Ultra-Validation Protocol

Evaluate each validation dimension systematically. Question every assumption. Cross-reference against actual codebase artifacts.

Focus Area

$ARGUMENTS

If no focus specified, validate the entire preceding context (plan, code changes, discussion, or proposal).

Validation Steps

Step 0: Deliverable Existence Check

<deliverable_check> Based on the focus area, identify:

1. What concrete deliverable was requested? (code, config, documentation, etc.)
2. Does this deliverable exist?

If the requested deliverable does not exist, this is automatically a critical finding. Do not proceed to validate planning artifacts as a substitute. Status is NEEDS_ACTION until the deliverable exists. </deliverable_check>

<context_detection> Identify what you're validating:

• Plan/Proposal: Architecture design, implementation approach, technical spec
• Code Changes: Diff, new files, refactored code, PR
• Discussion: Requirements gathering, debugging session, design conversation
• Configuration: Environment setup, infrastructure, deployment config

Adapt your validation approach accordingly. </context_detection>

<investigate_before_answering> Read relevant files before making claims. If uncertain, state what you need to investigate. </investigate_before_answering>

Step 1: Assumption Inventory

List every assumption in the preceding context. For each:

• VALIDATED: Confirmed by examining actual code/config/docs (cite file:line)
• UNVALIDATED: Not yet verified against codebase
• CONTRADICTED: Evidence suggests assumption is wrong

Step 2: Error & Risk Scan

Examine for issues appropriate to the context type:

For Code:

• Logic errors, null handling, type mismatches
• Missing error handlers, unhandled promises
• Race conditions, async timing issues
• Security vulnerabilities, exposed secrets
• Performance issues, N+1 queries, memory leaks

For Plans/Proposals:

• Unstated dependencies or prerequisites
• Scope gaps or undefined edge cases
• Integration risks with existing systems

For Configuration:

• Missing environment variables
• Security misconfigurations
• Incompatible version constraints

Step 3: Omission Detection

Identify what's missing:

• Incomplete implementations or undefined behaviors
• Missing error handling for edge cases
• Absent tests for critical paths
• Undocumented assumptions

Step 4: Codebase Alignment

Compare against existing patterns:

• Does approach match existing code structure and conventions?
• Are we violating established patterns?
• Will changes integrate cleanly?
• Are we introducing inconsistencies?

Step 5: Enhancement Opportunities

• Can we reduce complexity?
• Are there safer, faster, or cleaner approaches?
• Can we consolidate duplicate logic?

Output Format

CRITICAL (Resolve before proceeding)

• Risk: [why critical]
• Action: [specific next step]

ERRORS FOUND (Severity: HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW)

• Location: [file:line, section, or concept]
• Impact: [what breaks or fails]
• Fix: [concrete solution]

ALIGNMENT ISSUES (Conflicts with codebase or conventions)

• Current: [what exists]
• Proposed: [what conflicts]
• Resolution: [how to align]

MISSING (Gaps needing attention)

IMPROVEMENTS (Better alternatives with expected benefit)

VALIDATED (Confirmed with citations)

NEEDS VALIDATION (Requires investigation)

Scorecard

After all findings sections, output this human-readable scorecard table:

## Scorecard

| Category           | Count | Action needed? |
|--------------------|-------|----------------|
| Critical           |     X | YES            |
| Errors             |     X | YES            |
| Alignment issues   |     X | YES            |
| Missing            |     X | YES            |
| Needs validation   |     X | YES            |
| Improvements       |     X | no             |
| Validated          |     X | no             |
| **Status**         |       | **PASS / NEEDS_ACTION** |

Rules for Action needed column: Critical, Errors, Alignment, Missing, Needs validation = YES when count > 0. Improvements and Validated are always "no".

Machine-Parseable Summary

Immediately after the scorecard, output this exact summary block (parsed by automation hooks):

<ultrareview_summary>
status: [PASS|NEEDS_ACTION]
critical: [count]
errors: [count]
alignment: [count]
missing: [count]
improvements: [count]
needs_validation: [count]
validated: [count]
</ultrareview_summary>

Rules:

• Requirements stated in the focus area are required, not optional
• status: PASS only if critical=0 AND errors=0 AND alignment=0 AND missing=0 AND needs_validation=0
• status: NEEDS_ACTION if any actionable findings exist
• Count each distinct finding, not each bullet point
• The scorecard and summary block appear at the very end of your response, in that order