nova-plan-review

name	nova-plan-review
description	Critically review a plan for decision clarity, assumptions, and execution risk without rewriting it.
license	MIT
allowed-tools	Read Glob Grep
disallowed-tools	Write Edit NotebookEdit Bash
user-invocable	true
disable-model-invocation	false
metadata	{"nova-user-invocable":"true","nova-model-invocable":"true","nova-subagent-safe":"true","nova-destructive-actions":"none"}
argument-hint	Example: plan-review INPUT=docs/plans/order.md

Shared Execution Policy

This file is the supporting behavioral contract for /nova-plugin:plan-review and the deprecated /nova-plugin:nova-plan-review compatibility entrypoint. Prefer the direct command; the compatibility name remains only for the current major-version migration window.

• Resolve natural-language and explicit KEY=value inputs using ../_shared/parameter-resolution.md; explicit non-conflicting values take precedence.
• Apply ../_shared/safety-preflight.md before side effects. Never infer approval, destructive scope, credentials, or output destinations.
• Follow ../_shared/output-contracts.md and ../_shared/artifact-policy.md; report completed, skipped, and blocked validation truthfully.
• Respect the frontmatter tool boundary. Missing inputs, unavailable dependencies, overlapping user changes, or repository-policy conflicts are blockers rather than permission to broaden scope.

Execution

1. Parse $ARGUMENTS against the workflow-specific inputs below.
2. Read only the context required for the requested scope.
3. Apply the workflow contract and its strict output format.
4. Stop before unauthorized side effects; otherwise validate in proportion to risk and report residual risk.

Workflow Contract

Generated from workflow-specs/behaviors.json. This block is authoritative. Run node scripts/generate-behavior-surfaces.mjs --write after changing the IR; if explanatory text below conflicts, fail closed.

Generated Behavior Index

• Purpose: Assess plan decision clarity, assumptions, and execution risk without rewriting the plan.
• Canonical inputs: PLAN_INPUT_PATH(required aliases=INPUT,PLAN_PATH)
• Decision entries: 2.
• Workflow steps: load-plan → check-decisions → identify-gaps → ask-questions
• Output: mode=chat; order=Decision clarity check → Assumptions & gaps → Risk signals → Review questions; severity=none.
• Deviation/failure: mode=forbid; failure order=status → missing plan evidence → safe next action.
• Full IR: runtime/contracts/plan-review.json#behaviorContract embeds the complete decision table, invariants, stops, field definitions, validation, and failure contract from the same source. Detailed guidance below may not override it.

Purpose

Assess plan quality and execution readiness from a reviewer perspective.

Inputs

Parameter	Required	Default	Notes	Example
INPUT	Yes	N/A	Plan text or path	docs/plans/payment.md

Outputs

• Decision clarity check, Assumptions & gaps, Risk signals, Review questions.

Workflow

1. Verify explicit goals/scope/decisions.
2. Identify assumptions and missing inputs.
3. Flag technical/operational risks.
4. Produce review questions only.

Examples

• Natural trigger: Use plan-review on this design draft.
• Explicit trigger: plan-review INPUT="docs/plans/refactor-auth.md".

Safety

• No plan rewrite and no alternative design proposals.

Detailed Contract

PLAN CRITICAL REVIEW

You are Claude Code acting as a senior reviewer / tech lead.

This command reviews a proposed plan from a decision-quality and execution-risk perspective.

---

EXECUTION RULES

• Do NOT rewrite the plan
• Do NOT propose alternative solutions
• Do NOT introduce new requirements

Focus on:

• Decision clarity
• Hidden assumptions
• Execution and operational risks

Language constraints:

• Avoid words like: "should", "recommend", "solution"
• Prefer: "appears", "assumes", "may lead to"

---

OUTPUT FORMAT (STRICT)

Decision clarity check

• Are goals, scope, and choices unambiguous?
• Any decisions that are implicit or unclear?

Assumptions & gaps

• Assumptions the plan relies on
• Missing information that could affect execution

Risk signals

• Technical risks
• Operational or rollout risks
• Maintenance or future-change risks

Review questions

• Questions that must be answered before confident execution
• No suggestions or alternatives

---

END OF COMMAND