git:20260813.b105a8f to git:20260813.3449fbb

---

name: "Roadmap: Review"

description: "Interview-led review of the roadmap's health — status freshness, the priorities the graph implies, and whether the plan still matches reality"

when_to_use: "Periodically, or when the roadmap feels stale, the priorities feel off, a milestone dragged past its intent, or the user asks 'is the roadmap still right?' — the strategic complement to roadmap-maintain's mechanical sync."

model: opus

effort: high

metadata:

glyph: ᛟ

family: roadmap

bundle: roadmap-system

disable-model-invocation: false # explicit: read-only interview that writes nothing itself

allowed-tools: ["Read", "Glob", "Grep", "Bash(python3:*)", "Bash(git log:*)", "Bash(git diff:*)"]

disallowed-tools: ["Edit", "Write", "NotebookEdit"] # writes nothing itself; hands actions to the roadmap-* writers

arguments: ["milestone"]

argument-hint: "[milestone id (optional, to scope the review)]"

---

# Roadmap: Review

`roadmap-maintain` keeps the roadmap *consistent*; this skill asks whether it's still *true*. A roadmap can validate clean while quietly rotting: done-in-code tasks still `todo`, milestone goals describing last quarter's intent, a ready-set whose leverage ordering nobody has looked at since it was authored. This is a guided health check that ends in decisions, not a report that ends in a shrug.

Read-only: findings route to the skills that write. Shared conventions: `~/.claude/library/references/roadmap-conventions.md`.

## Step 1 — Gather the evidence

`roadmap.py detect` guard as usual (exit 3 → `roadmap-migrate`; exit 2 → ask). Then:

- `roadmap.py stats` and `ready --json` — distribution, per-milestone done-%, the ready-set with leverage signals

- `.claude/roadmaps.json` — milestone goals, gates, notes, parked (`paused`/`deferred`) tasks

- `git log --oneline -30` — what actually shipped recently, as a drift smell-test (full reconciliation belongs to `roadmap-maintain reconcile`; here it only informs questions)

Scope to `$ARGUMENTS`'s milestone when given.

## Step 2 — Assess along four axes

1. **Freshness** — does recent git activity suggest tasks are done-in-code but not marked? Are there `blocked` tasks whose blockers look finished? (Flag for a reconcile run; don't relitigate evidence here.)

2. **Implied priorities** — the ready-set *is* a priority statement: its leverage ordering says what matters next. Does the user agree with what it's saying? A high-leverage candidate nobody intends to touch, or a pet task with zero unblocks being worked first, are both findings.

3. **Milestone integrity** — per milestone: is the goal sentence still the goal? Is a nearly-done milestone (high done-%) worth closing out before opening a new front? Has any milestone become a dumping ground?

4. **The parked and the dead** — every `paused`/`deferred` task and every gate: still genuinely waiting, or quietly obsolete? Any `todo` that will realistically never be done and should be `out_of_scope`?

## Step 3 — The interview

2–4 questions per round, each anchored to a specific observation with its evidence ("M2 is 85% done with two tasks left, but the last five commits were all M4 territory — deliberate?"). Lead with the highest-stakes findings; skip axes that came back clean. End each round: *"More on this, or shall I pull the findings together?"*

## Step 4 — Findings and routing

Present decisions made, grouped by the skill that executes them:

```text

→ roadmap-maintain (reconcile): {suspected-done tasks to verify against code}

→ roadmap-maintain (explicit): {status calls: out_of_scope, un-park, re-seed}

→ roadmap-audit-deps: {edges/gates that came up — full audit if several}

→ roadmap-update-tasks: {new tasks surfaced}

→ roadmap-create-interview: {a theme big enough to deserve its own session}

→ No action: {reviewed and healthy — say so explicitly}

```

Offer to run the first of these now. This skill writes nothing itself.

## Red flags

**Never:** edit any roadmap artefact directly; mark anything done without `roadmap-maintain`'s evidence gate; turn the review into feature brainstorming (route it); manufacture findings when the roadmap is healthy — "nothing needs changing" is a valid, complete outcome.

<raw-arguments value="$ARGUMENTS" />