// Product go/no-go on a framed spec. Use after auto-frame, before planning.
Engineering go/no-go on a plan. Use after auto-plan, before execution.
Implement approved plan slices. Use as the execute-stage entry point.
Bound and de-risk a request into SPEC.md. Use when the objective is clear but scope needs constraining.
Sharpen a vague idea into a bounded objective. Use before framing when scope is undefined.
Build project truth from repo evidence. Use when steering is missing or stale.
Turn an approved spec into ordered slices. Use when framing is accepted and planning begins.
| name | auto-ceo-review |
| description | Product go/no-go on a framed spec. Use after auto-frame, before planning. |
| metadata | {"stage":"frame"} |
Product-direction gate. Decides whether a spec is worth building before planning begins.
First action: run scripts/get-context.mjs → JSON {activeChange, stage, canonicalSpec, canonicalDesign, canonicalPlan, productReview, engineeringReview, diagnostics} (missing state normalizes to "none"/null). If any diagnostic has level "error", stop and report it before proceeding.
Product bet review. Restates the objective as one crisp bet, identifies differentiation, calls out generic or mis-scoped direction. Does not design implementation or write code.
Loading discipline: one SPEC.md read, one review paragraph, one verdict. Read project files when understanding the codebase helps ground the review — verify that spec claims reflect what actually exists before approving or rejecting.
Before appending the product review:
references/quality.md (~36 lines: anti-patterns, better shape, prose hygiene scan patterns) when the review sounds like polite validation.Read .agent/steering/STATUS.md. Read the canonical SPEC.md.
In one sentence: "We are betting that [specific user] will [specific action] because [specific reason], and the risk is [specific risk]."
Assess differentiation, user value, generic or mis-scoped elements, and shippability. Ground each in evidence from the spec.
Use exactly one of the four approved values.
Use strict vocabulary. No synonyms.
| Verdict | Meaning | Next Action |
|---|---|---|
approved | Direction is sound. Proceed to planning. | auto-plan |
approved_with_risks | Direction is sound but carries known risks. Document them in the review. | auto-plan |
needs_clarification | Direction cannot be evaluated. Return to framing. | auto-frame or auto-office-hours |
descoped | Direction is out of scope or low-leverage. Do not pursue. | auto-office-hours or stop |
Add a ## Review: Product section to SPEC.md using the exact template in references/review-template.md.
Run sync-status.mjs from this skill's scripts directory.
Update .agent/.automaton/state/current.json:
product_review → <verdict>State the next skill based on the verdict.
SPEC.md with appended ## Review: Product section.agent/.automaton/state/current.json updated with product_review; stage is unchanged by this skillerror-level diagnostics block the review; warning-level diagnostics surface to the next stageapproved or approved_with_risks → auto-plan; needs_clarification → auto-frame or auto-office-hours; descoped → auto-office-hours or stop. The user or host invokes the next skill; auto-ceo-review does not chain.needs_clarification. Do not guess.Read references/review-template.md for the exact markdown format. (~21 lines: 5-field format covering verdict/strength/concern/action/de-scoped, with rules on sentence limits and no extra commentary.)
Read references/bet-framing.md for 10x check, platonic ideal, dream state mapping. (~70 lines: crisp vs. vague bet examples, reframing structure, 10x check, platonic ideal exercise, dream state mapping diagram, temporal interrogation by implementation hour, expansion framing FLAT vs. EXPANSIVE pattern.)
Read references/review-modes.md for four scope postures and mode selection defaults. (~48 lines: SCOPE EXPANSION, SELECTIVE EXPANSION, HOLD SCOPE, SCOPE REDUCTION, each with ceremony/protocol; mode selection table by context.)
Read references/product-checklist.md for premise challenge, differentiation, scope calibration. (~44 lines: 7 check categories covering premise challenge, differentiation scan, scope calibration, leverage assessment, user sovereignty, anti-goal filter, temporal check.)
Read references/cognitive-patterns.md for 18 thinking instincts. (~53 lines: 18 patterns from classification instinct to design-for-trust; application map linking patterns to review tasks.)