document-review

name	document-review
description	Use to review brainstorm or plan documents before proceeding to the next workflow step. Applies structured self-review for completeness, clarity, consistency, feasibility, and YAGNI.

Document Review

Structured self-review for brainstorm and plan documents.

Core principle: Catch problems in documents before they become problems in code.

Review Checklist

Evaluate every document against these criteria:

Criterion	What to Check
Completeness	All required sections filled? No TBD placeholders left? Open questions flagged?
Clarity	Would someone with zero context understand this? No vague language ("probably", "consider", "try to")?
Consistency	Do decisions align with each other? No contradictions between sections?
Feasibility	Can this actually be built with available tools and constraints? Are estimates realistic?
YAGNI	Anything unnecessary? Hypothetical features? Over-engineered for current needs?

---

For Brainstorm Documents

In addition to the checklist above, verify:

• Open questions resolved -- every question raised during brainstorming has an answer or is explicitly deferred with rationale
• Key decisions captured -- each decision includes the rationale (why this, not that)
• Alternatives documented -- rejected approaches listed with reasons for rejection
• Constraints stated -- technical limitations, time constraints, dependencies identified
• Scope bounded -- clear statement of what is in scope and what is not
• Assumptions explicit -- nothing left implied; all assumptions written down

For Plan Documents

In addition to the checklist above, verify:

• Exact file paths -- every task references specific files to create or modify, no vague "update the module"
• TDD steps present -- every implementation task has explicit test-first steps (write test, verify red, implement, verify green)
• Acceptance criteria testable -- each criterion can be verified with a specific command or test, not subjective judgment
• Task ordering sound -- dependencies between tasks are correct, no task requires output from a later task
• Effort estimates present -- each task has a size estimate (small/medium/large)
• No gaps -- walking through the plan end-to-end produces a complete implementation with no missing steps

---

Output Format

Present findings as a prioritized list:

## Document Review: [document name]

### Issues Found

**Critical** (blocks next step):
- [Issue description] -- [suggestion to fix]

**Important** (should address):
- [Issue description] -- [suggestion to fix]

**Minor** (optional improvement):
- [Issue description] -- [suggestion to fix]

### Assessment
[Ready to proceed / Needs revision]
[One sentence summary of document quality]

---

Making Changes

1. Auto-fix minor issues (vague language, formatting, typos) without asking
2. Ask approval before substantive changes (restructuring, removing sections, changing meaning)
3. Update inline -- no separate review files, no metadata sections added

Simplification Guidance

Simplify when:

• Content serves hypothetical future needs, not current ones
• Sections repeat information covered elsewhere
• Detail exceeds what is needed for the next step

Do not simplify:

• Constraints or edge cases that affect implementation
• Rationale explaining why alternatives were rejected
• Open questions that need resolution

Iteration

After 2 review passes, recommend completion -- diminishing returns are likely.

What NOT to Do

• Do not rewrite the entire document or add requirements the user did not discuss
• Do not over-engineer, add complexity, or create separate review files