!bash "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config --keys automation,workflow

Architecture Review

The architecture review validates that the complete body of architectural decisions covers all game design requirements, is internally consistent, and correctly targets the project's pinned engine version. It is the quality gate between Technical Setup and Pre-Production.

Argument modes:

• No argument / full: Full review — all phases
• coverage: Traceability only — which GDD requirements have no ADR
• consistency: Cross-ADR conflict detection only
• engine: Engine compatibility audit only
• single-gdd [path]: Review architecture coverage for one specific GDD
• rtm: Requirements Traceability Matrix — extends the standard matrix to include story file paths and test file paths; outputs docs/architecture/requirements-traceability.md with the full GDD requirement → ADR → Story → Test chain. Use in Production phase when stories and tests exist.

---

Every AskUserQuestion call follows .claude/docs/automation-modes.md (collaborative asks always · guided major-only · autonomous logs and proceeds; automation_always_ask categories always prompt).

workflow (see .claude/docs/workflow-modes.md):

• full — full traceability matrix across all GDDs and all ADRs.
• standard — reduced scope: architecture doc + critical ADRs only.
• minimal — not applicable (no architecture doc required).

Phase 1: Load Everything

Phase 1a — L0: Summary Scan (fast, low tokens)

Freshness check before any scan. Locate the latest prior report — Glob docs/architecture/architecture-review-*.md and take the newest — then:

Bash: bash .claude/scripts/review-receipts.sh check "[latest-report]" docs/architecture/adr-*.md design/gdd/*.md

• Any UNRESOLVED — check this FIRST; it disqualifies every option below. One of the two globs matched no file, so that whole document class was never examined and the comparison covered less than it appears to. Say which pattern came back unresolved and stop: an ADR or GDD directory that is empty, renamed or misspelled is a finding about the project, not a reason to stand on a prior report. Never read a set of UNCHANGED lines as "everything is current" while an UNRESOLVED line is present — the set compared was not the set requested.
• Everything UNCHANGED (and no UNRESOLVED) — nothing this review reads has changed since that report; re-running reproduces it. Surface the prior report's date and verdict and offer via AskUserQuestion: [A] Stand on the prior report (Recommended) / [B] Re-run the full review anyway — guided proceeds with [A] and notes it; autonomous logs via log_decision and stands on the prior report.
• Some CHANGED/NEW — name them, then scope instead of re-running everything: recommend /architecture-review [system] (single-system mode) for just the changed systems. A full re-run stays available on request, and structural changes (a NEW ADR, a deleted file) warrant one.
• RECEIPT: NONE — no prior report, or one written before receipts existed. Proceed with the full review; this run's report will carry the first stamps.

Before reading any full document, use Grep to extract ## Summary sections from all GDDs and ADRs:

Grep pattern="## Summary" glob="design/gdd/*.md" output_mode="content" -A 4
Grep pattern="## Summary" glob="docs/architecture/adr-*.md" output_mode="content" -A 3

Fail open on a missing Summary. Establish the denominator: glob design/gdd/*.md and count N. A scan matching fewer than N means those GDDs predate ## Summary (/design-system emits it, but older GDDs lack it) — never treat an absent Summary as a system out of scope. A zero-match scan means "no GDD carries a Summary yet", not "nothing to review": full-read the unmatched set.

For single-gdd [path] mode: use the target GDD's summary to identify which ADRs reference the same system (Grep ADRs for the system name), then load only those ADRs' sections per Phase 1b. Skip unrelated GDDs entirely.

For engine mode: load ADR sections only — GDDs are not needed for engine checks. In practice this is the ## Engine Compatibility scan alone.

For coverage or full mode: proceed to Phase 1b for the full in-scope set. This is a section load, not a full-file load — see below for why, and for the narrow cases that still justify escalating to a whole document.

Phase 1b — L1/L2: Targeted Section Load

Load the sections the later phases actually consume — not whole files. This skill reads the two largest document sets in the project (every GDD and every ADR); at realistic sizes a full load of both exhausts the context window before Phase 2 starts, and most of what it loads is narrative this skill never uses.

Establish the denominator first. Glob design/gdd/*.md and count N_gdd; glob docs/architecture/adr-*.md and count N_adr. Report both. A section scan matching fewer than the denominator means those documents lack the section — never treat an absent section as an absent document. The scan narrows the read set; it never shrinks the in-scope set.

Design Documents

Phase 2 extracts technical requirements — data structures, performance constraints, engine capabilities, cross-system communication, persistence, threading, platform needs. Those live in a known set of sections; Overview and Player Fantasy are narrative and yield none.

Grep pattern="^## (Detailed Rules|Detailed Design|Formulas|Dependencies|Tuning Knobs|Acceptance Criteria)" glob="design/gdd/*.md" output_mode="content" -A 40

Accept either ## Detailed Rules or ## Detailed Design — the design standard and the GDD template disagree on the name and they denote the same required section. Full-read a single GDD only when a scanned section cross-references material outside itself, or when a GDD matched zero sections (it predates the template — read it whole and say so).

• design/gdd/systems-index.md — the authoritative list of systems; read whole (small, and it is an index)

Architecture Documents

Phases 3–5 need the traceability table, the decision itself, engine claims, and the dependency edges — not Context, Consequences, Alternatives, Migration Plan or Validation Criteria, which explain why a decision was made.

Grep pattern="^## (Status|Decision|GDD Requirements Addressed|Engine Compatibility|ADR Dependencies|Performance Implications)" glob="docs/architecture/adr-*.md" output_mode="content" -A 30

Interpret against N_adr, and distinguish the two zero-match cases — they are not the same finding:

Result	Meaning	Action
N_adr matches	Normal.	Proceed on the scanned sections.
Some ADRs match, some do not	Those ADRs are missing sections.	Record each as a structural gap in the Phase 7 report — a missing ## GDD Requirements Addressed is itself a traceability finding.
0 matches, N_adr > 0	Malformed ADRs, not "no architecture".	"[N_adr] ADRs found, none carries a scannable section — run /architecture-decision [file] retrofit on each." Do not report zero coverage; that would read as a design failure when it is a format failure.

Escalate to a full read of one ADR only when judging a conflict needs its reasoning (Phase 4) — that is a per-ADR decision, not a blanket load.

• docs/architecture/architecture.md if it exists

Engine Reference

• docs/engine-reference/[engine]/VERSION.md
• docs/engine-reference/[engine]/breaking-changes.md
• docs/engine-reference/[engine]/deprecated-apis.md
• Only the module docs the in-scope ADRs actually name — take the union of each ADR's References Consulted and Post-Cutoff APIs Used fields (already captured by the ## Engine Compatibility scan above) and read those files. Reading the whole modules/ directory loads engine subsystems the project may not use at all. If no ADR names any module, read none and note it: Phase 5 cannot cross-check engine claims that were never made.

Project Standards

• project.yaml — naming.* and performance.*; plus .claude/docs/technical-preferences.md for those keys when absent and for forbidden patterns / allowed libraries

Report a count: "Loaded [N] GDDs, [M] ADRs, engine: [name + version]."

Also read docs/consistency-failures.md if it exists. Extract entries with Domain matching the systems under review (Architecture, Engine, or any GDD domain being covered). Surface recurring patterns as a "Known conflict-prone areas" note at the top of the Phase 4 conflict detection output.

---

Phase 2: Extract Technical Requirements from Every GDD

Pre-load the TR Registry

Before extracting any requirements, read docs/architecture/tr-registry.yaml if it exists. Index existing entries by id and by normalized requirement text (lowercase, trimmed). This prevents ID renumbering across review runs.

For each requirement you extract, the matching rule is:

1. Exact/near match to an existing registry entry for the same system → reuse that entry's TR-ID unchanged. Update the requirement text in the registry only if the GDD wording changed (same intent, clearer phrasing) — add a revised: [date] field.
2. No match → assign a new ID: next available TR-[system]-NNN for that system, starting from the highest existing sequence + 1.
3. Ambiguous (partial match, intent unclear) → ask the user:

   "Does '[new requirement text]' refer to the same requirement as TR-[system]-NNN: [existing text]', or is it a new requirement?" User answers: "Same requirement" (reuse ID) or "New requirement" (new ID).

For any requirement with status: deprecated in the registry — skip it. It was removed from the GDD intentionally.

For each GDD, read it and extract all technical requirements — things the architecture must provide for the system to work. A technical requirement is any statement that implies a specific architectural decision.

Categories to extract:

Category	Example
Data structures	"Each entity has health, max health, status effects" → needs a component/data schema
Performance constraints	"Collision detection must run at 60fps with 200 entities" → physics budget ADR
Engine capability	"Inverse kinematics for character animation" → IK system ADR
Cross-system communication	"Damage system notifies UI and audio simultaneously" → event/signal architecture ADR
State persistence	"Player progress persists between sessions" → save system ADR
Threading/timing	"AI decisions happen off the main thread" → concurrency ADR
Platform requirements	"Supports keyboard, gamepad, touch" → input system ADR

For each GDD, produce a structured list:

GDD: [filename]
System: [system name]
Technical Requirements:
  TR-[GDD]-001: [requirement text] → Domain: [Physics/Rendering/etc]
  TR-[GDD]-002: [requirement text] → Domain: [...]

This becomes the requirements baseline — the complete set of what the architecture must cover.

---

Phase 3: Build the Traceability Matrix

For each technical requirement extracted in Phase 2, search the ADRs:

1. Use the ADRs already loaded in Phase 1b — do not re-read them. Extract each ADR's "GDD Requirements Addressed" section from what is already in context. (If Phase 1b ran in a mode that did not load every ADR, Grep pattern="## GDD Requirements Addressed" glob="docs/architecture/adr-*.md" output_mode="content" -A 15 fills the gap without a full re-read.)
2. Check if it explicitly references the requirement or its GDD
3. Check if the ADR's decision text implicitly covers the requirement
4. Mark coverage status:

Status	Meaning
✅ Covered	An Accepted ADR explicitly addresses this requirement
🟡 Covered (Proposed)	An ADR addresses it, but that ADR is still Proposed
⚠️ Partial	An ADR partially covers this, or coverage is ambiguous
❌ Gap	No ADR addresses this requirement
❓ Not assessed	The ADR is unreadable, or has no ## Status section

Read each ADR's ## Status before marking coverage — an unaccepted decision is not coverage. If ✅ meant only that an ADR addresses this, with no status qualification, a requirement covered entirely by Proposed ADRs would count as covered and this review could return PASS: All requirements covered over an architecture nobody had accepted. Four skills downstream (create-control-manifest, create-epics, create-stories, gate-check) require Accepted, so a PASS on that basis sends work forward that every one of them will refuse.

🟡 is not a pass state: it caps the verdict at CONCERNS, and names the route out — /architecture-decision accept ADR-NNNN. That route is the only thing that moves an ADR to Accepted; without it, grading Proposed as covered would be the only option, which is why it must never be graded so.

Build the full matrix:

## Traceability Matrix

| Requirement ID | GDD | System | Requirement | ADR Coverage | Status |
|---------------|-----|--------|-------------|--------------|--------|
| TR-combat-001 | combat.md | Combat | Hitbox detection < 1 frame | ADR-0003 | ✅ |
| TR-combat-002 | combat.md | Combat | Combo window timing | — | ❌ GAP |
| TR-inventory-001 | inventory.md | Inventory | Persistent item storage | ADR-0005 | ✅ |

Count the totals: X covered, Y partial, Z gaps.

---

Phase 3b: Story and Test Linkage (RTM mode only)

Skip this phase unless the argument is rtm or full with stories present.

This phase extends the Phase 3 matrix to include the story that implements each requirement and the test that verifies it — producing the full Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM).

Step 3b-1 — Load stories

Glob production/epics/**/*.md (excluding EPIC.md index files) to establish the denominator. Then collect the fields with targeted section greps, not a full read of each story — the same two-grep form /test-evidence-review uses for this identical extraction:

Grep pattern="## Test Evidence" glob="production/epics/**/story-*.md" output_mode="content" -A 8
Grep pattern="TR-" glob="production/epics/**/story-*.md" output_mode="content"

• TR-ID — from the second grep.
• Test file path — under ## Test Evidence, captured by the first grep's -A 8.
• Status — from the story header; add Grep pattern="^> \*\*Status\*\*" if not already captured.
• Story path and title — from the file name and path; no read at all.

Full-read a story only when its Test Evidence section is missing or ambiguous.

Step 3b-2 — Load test files

Glob tests/unit/**/*_test.* and tests/integration/**/*_test.*. Build an index: system → [test file paths].

For each test file path from Step 3b-1, confirm via Glob whether the file actually exists. Note MISSING if the stated path does not exist.

Step 3b-3 — Build the extended RTM

For each TR-ID in the Phase 3 matrix, add:

• Story: the story file path(s) that reference this TR-ID (may be multiple)
• Test File: the test file path stated in the story's Test Evidence section
• Test Status: COVERED (test file exists) / MISSING (path stated but not found) / NONE (no test path stated, story type may be Visual/Feel/UI) / NO STORY (requirement has no story yet — pre-production gap)

Extended matrix format:

## Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM)

| TR-ID | GDD | Requirement | ADR | Story | Test File | Test Status |
|-------|-----|-------------|-----|-------|-----------|-------------|
| TR-combat-001 | combat.md | Hitbox < 1 frame | ADR-0003 | story-001-hitbox.md | tests/unit/combat/hitbox_test.gd | COVERED |
| TR-combat-002 | combat.md | Combo window | — | story-002-combo.md | — | NONE (Visual/Feel) |
| TR-inventory-001 | inventory.md | Persistent storage | ADR-0005 | — | — | NO STORY |

RTM coverage summary:

• COVERED: [N] — requirements with ADR + story + passing test
• MISSING test: [N] — story exists but test file not found
• NO STORY: [N] — requirements with ADR but no story yet
• NO ADR: [N] — requirements without architectural coverage (from Phase 3 gaps)
• Full chain complete (COVERED): [N/total] ([%])

---

Phase 4: Cross-ADR Conflict Detection

Compare every ADR against every other ADR to detect contradictions. A conflict exists when:

• Data ownership conflict: Two ADRs claim exclusive ownership of the same data
• Integration contract conflict: ADR-A assumes System X has interface Y, but ADR-B defines System X with a different interface
• Performance budget conflict: ADR-A allocates N ms to physics, ADR-B allocates N ms to AI, together they exceed the total frame budget
• Dependency cycle: ADR-A says System X initialises before Y; ADR-B says Y initialises before X
• Architecture pattern conflict: ADR-A uses event-driven communication for a subsystem; ADR-B uses direct function calls to the same subsystem
• State management conflict: Two ADRs define authority over the same game state (e.g. both Combat ADR and Character ADR claim to own the health value)

For each conflict found:

## Conflict: [ADR-NNNN] vs [ADR-MMMM]
Type: [Data ownership / Integration / Performance / Dependency / Pattern / State]
ADR-NNNN claims: [...]
ADR-MMMM claims: [...]
Impact: [What breaks if both are implemented as written]
Resolution options:
  1. [Option A]
  2. [Option B]

ADR Dependency Ordering

After conflict detection, analyse the dependency graph across all ADRs.

Build the graph deterministically — do not trace it by hand:

Bash: bash .claude/scripts/adr-dep-graph.sh

It collects every Depends On edge, runs Kahn's algorithm, and emits ADRS: / EDGES: / NO_DEPS_SECTION: / CYCLE:. A model tracing A→B→C→A across a dozen ADRs eventually misses an edge; the algorithm cannot. It reports observations, not a verdict — you apply the meaning below.

NO_DEPS_SECTION is load-bearing: it makes "no cycles because the graph is clean" distinguishable from "no cycles because half the ADRs declare no dependencies". Report the second case as a structural gap, never as a clean graph.

Then interpret:

1. Topological sort: the emitted order — ADRs with no dependencies come first (Foundation), ADRs that depend on those come next, etc.
2. Flag unresolved dependencies: cross the EDGES: list against the ## Status values already scanned in Phase 1b. If ADR-A depends on an ADR that is still Proposed or does not exist, flag it:

   ⚠️  ADR-0005 depends on ADR-0002 — but ADR-0002 is still Proposed.
       ADR-0005 cannot be safely implemented until ADR-0002 is Accepted.
   

3. Cycle detection: every CYCLE: line the script emitted is a DEPENDENCY CYCLE — report each one. Do not re-derive them by hand:

   🔴 DEPENDENCY CYCLE: ADR-0003 → ADR-0006 → ADR-0003
      This cycle must be broken before either can be implemented.
   

4. Output recommended implementation order:

   ### Recommended ADR Implementation Order (topologically sorted)
   Foundation (no dependencies):
     1. ADR-0001: [title]
     2. ADR-0003: [title]
   Depends on Foundation:
     3. ADR-0002: [title] (requires ADR-0001)
     4. ADR-0005: [title] (requires ADR-0003)
   Feature layer:
     5. ADR-0004: [title] (requires ADR-0002, ADR-0005)
   

---

Phase 5: Engine Compatibility Cross-Check

Across all ADRs, check for engine consistency:

Version Consistency

• Do all ADRs that mention an engine version agree on the same version?
• If any ADR was written for an older engine version, flag it as potentially stale

Post-Cutoff API Consistency

• Collect all "Post-Cutoff APIs Used" fields from all ADRs
• For each, verify against the relevant module reference doc
• Check that no two ADRs make contradictory assumptions about the same post-cutoff API

Deprecated API Check

• Grep all ADRs for API names listed in deprecated-apis.md
• Flag any ADR referencing a deprecated API

Missing Engine Compatibility Sections

• List all ADRs that are missing the Engine Compatibility section entirely
• These are blind spots — their engine assumptions are unknown

Output format:

### Engine Audit Results
Engine: [name + version]
ADRs with Engine Compatibility section: X / Y total

Deprecated API References:
  - ADR-0002: uses [deprecated API] — deprecated since [version]

Stale Version References:
  - ADR-0001: written for [older version] — current project version is [version]

Post-Cutoff API Conflicts:
  - ADR-0004 and ADR-0007 both use [API] with incompatible assumptions

---

Engine Specialist Consultation

After completing the engine audit above, spawn the primary engine specialist via Agent for a domain-expert second opinion:

• Resolve the primary specialist: <engine>-specialist derived from engine.name in project.yaml (Godot→godot-specialist, Unity→unity-specialist, Unreal→unreal-specialist); if engine.name is absent or empty, read the Primary line of the ## Engine Specialists section in .claude/docs/technical-preferences.md
• If no engine is configured (neither source yields an engine), skip this consultation Record Engine validation: NOT ASSESSED — no engine configured (engine.nameunset inproject.yaml) in this run's output. A skipped check that says nothing is indistinguishable from a check that passed; the reader cannot tell engine guidance was never sought.
• Spawn subagent_type: [primary specialist] with: all ADRs that contain engine-specific decisions or Post-Cutoff APIs Used fields, the engine reference docs, and the Phase 5 audit findings. Ask them to:
  1. Confirm or challenge each audit finding — specialists may know of engine nuances not captured in the reference docs
  2. Identify engine-specific anti-patterns in the ADRs that the audit may have missed (e.g., using the wrong Godot node type, Unity component coupling, Unreal subsystem misuse)
  3. Flag ADRs that make assumptions about engine behaviour that differ from the actual pinned version

Incorporate additional findings under ### Engine Specialist Findings in the Phase 5 output. These feed into the final verdict — specialist-identified issues carry the same weight as audit-identified issues.

---

Phase 5b: Design Revision Flags (Architecture → GDD Feedback)

For each HIGH RISK engine finding from Phase 5, check whether any GDD makes an assumption that the verified engine reality contradicts.

Specific cases to check:

1. Post-cutoff API behaviour differs from training-data assumptions: If an ADR records a verified API behaviour that differs from the default LLM assumption, check all GDDs that reference the related system. Look for design rules written around the old (assumed) behaviour.

2. Known engine limitations in ADRs: If an ADR records a known engine limitation (e.g. "Jolt ignores HingeJoint3D damp", "D3D12 is now the default backend"), check GDDs that design mechanics around the affected feature.

3. Deprecated API conflicts: If Phase 5 flagged a deprecated API used in an ADR, check whether any GDD contains mechanics that assume the deprecated API's behaviour.

For each conflict found, record it in the GDD Revision Flags table:

### GDD Revision Flags (Architecture → Design Feedback)
These GDD assumptions conflict with verified engine behaviour or accepted ADRs.
The GDD should be revised before its system enters implementation.

| GDD | Assumption | Reality (from ADR/engine-reference) | Action |
|-----|-----------|--------------------------------------|--------|
| combat.md | "Use HingeJoint3D damp for weapon recoil" | Jolt ignores damp — ADR-0003 | Revise GDD |

If no revision flags are found, write: "No GDD revision flags — all GDD assumptions are consistent with verified engine behaviour."

Before asking, display the proposed change inline — show the current systems-index row for each flagged GDD and the proposed updated row side by side so the user can see exactly what will change.

Then use AskUserQuestion:

• "I found [N] GDD revision flag(s). May I update the systems index?"
  • [A] Yes — apply all [N] updates to the systems index now
  • [B] Show me the full diff first, then ask again
  • [C] No — leave the systems index unchanged for now

If [A]: apply the updates. Status field must be exactly Needs Revision — no parentheticals (other skills match that exact string and parentheticals break the match). If [B]: display the complete proposed systems-index section, then re-ask with AskUserQuestion.

---

Phase 6: Architecture Document Coverage

If docs/architecture/architecture.md does not exist, say so in the report — Architecture document coverage: NOT ASSESSED — no docs/architecture/architecture.md — and carry it into the Phase 7 verdict per the trigger list below. Phase 5 already models this for the engine consultation ("A skipped check that says nothing is indistinguishable from a check that passed"); this phase is the one that did not. Silently producing no Phase 6 findings reads as an architecture document that was checked and found clean, which is the opposite of what happened.

If it exists, validate it against GDDs:

• Does every system from systems-index.md appear in the architecture layers?
• Does the data flow section cover all cross-system communication defined in GDDs?
• Do the API boundaries support all integration requirements from GDDs?
• Are there systems in the architecture doc that have no corresponding GDD (orphaned architecture)?

---

Phase 7: Output the Review Report

## Architecture Review Report
Date: [date]
Engine: [name + version]
GDDs Reviewed: [N]
ADRs Reviewed: [M]

[output of: Bash: bash .claude/scripts/review-receipts.sh hash docs/architecture/adr-*.md design/gdd/*.md
 — one Reviewed-Content-Hash line per file reviewed; Phase 1a's freshness
 check reads these on the next run to skip or scope an unchanged re-review]

---

### Traceability Summary
Total requirements: [N]
✅ Covered: [X]
⚠️ Partial: [Y]
❌ Gaps: [Z]

### Coverage Gaps (no ADR exists)
For each gap:
  ❌ TR-[id]: [GDD] → [system] → [requirement]
     Suggested ADR: "/architecture-decision [suggested title]"
     Domain: [Physics/Rendering/etc]
     Engine Risk: [LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH]

### Cross-ADR Conflicts
[List all conflicts from Phase 4]

### ADR Dependency Order
[Topologically sorted implementation order from Phase 4 — dependency ordering section]
[Unresolved dependencies and cycles if any]

### GDD Revision Flags
[GDD assumptions that conflict with verified engine behaviour — from Phase 5b]
[Or: "None — all GDD assumptions consistent with verified engine behaviour"]

### Engine Compatibility Issues
[List all engine issues from Phase 5]

### Architecture Document Coverage
[List missing systems and orphaned architecture from Phase 6]

---

### Verdict: [PASS / NOT ASSESSED / CONCERNS / FAIL]

PASS: All requirements covered by **Accepted** ADRs, no conflicts, engine consistent
NOT ASSESSED: The review could not be performed over its stated scope — name why
CONCERNS: Some gaps, partial coverage, or coverage resting on `Proposed` ADRs,
      but no blocking conflicts
FAIL: Critical gaps (Foundation/Core layer requirements uncovered),
      or blocking cross-ADR conflicts detected

**`NOT ASSESSED` ranks above PASS and below CONCERNS and FAIL.** Emit it when:

- **No ADRs exist, or none could be read.** Zero requirements traced is not full
  coverage — it is an untraced architecture, and a matrix of `❌ Gap` rows at
  least says so while an empty matrix says nothing.
- **The requirement source is missing** — no `tr-registry.yaml` and no GDD
  requirements to trace *from*. A review with no left-hand column cannot report
  coverage; it can only report that it had nothing to compare.
- **An ADR is unreadable or has no `## Status`**, so its rows are `❓` and their
  coverage is unknown rather than absent.
- **Phase 6 could not run** — no `docs/architecture/architecture.md`. This does
  not by itself force NOT ASSESSED for the whole review (ADR traceability is the
  primary scope and can still be complete), but it must appear as a named
  `NOT ASSESSED` **line item** in the report rather than as absent findings. Emit
  the overall NOT ASSESSED verdict only if Phase 6 was the review's stated scope.

Do not resolve any of these to PASS on the grounds that no gap was *found*. No
gap was looked for.

### Blocking Issues (must resolve before PASS)
[List items that must be resolved — FAIL verdict only]

### Required ADRs
[Prioritised list of ADRs to create, most foundational first]

---

Phase 8: Write and Update Traceability Index

Use AskUserQuestion for the write approval:

• "Review complete. What would you like to write?"
  • [A] Write all three files (review report + traceability index + TR registry)
  • [B] Write review report only — docs/architecture/architecture-review-[date].md
  • [C] Don't write anything yet — I need to review the findings first

RTM Output (rtm mode only)

For rtm mode, use AskUserQuestion:

• "May I write the full Requirements Traceability Matrix?"
  • [A] Yes — write to docs/architecture/requirements-traceability.md
  • [B] Not yet — show me the full RTM data first, then ask again

RTM file format:

# Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM)

> Last Updated: [date]
> Mode: /architecture-review rtm
> Coverage: [N]% full chain complete (GDD → ADR → Story → Test)

## How to read this matrix

| Column | Meaning |
|--------|---------|
| TR-ID | Stable requirement ID from tr-registry.yaml |
| GDD | Source design document |
| ADR | Architectural decision governing implementation |
| Story | Story file that implements this requirement |
| Test File | Automated test file path |
| Test Status | COVERED / MISSING / NONE / NO STORY |

## Full Traceability Matrix

| TR-ID | GDD | Requirement | ADR | Story | Test File | Status |
|-------|-----|-------------|-----|-------|-----------|--------|
[Full matrix rows from Phase 3b]

## Coverage Summary

| Status | Count | % |
|--------|-------|---|
| COVERED — full chain complete | [N] | [%] |
| MISSING test — story exists, no test | [N] | [%] |
| NO STORY — ADR exists, not yet implemented | [N] | [%] |
| NO ADR — architectural gap | [N] | [%] |
| **Total requirements** | **[N]** | **100%** |

## Uncovered Requirements (Priority Fix List)

Requirements where the full chain is broken, prioritised by layer:

### Foundation layer gaps
[list with suggested action per gap]

### Core layer gaps
[list]

### Feature / Presentation layer gaps
[list — lower priority]

## History

| Date | Full Chain % | Notes |
|------|-------------|-------|
| [date] | [%] | Initial RTM |

TR Registry Update

Also ask: "May I update docs/architecture/tr-registry.yaml with new requirement IDs from this review?"

If yes:

• Append any new TR-IDs that weren't in the registry before this review
• Update requirement text and revised date for any entries whose GDD wording changed (ID stays the same)
• Mark status: deprecated for any registry entries whose GDD requirement no longer exists (confirm with user before marking deprecated)
• Never renumber or delete existing entries
• Update the last_updated and version fields at the top

This ensures all future story files can reference stable TR-IDs that persist across every subsequent architecture review.

Reflexion Log Update

After writing the review report, append any 🔴 CONFLICT entries found in Phase 4 to docs/consistency-failures.md (if the file exists):

### [YYYY-MM-DD] — /architecture-review — 🔴 CONFLICT
**Domain**: Architecture / [specific domain e.g. State Ownership, Performance]
**Documents involved**: [ADR-NNNN] vs [ADR-MMMM]
**What happened**: [specific conflict — what each ADR claims]
**Resolution**: [how it was or should be resolved]
**Pattern**: [generalised lesson for future ADR authors in this domain]

Only append CONFLICT entries — do not log GAP entries (missing ADRs are expected before the architecture is complete). Do not create the file if missing — only append when it already exists.

Session State Update

After writing all approved files, silently append to production/session-state/active.md:

## Session Extract — /architecture-review [date]
- Verdict: [PASS / CONCERNS / FAIL]
- Requirements: [N] total — [X] covered, [Y] partial, [Z] gaps
- New TR-IDs registered: [N, or "None"]
- GDD revision flags: [comma-separated GDD names, or "None"]
- Top ADR gaps: [top 3 gap titles from the report, or "None"]
- Report: docs/architecture/architecture-review-[date].md

If active.md does not exist, create it with this block as the initial content. Confirm in conversation: "Session state updated."

The traceability index format:

# Architecture Traceability Index
Last Updated: [date]
Engine: [name + version]

## Coverage Summary
- Total requirements: [N]
- Covered: [X] ([%])
- Partial: [Y]
- Gaps: [Z]

## Full Matrix
[Complete traceability matrix from Phase 3]

## Known Gaps
[All ❌ items with suggested ADRs]

## Superseded Requirements
[Requirements whose GDD was changed after the ADR was written]

---

Phase 9: Handoff

After completing the review and writing approved files, present:

1. Immediate actions: List the top 3 ADRs to create (highest-impact gaps first, Foundation layer before Feature layer)
2. Pre-gate checklist: Check whether these exist via Glob and mark each ✅ or ❌:
   • tests/unit/ and tests/integration/ directories — if ❌: run /test-setup
   • .github/workflows/tests.yml — if ❌: run /test-setup
   • design/accessibility-requirements.md — if ❌: run /ux-design
   • design/ux/interaction-patterns.md — if ❌: run /ux-design Present ❌ items as required steps before gate-check. Do not offer /gate-check as an option if any item is ❌ — offer the missing skill to run instead.
3. Rerun trigger: "Re-run /architecture-review after each new ADR is written to verify coverage improves"

Then close with AskUserQuestion tailored to the pre-gate checklist state:

• If ADR gaps remain or any pre-gate item is ❌:
  • "Architecture review complete. What would you like to do next?"
    • [A] Write a missing ADR — open a fresh session and run /architecture-decision [system]
    • [B] Run /test-setup — required before gate-check (only show if test infrastructure is ❌)
    • [C] Run /ux-design — required before gate-check (only show if UX/accessibility files are ❌)
    • [D] Stop here for this session
• If all pre-gate checklist items are ✅ and no blocking ADR gaps remain:
  • "Architecture review complete. All pre-gate items confirmed. What would you like to do next?"
    • [A] Run /gate-check pre-production
    • [B] Write a missing ADR — open a fresh session and run /architecture-decision [system]
    • [C] Stop here for this session

---

Error Recovery Protocol

First, verify the artifact. If the return contract named a path, check the path exists before treating the phase as done — a named artifact that is not on disk is a failed phase, however fluent the response reads. An agent can burn a full phase and return a plausible preamble having written nothing, which is neither BLOCKED nor an error nor "fails to complete", so the trigger below never fires. Resume it naming the unmet contract; the context is usually still there.

If any spawned agent returns BLOCKED, errors, or fails to complete: surface it immediately, don't proceed past a dependency it blocks, and always produce a partial report (retry scope here = fewer GDDs / single-system). Full procedure: .claude/docs/error-recovery-protocol.md.

---

Collaborative Protocol

Applies in collaborative mode (the default). For guided and autonomous modes, see .claude/docs/automation-modes.md — the rules below describe what collaborative mode requires, not universal behavior.

1. Read silently — do not narrate every file read
2. Show the matrix — present the full traceability matrix before asking for anything; let the user see the state
3. Don't guess — if a requirement is ambiguous, ask: "Is [X] a technical requirement or a design preference?"
4. Draft before approval — always show the content that will be written (the report, the updated ADR section, the systems-index row) inline in the conversation before requesting approval. Never ask to write something the user has not yet seen.
5. Use AskUserQuestion for write approvals — plain text "May I?" is not sufficient. Use the structured tool with labeled options [A]/[B]/[C] so the user can choose between "write now", "show full draft first", and "not yet". Multi-file changesets must list every file and what changes, then ask once with grouped options — not a separate plain-text question per file.
6. Non-blocking — the verdict is advisory; the user decides whether to continue despite CONCERNS or even FAIL findings