review-plan

Review Plan Against Design

Orchestrate a multi-lane review that a plan document is correctly derived from its source design, is internally feasible, and is grounded in the actual codebase — before the plan is executed.

This skill is the orchestrator only: it classifies inputs, gathers context, picks a run mode, dispatches reviewer lanes, and aggregates their findings. All review judgment lives in the references/lanes/*.md files. Never inline a lane's checklist here — read and run the lane.

Step 1: Classify input files

Split the provided files into designs and plans.

• Plans: filename contains "plan".
• Designs: filename contains "design", "architecture", "brainstorm", "spec", or "requirements".

If a file matches neither or both, ask the user which it is. If no design was provided, ask for one — the review compares plan against design and is far weaker without it. If the user confirms there is no design, proceed in no-design mode: record "no design provided" in the Context Summary, on panel skip Lane A entirely (five of its six checks need a design), and in every remaining dispatch prompt replace the design line with Design document(s): none — omit all design-fidelity checks. Solo keeps both its lanes — neither is design-only.

Step 2: Map designs to plans

• 1 design + 1 plan → one pair, proceed.

• 1 design + N plans → map all plans to that design.

• N designs + M plans → ask the user for the mapping:

  Multiple design and plan docs found. Which design governs which plan(s)? Designs: {list} Plans: {list} Example: "design-auth -> plan-auth; design-api -> plan-api + plan-integration"

Step 3: Context round (always)

Before running anything, build shared context and measure complexity.

1. Read every design and plan doc completely.
2. Read project config: CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md (and any it points to) for conventions, constraints, and preferred engineering standards. Project CLAUDE.md engineering preferences override the lanes' default rubric.
3. Follow links: if a plan cites a PRD/RFC/ADR, read it.
4. Skip file globbing here — the reviewer does its own grounding (the holistic lane on solo, the grounding lane on panel). Only note a path's status in the summary if the plan states it outright (marks a file "new"/"existing"), which needs no tool call.