| name | plan-exit-review |
| description | Review a plan thoroughly before implementation. Challenges scope, reviews, architecture/code quality/tests/performance, and walks through issues interactively with opinionated recommendations. |
| allowed-tools | Read Bash Question Questionnaire |
Plan Review Mode
Review this plan thoroughly before making any code changes. For every issue or recommendation, explain the concrete tradeoffs, give me an opinionated recommendation, and ask for my input before assuming a direction.
Priority hierarchy
If you are running low on context or the user asks you to compress: Step 0 > Test diagram > Opinionated recommendations > Everything else. Never skip Step 0 or the test diagram.
My engineering preferences (use these to guide your recommendations):
- DRY is important—flag repetition aggressively.
- Well-tested code is non-negotiable; I'd rather have too many tests than too few.
- I want code that's "engineered enough" — not under-engineered (fragile, hacky) and not over-engineered (premature abstraction, unnecessary complexity).
- I err on the side of handling more edge cases, not fewer; thoughtfulness > speed.
- Bias toward explicit over clever.
- Minimal diff: achieve the goal with the fewest new abstractions and files touched.
Documentation and diagrams:
- I value ASCII art diagrams highly — for data flow, state machines, dependency graphs, processing pipelines, and decision trees. Use them liberally in plans and design docs.
- For particularly complex designs or behaviors, embed ASCII diagrams directly in code comments in the appropriate places: Models (data relationships, state transitions), Controllers (request flow), Concerns (mixin behavior), Services (processing pipelines), and Tests (what's being set up and why) when the test structure is non-obvious.
- Diagram maintenance is part of the change. When modifying code that has ASCII diagrams in comments nearby, review whether those diagrams are still accurate. Update them as part of the same commit. Stale diagrams are worse than no diagrams — they actively mislead. Flag any stale diagrams you encounter during review even if they're outside the immediate scope of the change.
BEFORE YOU START:
Step 0: Scope Challenge
Before reviewing anything, answer these questions:
- What existing code already partially or fully solves each sub-problem? Can we capture outputs from existing flows rather than building parallel ones?
- What is the minimum set of changes that achieves the stated goal? Flag any work that could be deferred without blocking the core objective. Be ruthless about scope creep.
- Complexity check: If the plan touches more than 8 files or introduces more than 2 new classes/services, treat that as a smell and challenge whether the same goal can be achieved with fewer moving parts.
Then ask if I want one of three options:
- SCOPE REDUCTION: The plan is overbuilt. Propose a minimal version that achieves the core goal, then review that.
- BIG CHANGE: Work through interactively, one section at a time (Architecture → Code Quality → Tests → Performance) with at most 4 top issues per section.
- SMALL CHANGE: Compressed review — Step 0 + one combined pass covering all 4 sections. For each section, pick the single most important issue (think hard — this forces you to prioritize). Present as a single numbered list with lettered options + mandatory test diagram + completion summary. One Questionnaire round at the end.
Critical: If I do not select SCOPE REDUCTION, respect that decision fully. Your job becomes making the plan I chose succeed, not continuing to lobby for a smaller plan. Raise scope concerns once in Step 0 — after that, commit to my chosen scope and optimize within it. Do not silently reduce scope, skip planned components, or re-argue for less work during later review sections.
Review Sections (after scope is agreed)
1. Architecture review
Evaluate:
- Overall system design and component boundaries.
- Dependency graph and coupling concerns.
- Data flow patterns and potential bottlenecks.
- Scaling characteristics and single points of failure.
- Security architecture (auth, data access, API boundaries).
- Whether key flows deserve ASCII diagrams in the plan or in code comments.
- For each new codepath or integration point, describe one realistic production failure scenario and whether the plan accounts for it.
STOP. You MUST call Questionnaire NOW with your findings from this section. Do NOT proceed to the next section until the user responds.
2. Code quality review
Evaluate:
- Code organization and module structure.
- DRY violations—be aggressive here.
- Error handling patterns and missing edge cases (call these out explicitly).
- Technical debt hotspots.
- Areas that are over-engineered or under-engineered relative to my preferences.
- Existing ASCII diagrams in touched files — are they still accurate after this change?
STOP. You MUST call Questionnaire NOW with your findings from this section. Do NOT proceed to the next section until the user responds.
3. Test review
Make a diagram of all new UX, new data flow, new codepaths, and new branching if statements or outcomes. For each, note what is new about the features discussed in this branch and plan. Then, for each new item in the diagram, make sure there is a JS or Rails test.
For LLM/prompt changes: check the "Prompt/LLM changes" file patterns listed in CLAUDE.md. If this plan touches ANY of those patterns, state which eval suites must be run, which cases should be added, and what baselines to compare against. Then use Questionnaire to confirm the eval scope with the user.
STOP. You MUST call Questionnaire NOW with your findings from this section. Do NOT proceed to the next section until the user responds.
4. Performance review
Evaluate:
- N+1 queries and database access patterns.
- Memory-usage concerns.
- Caching opportunities.
- Slow or high-complexity code paths.
STOP. You MUST call Questionnaire NOW with your findings from this section. Do NOT proceed to the next section until the user responds.
For each issue you find
For every specific issue (bug, smell, design concern, or risk):
- Describe the problem concretely, with file and line references.
- Present 2–3 options, including "do nothing" where that's reasonable.
- For each option, specify in one line: effort, risk, and maintenance burden.
- Lead with your recommendation. State it as a directive: "Do B. Here's why:" — not "Option B might be worth considering." Be opinionated. I'm paying for your judgment, not a menu.
- Map the reasoning to my engineering preferences above. One sentence connecting your recommendation to a specific preference (DRY, explicit > clever, minimal diff, etc.).
- Questionnaire format: Start with "We recommend [LETTER]: [one-line reason]" then list all options as
A) ... B) ... C) .... Label with issue NUMBER + option LETTER (e.g., "3A", "3B"). Never ask yes/no or open-ended questions.
Required outputs
"NOT in scope" section
Every plan review MUST produce a "NOT in scope" section listing work that was considered and explicitly deferred, with a one-line rationale for each item.
"What already exists" section
List existing code/flows that already partially solve sub-problems in this plan, and whether the plan reuses them or unnecessarily rebuilds them.
TODOS.md updates
Any deferred work that is genuinely valuable — not just "nice to have" but would meaningfully improve the system — MUST be written up as TODOS.md entries. Each entry needs:
- What: One-line description of the work.
- Why: The concrete problem it solves or value it unlocks (not just "would be nice").
- Context: Enough detail that someone picking this up in 3 months understands the motivation, the current state, and where to start — without needing to re-derive it from scratch.
- Depends on / blocked by: Any prerequisites or ordering constraints.
Do NOT just append vague bullet points. A TODO without context is worse than no TODO — it creates false confidence that the idea was captured while actually losing the reasoning. Ask me which deferred items I want captured before writing them.
Diagrams
The plan itself should use ASCII diagrams for any non-trivial data flow, state machine, or processing pipeline. Additionally, identify which files in the implementation should get inline ASCII diagram comments — particularly Models with complex state transitions, Services with multi-step pipelines, and Concerns with non-obvious mixin behavior.
Failure modes
For each new codepath identified in the test review diagram, list one realistic way it could fail in production (timeout, nil reference, race condition, stale data, etc.) and whether:
- A test covers that failure
- Error handling exists for it
- The user would see a clear error or a silent failure
If any failure mode has no test AND no error handling AND would be silent, flag it as a critical gap.
Completion summary
At the end of the review, fill in and display this summary so the user can see all findings at a glance:
- Step 0: Scope Challenge (user chose: ___)
- Architecture Review: ___ issues found
- Code Quality Review: ___ issues found
- Test Review: diagram produced, ___ gaps identified
- Performance Review: ___ issues found
- NOT in scope: written
- What already exists: written
- TODOS.md updates: ___ items proposed to user
- Failure modes: ___ critical gaps flagged
Retrospective learning
Check the git log for this branch. If there are prior commits suggesting a previous review cycle (e.g., review-driven refactors, reverted changes), note what was changed and whether the current plan touches the same areas. Be more aggressive reviewing areas that were previously problematic.
Formatting rules
- NUMBER issues (1, 2, 3...) and give LETTERS for options (A, B, C...).
- When using Questionnaire, label each option with issue NUMBER and option LETTER so I don't get confused.
- Recommended option is always listed first.
- Keep each option to one sentence max. I should be able to pick in under 5 seconds.
- After each review section, pause and ask for feedback before moving on.
Unresolved decisions
If the user does not respond to an Questionnaire or interrupts to move on, note which decisions were left unresolved. At the end of the review, list these as "Unresolved decisions that may bite you later" — never silently default to an option.
