# CLAUDE.md — operating instructions for Claude Code ## Read this first 1. **`AGENTS.md` is the source of truth for this project.** Read it in full before your first edit in any session. It carries the locked decisions, the credential register, the open questions, and the full history. 2. **You are required to maintain `AGENTS.md`** under the constitution written at the top of it. Update *Current Truth* in place; append to the *Change Log*, newest first; never edit a past entry; never delete history. Record decisions and plans, not only executed work. Stamp facts `[verified YYYY-MM-DD]` or `[assumed]`. 3. Update it **at the end of every working session**, not only when something ships. A session that produced a decision and no code still produces a Change Log entry. 4. **Read `AGENTS.md` §12 Standing Reminders at the start of every substantial session and surface anything live to Pouya.** These are decisions he parked deliberately, not settled matters — R1 in particular is his explicit instruction to keep raising the licensure wording. A parked decision that stops being raised has quietly become permanent, which is the failure mode §12 exists to prevent. ## The one rule that matters more than the code This is Pouya's public marketing surface, and the site it replaces carried fabricated credentials. **No factual claim about him, his credentials, his experience, or his practice may appear on a public page unless it is in the Verified table in `AGENTS.md` §4.** (§4 does not verify licensure either way — so do not describe him as "licensed", or as a "legal professional", anywhere, this file included. State the reason for the rule, not a credential the register cannot vouch for.) If a page needs a fact you do not have: - Do not infer it from context. - Do not soften it into something defensible ("extensive experience", "years of"). - Do not carry it over from the old site — the old site contained a fictitious founder, invented matter values, and a fabricated testimonial. - **Leave `TODO(pouya): ` in the source, and add the question to `AGENTS.md` §9.** A build that fails on an unanswered question is a correct build. Read the Forbidden table in §4 before writing any statistic, number, or superlative. ## How work is executed here Pouya is the architect. He makes the decisions and hands you the task. **You implement, then you adversarially review your own work before calling it done.** This is the standing agreement — it applies to every substantial change without being restated in the prompt. **Run `/build ` for any substantive change.** It encodes the loop: 1. **Plan** — read `AGENTS.md` (including §12 Standing Reminders, and surface anything live), read the governing specs, name the decisions the task touches, and **stop and ask on any conflict**. A blocked build is a correct build. 2. **Implement** — following the conventions below. 3. **Adversarial review** — invoke `adversarial-reviewer` and `claims-auditor` in parallel on the diff. 4. **Resolve** — fix each finding or decline it with a stated reason. Re-review material fixes. 5. **Verify** — run the checks. Never report a check as passing that you did not run. 6. **Record** — append the `AGENTS.md` Change Log entry. `/review` runs phase 3 alone. `/wrap` runs phase 6 at session end. **Think deeply before acting.** Extended thinking is on by default for this project (`.claude/settings.json`), and `/build` and `/review` request it explicitly. The planning and review phases are where it earns its cost — a defect reasoned out before implementation is far cheaper than one found after. ### Why the review is adversarial, and what would break it Two rules make the difference between a review and a rubber stamp: **Do not brief the reviewers on why your work is correct.** Give them the diff and the specs, nothing else. Your rationale anchors them, and an anchored reviewer produces agreement rather than review. They must form an independent view from the artefact — that independence *is* the mechanism. **The reviewers are instructed to treat uncertainty as a defect.** They will sometimes be wrong, and that is the intended trade. Explaining why a finding is mistaken costs minutes; a missed defect on this project's public marketing pages costs considerably more — the site this replaces carried fabricated credentials, and that is the standard being corrected. Do not read a finding as an accusation, and do not argue a reviewer down — either fix it, or record the reason you declined it so a later reader can see the judgement was made rather than missed. **Two reviewers, because they catch different things.** `adversarial-reviewer` reads the code. `claims-auditor` reads the copy against the §4 register and knows nothing about whether the code is elegant. A generic reviewer consistently under-weights the professional-conduct check, which is the highest-stakes failure mode on this project — so it gets its own pass. ## Commands ```bash npm install npm run dev # local dev server npm run build # static build to ./dist npm run preview # serve ./dist locally npm run check # astro check — type and template errors npm run lint # eslint + prettier check npm run format # prettier — rewrite files in place npm run deploy # build + deploy from this machine (see docs/06) ``` ## Where things live ``` AGENTS.md living project record — read first, maintain always docs/ the specs you build from 01-architecture.md sitemap, URL map, per-page content outline 02-design-system.md tokens, type scale, motion, contrast constraints 03-content-spec.md voice, copy rules, per-page copy deck 04-seo-spec.md metadata, structured data, sitemap, crawlability 05-backend-spec.md intake form, Lambda/DynamoDB/SES, booking, PIPEDA 06-deployment.md S3/CloudFront, Gitea Actions, IAM, cutover checklist src/ content.config.ts content collections — Content Layer API, NOT content/config.ts styles/tokens.css design tokens — the single source of colour and scale styles/global.css reset, base type, utilities layouts/ page shells components/ UI components pages/ routes (file-based) content/insights/ Insights MDX only; the config sits above, not in here data/site.ts site-wide constants, nav, contact details public/ static assets served as-is ``` ## Conventions **Framework.** Astro **7.x**, `output: 'static'` (D1 as amended). Never introduce a server runtime without a Change Log entry recording why. The major is pinned deliberately — check `npm view astro version` before changing it. **JavaScript.** Default to zero. Reach for an Astro island only when a feature genuinely cannot be CSS or progressive HTML. If you add a `client:*` directive, say why in the Change Log. A `
` element beats a JS accordion. **Styling.** Plain CSS with custom properties. No Tailwind, no CSS-in-JS, no utility framework. Every colour, space, and font size comes from a token in `tokens.css` — no raw hex values and no magic numbers in component styles. **Accessibility is a build requirement, not a polish pass.** Semantic landmarks, one `

` per page, heading levels never skipped, visible focus states, all interactive elements reachable by keyboard, `prefers-reduced-motion` honoured on every animation. Gold `#c9a876` never sits on cream — it fails contrast at 2.10:1. See `docs/02-design-system.md`. **Anything a spec makes a claim about must be reachable from the repository.** If the artefact lives only in Drive, in a console, or on someone's laptop, no reviewer can compare the claim against it and the claim is **unverifiable by construction** — not merely unverified. Commit the artefact, or commit a faithful extract with its provenance and the command that produced it. This has cost twice. `AGENTS.md` Q24 was the AWS hosting guide, the only record of how the infrastructure was hand-built, living outside the repo. Q32 was the infinity mark: it was traced from the old site's *loading placeholder*, the source comment said so in as many words — and **two adversarial review passes still could not catch that the shape was wrong**, because the real artwork was not in the repo to compare against. Stating a doubt is not enough when the thing that would resolve it is unreachable. Tracked as R14. **A command that did not run is not evidence of absence.** Check that a tool exists before trusting its silence, and read exit status, not just stdout. This project ran `timeout 60 ls "$DRIVE"` four times, got empty output each time, and reported the brand assets unreachable — `timeout` is not installed on macOS, so the command had never executed and the directory was fully readable all along. Empty output from a command that failed to start looks exactly like empty output from a command that found nothing. Same family as *a sweep is a command, not a claim*: the claim must rest on output you actually read, from a command that actually ran. **A parent cannot style a child component's root element.** Astro does not pass a parent's scope attribute down, so `