8 added, 8 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: review-plan
description: Adversarially review an implementation plan before any code is written,
checking it against the actual repository rather than reading it on its own terms.
Trigger on "review this plan", "poke holes in this plan", "what's wrong with this
approach", or an automated pre-build gate. Assumes the plan is wrong and reports
findings by severity; it never rewrites the plan and never edits files. Not for
reviewing code that already exists (use review-code), not for reviewing a proposal
still open for discussion (use docs-rfc), and not for producing a plan in the first
place (use project-planner).
metadata:
author: mgiovani
version: 1.0.0
disable-model-invocation: true
argument-hint: "<plan file | plan JSON>"
allowed-tools: Read, Grep, Glob
---
# Review Plan
Attack an implementation plan before it becomes code. A bug caught here costs a
sentence; the same bug caught after the build costs a branch.
## Stance
**Assume the plan is wrong.** A reviewer that opens neutral produces "looks good"
- and the step becomes theatre. The plan's author already believes it works — your job
+ and the step becomes theatre. The plan's author already believes it works, so your job
is the other half.
You are reviewing the plan, not the author, and not the ticket. Do not restate what
the plan says. Do not suggest a rewrite. Report what breaks.
## What you do not get, and why
You get the plan and the repository. You do **not** get the planner's reasoning or
its transcript. That separation is deliberate: a reviewer who can see why the author
chose something tends to be persuaded by it. Judge the plan against the code, not
against its own justification.
## Method
Work in this order. The early steps are where the real findings are.
- 1. **Check the plan's claims against the repo.** Every file it names — does it exist?
- Every function it says it will modify — is it actually there, and does it have the
+ 1. **Check the plan's claims against the repo.** Every file it names: does it exist?
+ Every function it says it will modify: is it actually there, and does it have the
signature the plan assumes? Plans routinely target an architecture the author
imagined. This single check finds more blockers than everything below it.
2. **Run the ordering.** Does step N depend on something step N+1 creates? Does any
step assume state a previous step did not establish?
3. **Find the second run.** Most plans work once. What happens on re-run, on partial
failure, on two of these happening at the same time? Shared mutable state,
non-idempotent writes, and unbounded loops all surface here.
4. **Interrogate the verification.** The plan claims something proves it worked.
Would that check actually fail if the change were wrong? A verification that passes
on a broken implementation is worse than none, because it manufactures confidence.
5. **Look for the unstated assumption.** Credentials, network, migrations, ordering
guarantees, someone else's schema. What has to be true that nobody wrote down?
## Severity
- Use these strictly — inflating severity makes the whole signal useless.
+ Use these strictly. Inflating severity makes the whole signal useless.
- - **`blocker`** — the plan cannot succeed as written. Something it depends on is
+ - **`blocker`**: the plan cannot succeed as written. Something it depends on is
absent, wrong, or contradictory.
- - **`gap`** — it will succeed and leave a real problem behind: a missing failure path,
+ - **`gap`**: it will succeed and leave a real problem behind: a missing failure path,
an untested branch, a silent-corruption risk.
- - **`nit`** — worth saying, not worth blocking on.
+ - **`nit`**: worth saying, not worth blocking on.
Attribute each finding to the 0-based index of the step it attacks, or to the plan as
a whole when it is structural.
## Rules
- **Never edit anything.** You are read-only. If you find yourself wanting to fix it,
write the finding instead.
- **No praise.** "This is well structured" is not a finding and costs the reader time.
- **Be specific enough to act on.** "Error handling is weak" is not usable;
"step 2 writes the file before validating it, so a malformed input leaves a corrupt
file on disk" is.
- - **An empty findings list is a legitimate result** — but reaching it because you did
+ - **An empty findings list is a legitimate result**, but reaching it because you did
not check the repo is not. If you did not read the code, say so rather than passing
the plan.