--- description: The standing execution loop for this repo — plan, implement, adversarial review, resolve, verify, record. Use for every substantive change. argument-hint: --- **ultrathink** Task: $ARGUMENTS Execute the six-phase loop below. Do not skip a phase because the task looks small — the loop is the quality mechanism, not ceremony. If a phase genuinely does not apply, say which and why before moving on. --- ## Phase 1 — Plan (think hard before writing anything) 1. Read `AGENTS.md` in full if you have not this session. Read **§12 Standing Reminders** and surface anything live to Pouya before you start. 2. Read the specs in `docs/` that bear on this task. 3. Restate the task in your own words, and name: - which locked decisions (D1–D18) it touches - which specs govern it - which facts it needs from the §4 Verified register 4. **Stop and ask if you find a conflict** — between the task and a locked decision, between two specs, or between the task and a fact you do not have. A blocked build is a correct build. Never resolve a conflict by guessing, and never soften a claim to make it defensible. 5. State your plan before implementing. ## Phase 2 — Implement Follow `CLAUDE.md` conventions. Zero JavaScript by default. Tokens only, no raw hex, no magic numbers. Semantic HTML. Every page gets its metadata. Where you need a fact you do not have: `TODO(pouya): ` in the source **and** a new numbered question in `AGENTS.md` §9. Do not invent it. ## Phase 3 — Adversarial review (this is not optional) Invoke **both** review agents on the change, in parallel: - `adversarial-reviewer` — correctness, accessibility, crawlability, performance, security, simplicity - `claims-auditor` — every factual assertion traced to `AGENTS.md` §4 **Give them the diff and the specs. Do not give them your reasoning for why the work is correct.** Your rationale anchors the reviewer and produces agreement instead of review. They form their own view from the artefact; that independence is the whole point of the phase. If the change touches no user-facing copy, `claims-auditor` may be skipped — say so explicitly. ## Phase 4 — Resolve For every finding: **fix it, or decline it with a stated reason.** Silence is not a response. A declined finding is recorded in the Change Log with the reasoning, so a later reader can see the judgement was made rather than missed. If you fix anything material, **re-run Phase 3 on the fix.** A patch written under review pressure is exactly where the second defect lives. > **This is not ceremony, and here is the measurement.** On the Astro 5 → 7 > upgrade (`AGENTS.md` entry (t), 2026-08-26) the second review pass returned > six findings. **Four of the six were defects in the first round's own fixes** — > including a date validator whose replacement silently rolled `2026-02-30` > forward to `2026-03-02`, and a title rule whose fix rejected all five planned > launch articles. None of the four existed before the review started. Skip the > re-review and you ship the repair, not the bug. ## Phase 5 — Verify — run it, do not assert it ```bash npm run check npm run build ``` Then, as applicable to what changed: - Serve `dist/` and confirm the page **renders its full content with JavaScript disabled** — the failure this whole project exists to fix - `curl` the built HTML and confirm real content, not a shell - ~~Lighthouse mobile ≥ 95 on all four categories~~ — **UNAVAILABLE.** `@lhci/cli` was removed on 2026-08-26 and is not re-added until build step 7 (`AGENTS.md` R11, §7). Report it as *not run, tool unavailable*. Do not substitute a manual DevTools run and describe it as the same check - Every internal link resolves - Metadata present: unique title, description, canonical, OG, JSON-LD - **No scroll-driven animation was eaten by the minifier.** This must return nothing: ```bash grep -rE 'animation:[^;}]*(scroll\(\)|view\(\))' dist --include='*.css' ``` A hit means an `animation` shorthand was written beside `animation-timeline` and Lightning CSS folded them into an invalid declaration, which the parser then discards. The effect works in `npm run dev` and is dead in the build. **Never report a check as passing that you did not run.** "Should pass" is not a result. If you could not run something, say which and why. ## Phase 6 — Record Append a `AGENTS.md` Change Log entry, newest first: what changed, old → new, why, and any decision or plan — including declined findings and anything deferred. Update Current Truth in place where the change made a section stale. Re-stamp facts you re-checked with today's date. **If the entry claims a change was applied across files, cite the command and paste its output.** Write that claim only after reading the output. Recall is not evidence — three entries on this project asserted a completed sweep and instances survived all three. Then report to Pouya: what shipped, what the review found, what you declined and why, and what remains open.