Strategic plan review using separate subagent to avoid confirmation bias. Iterates up to 3 rounds until convergence (zero GAPs). Catches missing alternatives, unstated assumptions, risk blind spots, and scope issues.
Reviews implementation plans for strategic correctness before execution begins. Uses a separate subagent to avoid self-confirmation bias. Iterates up to 3 rounds until convergence (zero GAPs).
Core insight: Plan review asks "should we build this? this way?" Code review asks "is this built correctly?" Run plan review BEFORE implementation, code review DURING/AFTER.
/writing-plans or manually)| # | Dimension | Core Question |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Problem Validity | Is the right problem being solved? Could a simpler intervention work? |
| 2 | Alternative Exploration | Were meaningful alternatives considered, including "do less"? |
| 3 | Assumption Exposure | Are assumptions explicit? What breaks if each is wrong? |
| 4 | Decision Rationale | For each choice, is the "why" convincing to a skeptical engineer? |
| 5 | Risk Identification | Top 3 risks named with mitigations? Rollback plan? |
| 6 | Scope Discipline | Non-goals stated? Boundary clear? Tasks all serve the goal? |
| 7 | Success Criteria | How do we verify this worked? Measurable checks? |
| 8 | Internal Consistency | Do goals, approach, tasks, and success criteria align? |
Standard Plans (detected by ## Why Standard section) use dimensions 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 only.
The review loop stops when ANY of these:
Read the plan fully. Detect tier (Standard vs Strategic).
"Starting iterative plan review. I'll run up to 3 rounds, fixing GAPs and CONCERNs between rounds, until zero GAPs remain."
Use the Agent tool with subagent_type: "general-purpose". The reviewer MUST be a separate agent context — self-review has confirmation bias.
Strategic Plan prompt (8 dimensions):
Review this implementation plan for STRATEGIC correctness. You are a senior
technical architect performing a PLAN review — NOT a code review.
**Plan location:** [file path]
**Context:** [what the plan is for]
## Review across these 8 dimensions:
### 1. Problem Validity
- Is the stated problem real, correctly scoped, and worth solving now?
- Could a simpler intervention achieve the same goal?
### 2. Alternative Exploration
- Were meaningful alternatives considered and honestly evaluated?
- Is a "do less" or "do nothing" option missing?
### 3. Assumption Exposure
- List every assumption (stated AND unstated)
- For each: what breaks if it's wrong?
### 4. Decision Rationale
- For each significant design choice, is the reasoning convincing?
- Would a skeptical senior engineer be persuaded?
### 5. Risk Identification
- Top 3 risks with mitigations?
- Rollback/revert plan?
### 6. Scope Discipline
- Non-goals stated? Every task serves the goal?
### 7. Success Criteria
- How do we verify this worked? Measurable, time-bound checks?
### 8. Internal Consistency
- Do goals, approach, tasks, and success criteria align?
## Cross-reference against the actual codebase
Read the files referenced in the plan. Verify file paths and compatibility.
## Output format
For each dimension:
- **Score:** PASS / CONCERN / GAP
- **Finding:** Specific observation with evidence
- **Recommendation:** Concrete action if CONCERN or GAP
End with:
- **Quality rating:** 0-10. What would get it to a 10?
- **Overall verdict:** APPROVE / REVISE / RETHINK
- **Top 3 actions**
Standard Plan prompt (5 dimensions): Same format but only dimensions 1, 3, 4, 6, 8.
Focused re-review prompt (Rounds 2+): Re-review only flagged dimensions, verify fixes, check full-plan coherence.
ITERATIVE PLAN REVIEW COMPLETE
===============================
Plan: [plan name]
Rounds: N
Total findings: X (Y fixed, Z accepted)
Convergence trend: [GAPs per round]
Verdict: PASS / WARN / FAIL
Dimension Scores (final):
[scores for each applicable dimension]
Round-by-Round Summary:
───────────────────────
[summary per round]
Remaining CONCERNs (non-blocking):
- [list]
## Plan Review Summary
**What we're building:** [1-2 sentences]
**Key decisions made during review:**
1. [Decision]: [What was chosen] — [Why]
**Tradeoffs accepted:**
- [Tradeoff]: [concrete reason]
**What changed from the original plan:**
- [Change]: [Original] → [Revised] — [Why]