ceo-review

name	ceo-review
description	Dialectical premise-and-alternatives audit for a plan, spec, or context packet. Four moves: premise challenge (is this the right problem?), mandatory structurally-distinct alternatives, cross-model outside voice, user-ratified convergence. Named for Gary Tan's plan-ceo-review pattern; operationalizes the AGENTS.md "Diverge Before You Converge" doctrine at the plan-review stage. Use when: about to commit to a plan/spec/design, reviewing a ticket before shape, when "is this the right problem" would be useful, or any time a proposal smells like a symptom fix instead of a root-cause fix. Trigger: /ceo-review, /challenge, /premise-check.
argument-hint	[plan|spec|context-packet|ticket]

/ceo-review

Dialectical audit. Subject the plan to premise-challenge, mandatory alternatives, and a cross-model outside voice before committing.

When to run

• Before committing to a context packet or spec
• When a backlog ticket's framing smells like a symptom, not a root cause
• After /shape produces a design and before /deliver starts building
• Any time someone asks "is this the right thing to build?"

Skip trivial plans. CEO-review catches expensive misdirection, not typos.

The Four Moves

1. Premise Challenge

Before touching the stated solution:

• Five-whys the goal. If the plan says "build X," keep asking why until you've named the underlying user outcome.
• Proxy check. Is the stated solution the most direct path to the outcome, or something easier to scope?
• "Do nothing" test. What happens if this never ships? If the answer is "it's fine," the plan has a priority problem, not an execution problem.
• Provenance. Who asked for this, what did they actually say? Tickets drift from original intent through paraphrase.

If the premise is wrong, stop. Reframe and re-shape — do not review forward.

2. Mandatory Alternatives

Produce ≥2 structurally distinct approaches. Not one idea in costumes.

• Minimal viable: smallest thing that tests the outcome
• Ideal architecture: what you'd build if effort were free
• Assumption-inverter: pick one load-bearing assumption and flip it (sync → async, per-user → per-team, pull → push, etc.)

For each: one-paragraph sketch, its load-bearing assumption, and one way it would fail differently from the others. If all three fail the same way, they're the same plan.

3. Outside Voice

Consult a different foundation, not a different persona.

• Prefer: codex exec "...", gemini "...", thinktank ..., or /research
• Acceptable fallback: a fresh-context Claude subagent with an adversarial prompt
• Feed it: the premise, the plan, and the alternatives
• Ask: "Which framing is load-bearing wrong? Which alternative would you pick and why? What are we missing?"

The outside voice is informational, not authoritative. It informs your judgment; it does not replace it.

4. Ratify

Present to the user:

## CEO Review: <title>

### Premise Verdict
[stands / reframed — if reframed, state the new premise]

### Alternatives
1. <minimal> — load-bearing assumption: ... — fails by: ...
2. <ideal>   — load-bearing assumption: ... — fails by: ...
3. <inverted> — load-bearing assumption: ... — fails by: ...

### Outside Voice (<source>)
<what they saw that we didn't>

### Recommendation
<one concrete next step — argue for it>

User decides: proceed with recommendation, pick a different alternative, reframe the premise, or abandon. Silence is not consent.

Gotchas

• Premise-challenge theater. Asking "is this the right problem?" and immediately answering "yes" is not a challenge. If the premise stands, state what specifically survived the audit — otherwise you didn't do it.
• Same-foundation alternatives. Three Claude-generated alternatives from one prompt are not three alternatives. The outside voice must have a different model underneath; persona diversity is theater.
• Authoritative outside voice. "Codex said X, so X." No. Cross-model consensus is signal; disagreement is signal. Your judgment arbitrates.
• Skipping on "small" plans. The most expensive failures seemed small enough to skip review. If effort-to-ship > ~one agent-day, review.
• Ratification by absence. Presenting the review and moving on without an explicit "proceed" is silent absorption, not ratification.

Relationship to other skills

• /shape runs the philosophy bench (ousterhout/carmack/grug) at Phase 3 for M+ effort designs — that's persona diversity. /ceo-review adds the foundation diversity (outside voice) and premise challenge. Use both.
• /office-hours is the pre-shape dialectic: raw idea → sharpened problem statement. /ceo-review is the post-shape dialectic: shaped plan → ratified plan.
• /groom surfaces themes; its synthesis protocol includes a premise challenge. If /groom already reframed, /ceo-review picks up from there.
• gstack reference: gstack-plan-ceo-review preserves Gary Tan's original for comparison. This skill is the spellbook-native version, self-contained and integrated with our workflow.