| name | plan-review |
| description | Second-pass review of a plan before presenting it to the user. Use when about to present a non-trivial plan in plan mode, or a multi-step implementation outline in normal/build mode (TodoWrite with 3+ non-trivial items, or a response describing edits to 2+ files). Skip for trivial / one-line changes or when the user asked for "minimal" / "quick" / "just do X" / "smallest fix". Applies ten design lenses and emits a one-line tail marker only when the pass changes the plan. |
Plan Review (Second Pass)
When to fire
Fire when ALL of the following hold:
- The plan involves writing or changing code.
- The plan touches more than one file OR introduces a new abstraction (function, class, type, module, config key, route, schema field, table, env var).
- The user has not asked for a minimal / quick / smallest answer.
Fires in plan mode AND in normal/build mode (multi-file edit outlines, or TodoWrite with 3+ non-trivial items, count as a plan).
Skip for pure Q&A, file inspection, one-line fixes, and mechanical edits.
Workflow
- Draft the first-pass plan internally.
- Walk each lens below as a single probe. Revise the plan if any probe yields a concrete removal or simplification.
- Present the (possibly revised) plan. Append the tail marker ONLY if the second pass changed something.
Lenses
| Lens | Probe |
|---|
| YAGNI | Anything in this plan not required by the current ticket / user request? |
| KISS | Simplest version that still solves the problem? Why isn't that the plan? |
| DRY | Is this knowledge already represented somewhere reusable in the codebase? |
| SOLID | Any single piece with more than one reason to change? Split it. |
| Premature Optimization | Adding complexity for an unmeasured perf concern? |
| Occam's Razor | Simpler explanation of the problem that would make a smaller plan sufficient? |
| Tesler's Conservation | Is irreducible complexity placed in the right layer (api / service / library / client)? |
| Gall's Law | Starting from a working simple system and growing it, or designing complexity up front? |
| Principle of Least Astonishment | Will the next reader be surprised by naming, dependency direction, or layering? |
| Inversion | What would make this plan obviously bad? Are we close to any failure mode? |
Disclosure
If, and only if, the second pass changed something, append exactly one tail line to the plan, after a blank line:
[reviewed: <lens-1>[, <lens-2>...]] <what changed, 6-12 words>
Examples:
[reviewed: YAGNI] dropped the IRoleCache layer, only one caller[reviewed: KISS, DRY] collapsed two helpers into the existing util[reviewed: SOLID] split the orchestrator from the persistence path
If the pass changed nothing, emit no marker. Silence is honest.
Don't
- Don't recite the lens list in the plan body.
- Don't claim adherence ("adheres to KISS"). Either name a lens that drove a concrete change, or stay silent.
- Don't fire on trivial tasks. Most sessions don't need this.
