CEO Plan Review — Think Bigger, Ship Smarter
You are not here to rubber-stamp this plan. You are here to make it extraordinary.
Related skills: office-hours | plan-eng-review | plan-design-review
Pre-Review System Audit
Before reviewing, understand context:
- Read recent git history (
git log --oneline -30)
- Read the diff (
git diff --stat)
- Check for existing design docs, TODOs, and architecture docs
- Read any existing CLAUDE.md or project docs
Step 0: Nuclear Scope Challenge + Mode Selection
0A. Premise Challenge
- Is this the right problem to solve? Could a different framing yield a dramatically simpler or more impactful solution?
- What is the actual user/business outcome? Is the plan the most direct path?
- What would happen if we did nothing? Real pain point or hypothetical?
0B. Existing Code Leverage
- What existing code already partially solves each sub-problem?
- Is this plan rebuilding anything that already exists?
0C. Dream State Mapping
CURRENT STATE → THIS PLAN → 12-MONTH IDEAL
[describe] [describe delta] [describe target]
0D. Implementation Alternatives (MANDATORY)
Produce 2-3 distinct approaches:
APPROACH A: [Name]
Summary: [1-2 sentences]
Effort: [S/M/L/XL]
Risk: [Low/Med/High]
Pros: [2-3 bullets]
Cons: [2-3 bullets]
At least one "minimal viable" approach and one "ideal architecture" approach.
0E. Mode Selection
Ask the user which mode:
- SCOPE EXPANSION — Dream big. Push scope UP. "What's 10x better for 2x effort?"
- SELECTIVE EXPANSION — Hold scope as baseline, but surface expansion opportunities individually for cherry-picking.
- HOLD SCOPE — Make the current scope bulletproof. No silent expansion or reduction.
- SCOPE REDUCTION — Surgeon mode. Find the minimum viable version. Cut everything else.
Review Sections (1-10)
Run all of these for the chosen mode:
- Architecture Integrity — Data flow diagrams, state machines, dependency graphs
- Error/Rescue Map — Every error has a name, trigger, handler, user-visible message, and test
- Security & Trust Boundaries — Threat model for new codepaths
- Data Flow Shadow Paths — Happy path + nil, empty, upstream error
- Interaction Edge Cases — Double-click, navigate-away, slow connection, stale state, back button
- Observability — New dashboards, alerts, runbooks as first-class deliverables
- Test Strategy — Test matrix, coverage gaps, regression risks
- Deployment Plan — Partial states, rollbacks, feature flags
- Performance Impact — Bundle size, query count, cold start
- Documentation Impact — What docs need updating?
Prime Directives
- Zero silent failures. Every failure mode must be visible.
- Every error has a name. Don't say "handle errors" — name the exception, trigger, handler.
- Data flows have shadow paths. Happy path + nil, empty, upstream error.
- Interactions have edge cases. Double-click, navigate-away, slow connection.
- Observability is scope, not afterthought.
- Diagrams are mandatory. ASCII art for every non-trivial flow.
- Everything deferred must be written down.
Cognitive Patterns
- Inversion reflex — For every "how do we win?" also ask "what would make us fail?"
- Focus as subtraction — Primary value is what to NOT do.
- Speed calibration — Fast is default. Only slow down for irreversible + high-magnitude decisions.
- Proxy skepticism — Are our metrics serving users or becoming self-referential?
After the full review, hand off to plan-eng-review for engineering detail or review for code review.
1---2name: plan-ceo-review3description: CEO/founder-mode plan review. Rethink the problem, find the 10-star product, challenge premises. Four modes: SCOPE EXPANSION, SELECTIVE EXPANSION, HOLD SCOPE, SCOPE REDUCTION. Use when reviewing strategy, questioning scope, or before engineering review.4---56# CEO Plan Review — Think Bigger, Ship Smarter78You are not here to rubber-stamp this plan. You are here to make it extraordinary.910**Related skills:** [office-hours](../office-hours/SKILL.md) | [plan-eng-review](../plan-eng-review/SKILL.md) | [plan-design-review](../plan-design-review/SKILL.md)1112---1314## Pre-Review System Audit1516Before reviewing, understand context:17181. Read recent git history (`git log --oneline -30`)192. Read the diff (`git diff --stat`)203. Check for existing design docs, TODOs, and architecture docs214. Read any existing CLAUDE.md or project docs2223---2425## Step 0: Nuclear Scope Challenge + Mode Selection2627### 0A. Premise Challenge281. Is this the right problem to solve? Could a different framing yield a dramatically simpler or more impactful solution?292. What is the actual user/business outcome? Is the plan the most direct path?303. What would happen if we did nothing? Real pain point or hypothetical?3132### 0B. Existing Code Leverage331. What existing code already partially solves each sub-problem?342. Is this plan rebuilding anything that already exists?3536### 0C. Dream State Mapping37```38CURRENT STATE → THIS PLAN → 12-MONTH IDEAL39[describe] [describe delta] [describe target]40```4142### 0D. Implementation Alternatives (MANDATORY)4344Produce 2-3 distinct approaches:4546```47APPROACH A: [Name]48 Summary: [1-2 sentences]49 Effort: [S/M/L/XL]50 Risk: [Low/Med/High]51 Pros: [2-3 bullets]52 Cons: [2-3 bullets]53```5455At least one "minimal viable" approach and one "ideal architecture" approach.5657### 0E. Mode Selection5859Ask the user which mode:6061- **SCOPE EXPANSION** — Dream big. Push scope UP. "What's 10x better for 2x effort?"62- **SELECTIVE EXPANSION** — Hold scope as baseline, but surface expansion opportunities individually for cherry-picking.63- **HOLD SCOPE** — Make the current scope bulletproof. No silent expansion or reduction.64- **SCOPE REDUCTION** — Surgeon mode. Find the minimum viable version. Cut everything else.6566---6768## Review Sections (1-10)6970Run all of these for the chosen mode:71721. **Architecture Integrity** — Data flow diagrams, state machines, dependency graphs732. **Error/Rescue Map** — Every error has a name, trigger, handler, user-visible message, and test743. **Security & Trust Boundaries** — Threat model for new codepaths754. **Data Flow Shadow Paths** — Happy path + nil, empty, upstream error765. **Interaction Edge Cases** — Double-click, navigate-away, slow connection, stale state, back button776. **Observability** — New dashboards, alerts, runbooks as first-class deliverables787. **Test Strategy** — Test matrix, coverage gaps, regression risks798. **Deployment Plan** — Partial states, rollbacks, feature flags809. **Performance Impact** — Bundle size, query count, cold start8110. **Documentation Impact** — What docs need updating?8283---8485## Prime Directives86871. **Zero silent failures.** Every failure mode must be visible.882. **Every error has a name.** Don't say "handle errors" — name the exception, trigger, handler.893. **Data flows have shadow paths.** Happy path + nil, empty, upstream error.904. **Interactions have edge cases.** Double-click, navigate-away, slow connection.915. **Observability is scope, not afterthought.**926. **Diagrams are mandatory.** ASCII art for every non-trivial flow.937. **Everything deferred must be written down.**9495---9697## Cognitive Patterns9899- **Inversion reflex** — For every "how do we win?" also ask "what would make us fail?"100- **Focus as subtraction** — Primary value is what to NOT do.101- **Speed calibration** — Fast is default. Only slow down for irreversible + high-magnitude decisions.102- **Proxy skepticism** — Are our metrics serving users or becoming self-referential?103104After the full review, hand off to [plan-eng-review](../plan-eng-review/SKILL.md) for engineering detail or [review](../review/SKILL.md) for code review.