consensus-planning

name	consensus-planning
description	Build an implementation-ready plan by iterating with peer-review until concerns converge

What I do

• Turn discussion context into an implementation-ready plan.
• Run an explicit review loop with the peer-review agent to challenge assumptions and tradeoffs.
• Keep only unresolved high-impact concerns in scope each round.

When to use me

• The user needs a robust plan for non-trivial implementation work.
• There are architecture or sequencing decisions with meaningful risk.
• You want convergence through critique, not a one-shot plan.

Workflow

1. Draft an initial plan from current conversation context.
2. Run a review round with the peer-review agent.
3. Revise the plan to address feedback and record what changed.
4. Repeat steps 2-3 until convergence or round cap.

Round cap:

• Maximum 6 review rounds.

Convergence criteria (stop when any condition is true):

• The peer-review agent explicitly indicates convergence.
• No new high-priority concerns appear for 2 consecutive rounds.
• The process reaches 6 rounds.

Per-round rules

• Use the peer-review agent each round; do not rely on self-critique alone.
• Ask peer-review to challenge at least one already accepted decision.
• Tag concerns as new, reframed, or resolved.
• Prioritize high-impact risks and sequencing problems first.
• Do not repeat resolved points unless new evidence appears.
• If unknowns remain, choose best-effort defaults and list targeted follow-up questions.

Output format

1. Goal
2. Decisions taken
3. Ordered action plan
4. Risks and mitigations
5. Verification checklist
6. Consensus summary (rounds used, stop reason, confidence 1-5)
7. Open questions (if any)

Keep the final output concise, concrete, and executable.