), confirm their intent:
+
+- If they want to **approve and ship** → read fully and follow `./step-05-wrapup.md`
+- If they want to **reject and rework** → read fully and follow `./step-05-wrapup.md`
+- If you misread them → acknowledge and continue the current step.
+
+## NEXT
+
+Default: read fully and follow `./step-03-detail-pass.md`

package/src/bmm-skills/ship/bmad-checkpoint-preview/step-03-detail-pass.md

@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+# Step 3: Detail Pass
+
+Display: `Orientation → Walkthrough → [Detail Pass] → Testing`
+
+## Follow Global Step Rules in SKILL.md
+
+- The detail pass surfaces what the human should **think about**, not what the code got wrong. Machine hardening already handled correctness. This activates risk awareness.
+- The LLM detects risk category by pattern. The human judges significance. Do not assign severity scores or numeric rankings — ordering by blast radius (below) is sequencing for readability, not a severity judgment.
+- If no high-risk spots exist, say so explicitly. Do not invent findings.
+
+## IDENTIFY RISK SPOTS
+
+Scan the diff for changes touching risk-sensitive patterns. Look for 2–5 spots where a mistake would have the highest blast radius — not the most complex code, but the code where being wrong costs the most.
+
+Risk categories to detect:
+
+- `[auth]` — authentication, authorization, session, token, permission, access control
+- `[public API]` — new/changed endpoints, exports, public methods, interface contracts
+- `[schema]` — database migrations, schema changes, data model modifications, serialization
+- `[billing]` — payment, pricing, subscription, metering, usage tracking
+- `[infra]` — deployment, CI/CD, environment variables, config files, infrastructure
+- `[security]` — input validation, sanitization, crypto, secrets, CORS, CSP
+- `[config]` — feature flags, environment-dependent behavior, defaults
+- `[other]` — anything risk-sensitive that doesn't fit the above (e.g., concurrency, data privacy, backwards compatibility). Use a descriptive tag.
+
+Sequence spots so the highest blast radius comes first (how much breaks if this is wrong), not by diff order or file order. If more than 5 spots qualify, show the top 5 and note: "N additional spots omitted — ask if you want the full list."
+
+If the change has no spots matching these patterns, state: "No high-risk spots found in this change — the diff speaks for itself." Do not force findings.
+
+## SURFACE MACHINE HARDENING FINDINGS
+
+Check whether the spec has a `## Spec Change Log` section with entries (populated by adversarial review loops).
+
+- **If entries exist:** Read them. Surface findings that are instructive for the human reviewer — not bugs that were already fixed, but decisions the review loop flagged that the human should be aware of. Format: brief summary of what was flagged and what was decided.
+- **If no entries or no spec:** Skip this section entirely. Do not mention it.
+
+## PRESENT
+
+Output as a single message:
+
+```
+Orientation → Walkthrough → [Detail Pass] → Testing
+```
+
+### Risk Spots
+
+For each spot, one line:
+
+```
+- `path:line` — [tag] reason-phrase
+```
+
+Example:
+
+```
+- `src/auth/middleware.ts:42` — [auth] New token validation bypasses rate limiter
+- `migrations/003_add_index.sql:7` — [schema] Index on high-write table, check lock behavior
+- `api/routes/billing.ts:118` — [billing] Metering calculation changed, verify idempotency
+```
+
+### Machine Hardening (only if findings exist)
+
+```
+### Machine Hardening
+
+- Finding summary — what was flagged, what was decided
+- ...
+```
+
+### Closing menu
+
+End the message with:
+
+```
+---
+
+You've seen the design and the risk landscape. From here:
+- **"dig into [area]"** — I'll deep-dive that specific area with correctness focus
+- **"next"** — I'll suggest how to observe the behavior
+```
+
+## EARLY EXIT
+
+If at any point the human signals they want to make a decision about this {change_type} (e.g., "let's ship it", "this needs a rethink", "I'm done reviewing", or anything suggesting they're ready to decide), confirm their intent:
+
+- If they want to **approve and ship** → read fully and follow `./step-05-wrapup.md`
+- If they want to **reject and rework** → read fully and follow `./step-05-wrapup.md`
+- If you misread them → acknowledge and continue the current step.
+
+## TARGETED RE-REVIEW
+
+When the human says "dig into [area]" (e.g., "dig into the auth changes", "dig into the schema migration"):
+
+1. If the specified area does not map to any code in the diff, say so: "I don't see [area] in this change — did you mean something else?" Return to the closing menu.
+2. Identify all code locations in the diff relevant to the specified area.
+3. Read each location in full context (not just the diff hunk — read surrounding code).
+4. Shift to **correctness mode**: trace edge cases, check boundary conditions, verify error handling, look for off-by-one errors, race conditions, resource leaks.
+5. Present findings as a compact list — each finding is `path:line` + what you found + why it matters.
+6. If nothing concerning is found, say so: "Looked closely at [area] — nothing concerning. The implementation is solid."
+7. After presenting, show only the closing menu (not the full risk spots list again).
+
+The human can trigger multiple targeted re-reviews. Each time, present new findings and the closing menu only.
+
+## NEXT
+
+Read fully and follow `./step-04-testing.md`

package/src/bmm-skills/ship/bmad-checkpoint-preview/step-04-testing.md

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+# Step 4: Testing
+
+Display: `Orientation → Walkthrough → Detail Pass → [Testing]`
+
+## Follow Global Step Rules in SKILL.md
+
+- This is **experiential**, not analytical. The detail pass asked "did you think about X?" — this says "you could see X with your own eyes."
+- Do not prescribe. The human decides whether observing the behavior is worth their time. Frame suggestions as options, not obligations.
+- Do not duplicate CI, test suites, or automated checks. Assume those exist and work. This is about manual observation — the kind of confidence-building no automated test provides.
+- If the change has no user-visible behavior, say so explicitly. Do not invent observations.
+
+## IDENTIFY OBSERVABLE BEHAVIOR
+
+Scan the diff and spec for changes that produce behavior a human could directly observe. Categories to look for:
+
+- **UI changes** — new screens, modified layouts, changed interactions, error states
+- **CLI/terminal output** — new commands, changed output, new flags or options
+- **API responses** — new endpoints, changed payloads, different status codes
+- **State changes** — database records, file system artifacts, config effects
+- **Error paths** — bad input, missing dependencies, edge conditions
+
+For each observable behavior, determine:
+
+1. **What to do** — the specific action (command to run, button to click, request to send)
+2. **What to expect** — the observable result that confirms the change works
+3. **Why bother** — one phrase connecting this observation to the change's intent (omit if obvious from context)
+
+Target 2–5 suggestions for a typical change. If more than 5 qualify, prioritize by how much confidence the observation provides relative to effort. A change with zero observable behavior is fine — do not pad with trivial observations.
+
+## PRESENT
+
+Output as a single message:
+
+```
+Orientation → Walkthrough → Detail Pass → [Testing]
+```
+
+Then the testing suggestions using this format:
+
+```
+### How to See It Working
+
+**{Brief description}**
+Do: {specific action}
+Expect: {observable result}
+
+**{Brief description}**
+Do: {specific action}
+Expect: {observable result}
+```
+
+Include code blocks for commands or requests where helpful.
+
+If the change has no observable behavior, replace the suggestions with:
+
+```
+### How to See It Working
+
+This change is internal — no user-visible behavior to observe. The diff and tests tell the full story.
+```
+
+### Closing
+
+End the message with:
+
+```
+---
+
+You've seen the change and how to verify it. When you're ready to make a call, just say so.
+```
+
+## NEXT
+
+When the human signals they're ready to make a decision about this {change_type}, read fully and follow `./step-05-wrapup.md`

package/src/bmm-skills/ship/bmad-checkpoint-preview/step-05-wrapup.md

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+# Step 5: Wrap-Up
+
+Display: `Orientation → Walkthrough → Detail Pass → Testing → [Wrap-Up]`
+
+## Follow Global Step Rules in SKILL.md
+
+## PROMPT FOR DECISION
+
+```
+---
+
+Review complete. What's the call on this {change_type}?
+- **Approve** — ship it (I can help with interactive patching first if needed)
+- **Rework** — back to the drawing board (revert, revise the spec, try a different approach)
+- **Discuss** — something's still on your mind
+```
+
+HALT — do not proceed until the user makes their choice.
+
+## ACT ON DECISION
+
+- **Approve**: Acknowledge briefly. If the human wants to patch something before shipping, help apply the fix interactively. If reviewing a PR, offer to approve via `gh pr review --approve` — but confirm with the human before executing, since this is a visible action on a shared resource.
+- **Rework**: Ask what went wrong — was it the approach, the spec, or the implementation? Help the human decide on next steps (revert commit, open an issue, revise the spec, etc.). Help draft specific, actionable feedback tied to `path:line` locations if the change is a PR from someone else.
+- **Discuss**: Open conversation — answer questions, explore concerns, dig into any aspect. After discussion, return to the decision prompt above.
+
+## On Complete
+
+Run: `uv run {project-root}/_bmad/scripts/resolve_customization.py --skill {skill-root} --key workflow.on_complete`
+
+If the resolved `workflow.on_complete` is non-empty, follow it as the final terminal instruction before exiting.

package/src/bmm-skills/ship/bmad-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+---
+name: bmad-code-review
+description: 'Adversarial code review using parallel review layers and structured triage. 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} --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/src/bmm-skills/ship/bmad-code-review/customize.toml

@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+# 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 = [
+  "file:{project-root}/**/project-context.md",
+]
+
+# 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_output} and {spec_file} are
+# substituted at run time. `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.
+Find at least ten 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:
+{diff_output}
+
+Do not invoke any skill. Return only the review result.
+
+"""
+
+[[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.
+
+Review content:
+
+{diff_output}
+
+Do not invoke any skill. If the instruction file is unreadable, report that exact failure and stop. Return only the review result.
+
+"""
+
+[[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:
+
+{diff_output}
+
+Do not invoke any skill. If the instruction file is unreadable, report that exact failure and stop. Return only the review result.
+
+"""
+
+[[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:
+
+{diff_output}
+"""

package/src/bmm-skills/ship/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/src/bmm-skills/ship/bmad-code-review/review-prompts/edge-case-hunter.md

@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+# 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.
+
+**Inputs:**
+- **content** — Content to review: diff, full file, or function
+- **also_consider** (optional) — Areas to keep in mind during review alongside normal edge-case analysis
+
+**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
+
+- Load the content to review strictly from the parent message that launched you (not from this instruction file)
+- If content is empty, 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)
+- 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: 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, if any, go in the same array with the extra fields defined in `references/deletion-check.md`.
+
+
+## HALT CONDITIONS
+
+- If content is empty 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>
+
+## CONTENT SOURCE
+
+Review the content supplied under "Review content:" in the message that launched you.