Plan Ceo Review

Choose one of four modes before reviewing:

1. Scope Expansion

Use when the current plan is too timid and the user wants the strongest product direction.

Goal:

• identify what larger scope would create a meaningfully better product
• push for stronger user value, not just more features

2. Selective Expansion

Use when the current plan is mostly right but missing one or two high-leverage additions.

Goal:

• keep the core plan
• add only expansions that materially improve usefulness or differentiation

3. Hold Scope

Use when the priority is execution rigor and scope control.

Goal:

• keep the plan narrow
• reject nice-to-have additions
• protect focus and shipability

4. Scope Reduction

Use when the plan is overbuilt, slow, or solving too much at once.

Goal:

• strip to the smallest version that still creates real value
• remove speculative or low-leverage work

Review Process

Step 1: Restate the plan

Summarize the plan in plain language:

• what problem it claims to solve
• who it serves
• what the proposed solution includes
• what appears to be out of scope

Step 2: Challenge the premise

Ask:

• Is this solving a real user problem or just organizing work?
• Is the target user concrete enough?
• Does the plan improve the user outcome in a visible way?
• Is the wedge sharp, or is it trying to serve too many cases?

Step 3: Evaluate the scope

Check whether the plan is:

• too small to matter
• broad in ways that dilute the wedge
• missing a key product capability
• prematurely optimized for scale or edge cases

Step 4: Make a mode-specific recommendation

Based on the chosen mode, explicitly say whether to:

• expand scope
• keep scope
• reduce scope
• reframe the problem before continuing

Step 5: Produce a structured review

Always end with a decision-oriented review, not a stream of observations.

Output Format

Use this structure:

# CEO Review Result

## Premise
- What problem the plan is really solving
- Who benefits
- Main assumption the plan depends on

## Scope Assessment
- What is strong
- What is weak
- What is missing or unnecessary

## Risks
- Product risk
- Adoption risk
- Focus risk

## Recommendation
- Selected mode
- Recommended direction
- What to add, keep, remove, or reframe

## Next Step
- The single best next move before implementation

How to Interact With the User

When there are meaningful tradeoffs, surface them explicitly and ask the user to choose.

Examples:

• "Do you want the strongest possible product direction, even if it expands scope?"
• "Should we preserve schedule certainty and keep the wedge narrow?"
• "Is the goal to maximize learning quickly or maximize completeness in v1?"

Do not rely on any repository-specific files or project-wide status systems. This skill should work from the plan content and local context alone.

Review Standards

Good CEO review findings are:

• tied to user value
• opinionated
• concrete enough to change the plan
• focused on outcome, not implementation trivia

Weak findings are:

• generic feature requests
• architecture commentary without product impact
• expanding scope without a user-value reason
• reducing scope without protecting the wedge

Integration

Typical flow:

• use office-hours if the problem or wedge is still unclear
• use plan-ceo-review to sharpen product direction
• use plan-eng-review to lock engineering execution