plan-review-checklist

name	plan-review-checklist
description	Reviews .agents/PLAN.md for implementation readiness, correctness, scope, risk, and validation gaps.

Plan Review Checklist

Read .agents/PLAN.md and .agents/REVIEW.md directly. The latter is a read-only schema template. Review type is plan unless the assignment explicitly specifies a supported type (currently migration for migration-specialist). The orchestrator assigns an absent .agents/REVIEW_<assigned-type>-<n>.md path; write the complete review only there, never write findings to .agents/REVIEW.md, self-allocate, or overwrite an artifact. The default plan type uses .agents/REVIEW_plan-<n>.md; an assigned migration review uses .agents/REVIEW_migration-<n>.md.

Review checks

Confirm that the plan:

• Matches the user request.
• Separates verified facts, assumptions, and open questions.
• Describes current behavior from inspected repository evidence.
• Identifies the necessary files, symbols, boundaries, and contracts.
• Uses existing repository patterns where appropriate.
• Defines explicit scope and non-goals.
• Orders work by dependency.
• Gives each task one owner and one verifiable outcome.
• Provides enough detail to avoid implementation-time guessing.
• Defines targeted and broader validation where needed.
• Covers relevant error, authorization, data, migration, compatibility, and UI behavior.
• Treats security and performance as plan-readiness/routing checks: identifies missing risk treatment or missing dedicated specialist review when warranted, without applying specialist protocols.
• Uses an execution mode and approval points appropriate to the risk.
• Includes rollback or recovery when failure could be costly.

Finding rules

Report only concrete changes required before safe implementation.

A finding must identify:

• The missing or incorrect plan detail.
• The scenario or risk it creates.
• The specific plan change required.

Do not report style, formatting, or optional process preferences.

Priority

• [P0]: Universal release or operations blocker.
• [P1]: Urgent correctness, security, data, or scope risk.
• [P2]: Material ambiguity, validation gap, or maintainability risk.
• [P3]: Low-risk improvement that still affects execution quality.

Output

Use the complete schema in templates/REVIEW.md, with the assigned review-type metadata and headings ### F<n> — [P0|P1|P2|P3] .... Re-reviews use assigned successor artifacts of the same type with predecessor paths and dispositions by reference.

Use No findings. instead of a finding list when no actionable issue exists. Order findings by priority, keep titles under 80 characters, and return only artifact path, verdict, and blocking status in chat.