/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/development/conventions/ui-design-guidelines.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