| name | plan-board |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| platform | claude-code |
| description | Board-level meta-synthesis. Runs Musk, Jobs, and Altman lenses in sequence,
surfaces where they agree (GREEN) and disagree (RED), and delivers a
final weighted verdict.
|
| allowed-tools | ["Read","Grep","Glob","Bash","AskUserQuestion"] |
Update Check (run first)
_UPD=$(~/.claude/skills/lenshub/scripts/lenshub-update-check 2>/dev/null || true)
[ -n "$_UPD" ] && echo "$_UPD" || true
If output shows UPGRADE_AVAILABLE <old> <new>: read ~/.claude/skills/lenshub/skills/lenshub-upgrade/SKILL.md and follow the "Inline upgrade flow" (auto-upgrade if configured, otherwise AskUserQuestion with 4 options, write snooze state if declined). If JUST_UPGRADED <from> <to>: tell user "Running lenshub v{to} (just updated!)" and continue.
"If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together."
— African proverb, frequently cited in boardrooms
◎ BOARD REVIEW — MULTI-LENS SYNTHESIS
Philosophy
You are convening a board of three. Each board member sees the plan through a different lens. Your job is not to average their views — it is to surface where they agree (that's signal) and where they disagree (that's where the real decisions live). Disagreements between strong thinkers are not noise; they are the most valuable information in a plan review.
The three lenses:
- ⚡ Musk lens: First principles. Delete requirements. Speed. "Can this be cut?"
- ◉ Jobs lens: User experience. Simplicity. Delight. "What does the user feel?"
- ◈ Altman lens: Leverage. AI-native. Compounding. "Does this matter in 10 years?"
No lens is more correct. Each surfaces real things the others miss. The board's job is synthesis, not consensus.
Critical rule: Do NOT water down disagreements. If Musk would delete what Jobs considers essential, say so clearly. The disagreement is the finding — not a problem to smooth over.
Do NOT make code changes. Do NOT start implementation. Your job is to run all three lenses and synthesize their verdicts.
PRE-REVIEW SYSTEM AUDIT
git log --oneline -20
git diff main --stat
Read CLAUDE.md and TODOS.md if they exist. Map:
- Current system state and what's in flight
- Existing known pain points
- Architecture context needed for all three lenses
Report findings concisely before the reviews begin.
⚡ MUSK LENS — First Principles Review
Apply the full Musk review methodology:
Step 0: Delete Test
- Can this feature be deleted entirely? What breaks if it never ships?
- Which requirements are made up? For each: who imposed it, is it valid?
- What's the first-principles problem (strip all assumed solutions)?
Simplification Map
For every component: is it justified? What's the simplest alternative?
Flag: YAGNI violations, config options without justification, abstractions serving hypothetical futures.
Speed Test
- 48-hour version: [describe]
- 1-week version: [describe]
- Gap analysis: what's scope creep vs. real requirements?
Musk Verdict
MUSK VERDICT: [DELETE / SIMPLIFY / BUILD]
Key finding: [one sentence]
Requirements to cut: [list]
Biggest complexity smell: [one item]
◉ JOBS LENS — Experience Review
Apply the full Jobs review methodology:
Step 0: User Feeling Test
- What does a user feel the first time they encounter this?
- What would a sixth-grader think of this UX?
- Walk through the first-time experience step by step.
Focus Audit
- What is the ONE thing this plan does that matters most?
- What dilutes it?
- What should be cut so the important thing can shine?
The Wow Moment
- Is there one moment that makes a user say "oh wow, they thought of that"?
- If not: CRITICAL DESIGN GAP. Name it.
Jobs Verdict
JOBS VERDICT: [REDESIGN / REFINE / SHIP]
Key finding: [one sentence]
Wow moment: [identified / MISSING]
Experience gaps: [list]
Things to cut for focus: [list]
◈ ALTMAN LENS — Leverage Review
Apply the full Altman review methodology:
Step 0: Leverage Test
- Does this compound? (Gets better with time, data, or users?)
- What's the defensible moat?
- AI-native or AI-frosted?
AI-Native Audit
For each major feature: what's the 10x-better AI version?
10-Year Question
- Is this problem still a problem in 10 years?
- What comes after this ships (Phase 2)?
Altman Verdict
ALTMAN VERDICT: [REFRAME / ACCELERATE / EXECUTE]
Key finding: [one sentence]
Compounding mechanism: [identified / MISSING]
Moat type: [strongest moat, or NONE]
AI-native gap: [biggest missed AI opportunity, if any]
Board Synthesis
GREEN — Where all three agree
These findings are the highest-confidence signal. If Musk, Jobs, and Altman all flag the same thing, it's not an opinion — it's a fact.
FINDING | MUSK | JOBS | ALTMAN | VERDICT
---------------------|-------|-------|--------|--------
[finding] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | GREEN
List all GREEN items. These are the non-negotiable changes.
RED — Where they disagree
This is where judgment matters most. The right answer is not "average them" — it's to understand WHY they disagree and make a decision.
TOPIC | MUSK VIEW | JOBS VIEW | ALTMAN VIEW | TENSION
---------------------|--------------|--------------|--------------|--------
[topic] | [stance] | [stance] | [stance] | [why]
For each RED item:
- State the exact disagreement in one sentence.
- Name the underlying value tension (e.g., "Speed vs. polish," "Simplicity vs. leverage," "Cut vs. delight").
- Make a recommendation. The board must have a view, not just "it depends."
STOP. AskUserQuestion for each RED item with genuine decision weight. Recommend + WHY. One question per item.
YELLOW — Where two agree, one dissents
Surface these with the dissenting view clearly named. A 2-1 majority is not consensus — understand the dissent.
TOPIC | MAJORITY VIEW | DISSENTING LENS | DISSENT REASON
---------------------|-----------------------|------------------|---------------
Final Board Verdict Table
+===========================================================================+
| BOARD VERDICT |
+===========================================================================+
| | ⚡ MUSK | ◉ JOBS | ◈ ALTMAN |
+---------------------+---------------+---------------+----------------+
| Overall verdict | [mode] | [mode] | [mode] |
| Biggest concern | [one item] | [one item] | [one item] |
| Biggest strength | [one item] | [one item] | [one item] |
| Risk rating (1-5) | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] |
+---------------------+---------------+---------------+----------------+
| BOARD RECOMMENDATION: [PROCEED / REDESIGN / HOLD] |
| Rationale: [2-3 sentences synthesizing the board's reasoning] |
+===========================================================================+
PROCEED = all three or 2-1 with weak dissent → ship with GREEN fixes applied.
REDESIGN = 2+ lenses recommend structural changes → stop, redesign on the RED items, re-review.
HOLD = fundamental disagreement on whether to build this at all → bring decision back to the team.
TODOS.md updates
Present each potential TODO as its own individual AskUserQuestion. Never batch. Options: A) Add to TODOS.md B) Skip C) Build now.
Completion Summary
+====================================================================+
| ◎ BOARD REVIEW — COMPLETION SUMMARY |
+====================================================================+
| Musk verdict | [DELETE / SIMPLIFY / BUILD] |
| Jobs verdict | [REDESIGN / REFINE / SHIP] |
| Altman verdict | [REFRAME / ACCELERATE / EXECUTE] |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| GREEN items | ___ (unanimous findings) |
| RED items | ___ (disagreements requiring decision) |
| YELLOW items | ___ (2-1 findings) |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Board recommendation | [PROCEED / REDESIGN / HOLD] |
| Confidence | High / Medium / Low |
| TODOS.md updates | ___ items proposed |
+====================================================================+
"The goal is not consensus. The goal is the right decision."
