plan-validate

name	plan-validate
description	Validate implementation plans against intent using reverse-questioning, assumption stress-testing, and gap analysis
layer	hub
category	workflow
triggers	["/plan-validate","validate this plan","stress test the plan","check the plan","review the plan"]
inputs	[{"plan":"The implementation plan to validate (from plan skill or user-provided)"},{"originalIntent":"The original goal or request that spawned the plan (optional but recommended)"}]
outputs	[{"validationReport":"Structured report with findings, gaps, and recommendations"},{"reverseQuestions":"Questions that expose hidden assumptions or misalignments"},{"strengthScore":"Qualitative assessment of plan readiness (Red/Yellow/Green)"}]
linksTo	["plan","research","scout"]
linkedFrom	["plan","cook","team","ship"]
preferredNextSkills	["plan","kanban","scout"]
fallbackSkills	["brainstorm","research"]
riskLevel	low
memoryReadPolicy	selective
memoryWritePolicy	selective
sideEffects	["Produces validation report","May flag plan for revision"]

Plan-Validate Skill

Purpose

Serve as the adversarial reviewer of implementation plans. This skill's job is to find what is wrong, missing, or fragile in a plan BEFORE execution begins. It uses reverse-questioning, assumption stress-testing, and gap analysis to surface problems that are cheap to fix on paper and expensive to fix in code.

Think of this as a pre-mortem: imagine the plan has already failed, then work backward to find out why.

Workflow

Pass 1: Intent Alignment Check

1. Restate the original intent in one sentence. If the original intent is not available, infer it from the plan's objective.
2. Compare plan scope to intent -- Does the plan actually deliver what was asked for? Common misalignments:
   • Plan is broader than intent (scope creep baked in)
   • Plan is narrower than intent (missing features)
   • Plan solves an adjacent problem (misunderstood requirement)
3. Generate 3-5 reverse questions -- Questions phrased as "If we complete this plan exactly as written, will we have [X]?" where X tests different facets of the original intent.

Pass 2: Assumption Stress Test

4. Extract every assumption -- Both explicitly stated and implicit ones buried in the plan.
5. For each assumption, apply the inversion test: "What happens if the opposite is true?"
   • If the answer is "the plan still works" -- the assumption is non-critical.
   • If the answer is "the plan breaks" -- the assumption is load-bearing and must be verified before execution.
6. Flag unverified load-bearing assumptions as blockers.

Pass 3: Completeness Audit

7. Check for missing phases -- Is there a gap between phases where work would need to happen but is not accounted for?
8. Check for missing tasks within phases -- Are there implied subtasks not listed?
9. Check for missing cross-cutting concerns:
   • Error handling / failure modes
   • Testing strategy
   • Rollback plan
   • Data migration (if applicable)
   • Security implications
   • Performance implications
   • Accessibility (if UI work)
   • Documentation updates
10. Check dependency chain -- Are there circular dependencies? Missing dependencies? Implicit ordering that is not stated?

Pass 4: Feasibility Check