3.9 KiB
3.9 KiB
tags, description, argument-hint, allowed-tools, model, references_guidelines
| tags | description | argument-hint | allowed-tools | model | references_guidelines | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Step back, reflect on current work, validate direction, and assess alignment with plan and architecture |
|
claude-sonnet-4-5 |
|
/sanity-check Command
WHAT: Mid-work validation using deep reflection to catch drift early.
WHY: Prevent expensive course corrections by validating direction while in progress.
HOW: Sequential thinking analysis + context validation + alignment check.
Usage
/sanity-check # Pause, reflect, validate direction
When: Complexity increasing, feeling uncertain, before major decisions, after 30+ minutes work, something feels off.
Not for: Start of work (/plan), after completion (/quality), loading context (/refresh).
Execution Steps
1. Sequential Thinking Reflection
Use sequential thinking tool:
- What are we trying to accomplish? (TASK.md/BUG.md goal)
- What have we done? (WORKLOG.md, completed phases)
- Current approach? (technical solution, assumptions)
- Architecture alignment? (ADRs, architecture-overview.md)
- Standards alignment? (task-workflow.md, test-first, quality gates)
- Concerns? (what feels wrong, risks, drift)
- Decision: Green (continue), Yellow (adjust), Red (course correct)
2. Read Context Files
# Work context
Read: pm/issues/TASK-###-*/[TASK|BUG].md
Read: PLAN.md
Read: WORKLOG.md
# Standards and architecture
Read: CLAUDE.md
Read: docs/development/workflows/task-workflow.md
Read: docs/project/architecture-overview.md
Read: docs/project/design-overview.md
# Recent history
Bash: git log -5 --format="%h - %s"
Skip missing files gracefully.
3. Analyze Alignment
Compare reflection to reality:
- Plan: Following PLAN.md phases? Deviations?
- Standards: Test-first? Quality gates per task-workflow.md?
- Architecture: ADR consistency? Approved patterns?
- Design: Design system usage? Accessibility?
Categorize concerns:
- ✅ Green: On track, continue
- ⚠️ Yellow: Minor issues, easy fixes
- 🚩 Red: Major drift, course correction needed
4. Provide Assessment
## Sanity Check - TASK-###
### Current State
[What's done, current approach]
### Alignment
**Plan**: ✅ | ⚠️ | 🚩 [details]
**Standards**: ✅ | ⚠️ | 🚩 [details]
**Architecture**: ✅ | ⚠️ | 🚩 [details]
### Concerns
✅ What's Working: [positives]
⚠️ Minor Issues: [yellow flags + fixes]
🚩 Critical Issues: [red flags + actions]
### Recommendation
[Continue as-is | Minor adjustment | Course correction | Update plan]
### Next Steps
[Specific actions]
Error Handling
- Missing files: Skip gracefully, note if critical file (PLAN.md) missing
- No concerns: Provide positive feedback, confirm alignment
- Multiple red flags: Prioritize by severity, clear action items
Integration
Workflow position: Mid-work validation
/plan → /implement 1.1 → /implement 1.2 → /sanity-check → [adjust if needed] → /implement 1.3 → /quality
Comparison:
/refresh- Conversation start (load context silently, no analysis)/plan- Before work (create execution plan, strategic thinking)/sanity-check- Mid-work (validate direction, deep reflection)/implement- During work (execute phases, tactical)/quality- After work (assess code quality, review)
Notes
- Sequential thinking required - Key differentiator from
/refresh - Mid-work focus - For the messy middle, not start or end
- Permission to pause - Makes stepping back a workflow step
- Catch drift early - Course correction cheap at 45 min, expensive at 4 hours
- Trust your gut - If something feels off, run this command