plan-board

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:

1. State the exact disagreement in one sentence.
2. Name the underlying value tension (e.g., "Speed vs. polish," "Simplicity vs. leverage," "Cut vs. delight").
3. 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."