adr-sml/.claude/commands/build.md

description, argument-hint

description	argument-hint
The standing execution loop for this repo — plan, implement, adversarial review, resolve, verify, record. Use for every substantive change.	<what to build, e.g. "the /med-arb/ page" or "step 4 of the build order">

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–D20) 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): <the exact question> in the source and a new numbered question in AGENTS.md §9. Do not invent it.

But do not open a numbered question for something that gates nothing — D19. The Q-series is past 50 and most recent additions gate nothing. If an observation does not block a page, a deploy or a claim, it is a Change Log note, not a numbered question — and retire the non-gating ones you find. A TODO(pouya) in source is not this case: it blocks the page it sits on, so it still gets a number.

Phase 3 — Adversarial review (this is not optional)

Invoke one review agent on the change:

• adversarial-reviewer — correctness, accessibility, crawlability, performance, security, simplicity

claims-auditor does NOT run here — D20, Pouya, 2026-08-30. It runs once, at cutover, over the whole finished site, as a blocking item on docs/06's checklist. Do not invoke it per step, and do not reinstate it because a change set looks claim-heavy: that judgement was already made against the measured cost, which AGENTS.md D20 records in full. If a claim genuinely worries you, the answer is a TODO(pouya) and a §9 question — the thing that blocks — not an unscheduled audit.

Two things carry the claims risk between now and cutover, and neither is optional: npm run check:claims in Phase 5, and Pouya reading the copy as it is built.

Give it the diff and the specs. Do not give it your reasoning for why the work is correct. Your rationale anchors the reviewer and produces agreement instead of review. It forms its own view from the artefact; that independence is the whole point of the phase.

Scope — D19

Review is bounded. In scope: dist/, src/, the specs that direct copy (docs/01, 03, 04, 07), and AGENTS.md §3, §4, §7, §9, §12. Out of scope: the Change Log, the agents' own briefs, AGENTS.md prose outside those sections, and the historical accuracy of code comments. Both agent briefs carry the same boundary — do not widen it in the prompt. It binds the cutover claims pass too, which is the one place claims-auditor still runs.

The stop signal

If a round's findings are predominantly about the record rather than the output, stop the round and say so. That is the symptom of the loop feeding on itself, and noticing it is part of the job — not a licence to skip the phase. The shape to watch for, from the session that produced D19: a Change Log sweep that could not reproduce because writing it changed the file it counted.

The claims pass is deferred, not deleted. Say which review ran in your report. "Reviewed" without naming the agent reads as both, and under D20 it is one.

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.

Two rounds is the cap — D19

Round 1 reviews the change. Round 2 reviews the material fixes. There is no round 3: fix what round 2 finds, and ship.

The measurement above is why round 2 exists. The measurement below is why round 3 does not. On 2026-08-28 two rounds produced 48 findings, and most of round two's were defects in round one's own fixes — so each further round both finds and manufactures defects, and past two the manufacture rate exceeds the value of the marginal finding. Pouya's ruling. State this reasoning when you stop at two, so a later reader does not read the cap as laxness.

Phase 5 — Verify — run it, do not assert it

npm run check
npm run build
npm run check:claims

check:claims greps the built pages for the §4 Forbidden set — Pouya's ruling, 2026-08-29. Under D20 it is the only per-step claims control there is, so never skip it and never let a build ship on a stale dist/. It is a tripwire, not a program: it catches the §4 breaches that are greppable and it makes no claim about the ones that are not. It self-tests its own patterns before it sweeps and refuses to run against an empty or stale dist/, so a pass is a pass on the bytes that would ship. A match is not yet a finding — read the context it prints. If a pattern is genuinely wrong, change it deliberately with a Change Log entry; do not delete one to make a build pass.

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 — npm run lighthouse, after npm run build, on the pages the change touches or on all of them. Available again since 2026-08-31 (AGENTS.md §7). It exits non-zero on a breach, so read the exit status rather than the table. Do not substitute a manual DevTools run and describe it as the same check. Note when reporting that the accessibility figure is measured with prefers-reduced-motion forced

• 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:

  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.