| name | plan-review |
| description | Route plan-review using exact migration registry [{"unit":"plan-review/default","routing":{"negative_boundaries":["Generate the final component architecture document for the feature.","Inspect the dirty worktree and record the fingerprint-bound code review gate.","Judge whether an existing lifecycle specification is correct and internally consistent."],"positive_triggers":["Critique this implementation plan for missing steps, dependency errors, risks, and weak verification.","Review the proposed execution sequence before work begins and return actionable findings.","Stress-test the rollback, validation, and decision points in this plan."]}}]. |
Plan Review
Independently critique an implementation or migration plan before execution. Find missing prerequisites, incorrect ordering, hidden scope, unsafe assumptions, weak validation, and rollback gaps, then return actionable findings and a bounded readiness verdict.
This is analysis-only. Do not rewrite the plan, modify repository files, implement steps, mutate plan state, emit framework sentinels, or record the core fingerprint-bound review gate. Lifecycle-spec correctness belongs to review-spec; dirty-worktree correctness belongs to the core review workflow.
1. Capture the candidate plan
Require the complete plan text or one contained repository-relative plan document. Preserve step identifiers and wording so findings can cite stable locations. Read referenced requirements, technical specifications, architecture decisions, request tickets, repository guidance, and relevant modules only as needed to validate plan claims.
State the plan's intended outcome, scope, non-goals, assumptions, constraints, and success signals. If the plan is incomplete, stale, or ambiguous enough that independent review would guess its intent, return Need Human with the minimum missing context.
2. Research independently
Do not treat the plan's claims as evidence. Inspect the repository paths, interfaces, tests, configurations, dependency edges, deployment behavior, and existing conventions that materially affect the proposed sequence. Keep Git inspection read-only and cite repository-relative locations for consequential findings.
