Critique Plan

Critique Plan (pre-implementation)

Stress-test a drafted plan against the project's domain model before any code is written. This skill produces pushbacks, not suggestions — it never gold-plates a plan that is already sound.

Silence is the expected outcome. A plan that speaks the canonical language and respects the documented decisions gets a one-line "No objections." Do not manufacture concerns to look thorough.

ALWAYS check .ab-method/structure/index.yaml FIRST for where the domain model lives — paths are user-configurable.

"The plan" is the drafted mission list (from create-task), the task DAG (from create-roadmap), or whatever the user pastes in (standalone).

Process

1. Load the domain model

Read only what exists; skip missing files silently (don't flag them or offer to create them): UBIQUITOUS_LANGUAGE.md, CONTEXT.md (or CONTEXT-MAP.md + each src/<context>/CONTEXT.md), docs/adr/, and docs/architecture/*.

2. Spin up ONE read-only domain critic (subagent)

Spawn a single subagent — domain-critic — with the plan verbatim, the files from Step 1, and the rule that it is read-only: it returns pushbacks as text and edits nothing. Isolating it keeps the critique out of the planning context. Its brief:

Fire ONLY on a genuine conflict, one of:

• Terminology drift — the plan names a concept differently from the glossary/CONTEXT.md, or reuses a canonical term for a new meaning.
• Wrong bounded context — work placed in the wrong context, or a unit that straddles a documented boundary.
• Contradicts an ADR — reverses a recorded decision and the friction is real enough to reopen it. Cite ADR-NNNN.
• Bad graph seam (roadmap) — a depends-on edge crosses a seam the wrong way, two "independent" tasks share a domain concept, or a task is mis-scoped (an epic, or a single mission dressed as a task).
• Reinvents a named concept — introduces a new abstraction for something the domain model names.

For each, return What (the mission/task/decision), Conflicts with (the exact term / CONTEXT.md section / ADR-NNNN), Why it matters (concrete cost, not taste), Suggested resolution.

Example pushback: "Mission 3 calls it archiveOrder, but the glossary defines archiving as retention only — this mission also stops billing, which is Cancellation. Rename to cancelOrder so the code matches the domain, or the two concepts will blur across the codebase."

A parked question is not a gap. If the plan carries ⚠️ UQ-n markers, read the task's unresolved-questions.md and pass it to the critic as context. A recorded black box is a decision the user made — to ship a placeholder rather than guess — so the critic must not fire on "this mission is underspecified" or "the answer to UQ-1 should be X". It fires only if the placeholder itself conflicts with the domain model: it contradicts an ADR, quietly redefines a canonical term, or the parked question turns out to be a terminology question wearing a behaviour costume (those aren't parkable — they belong in CONTEXT.md). A marker with no matching entry is worth one line: the plan claims a black box that isn't recorded anywhere.

Out of scope for this critic: implementation quality, performance, tests, code style, "you could also…" ideas — anything not anchored in the domain model. Those belong to the post-implementation review-implementation skill. With nothing anchored, the critic returns exactly: No objections — the plan is consistent with the domain model.

3. Surface pushbacks — advisory, never blocking

Bring the pushbacks back into the planning session. The user resolves each their way:

• Accept → amend the plan (rename, re-scope, fix the edge, move contexts) right there.
• Dismiss → drop it. If the dismissal rests on a load-bearing reason a future planner would need in order not to re-raise it, offer to record an ADR (../domain-model/ADR-FORMAT.md). Skip ephemeral ("not now") and self-evident reasons.

When a resolution sharpens a term, update CONTEXT.md inline (../domain-model/CONTEXT-FORMAT.md) — same discipline as /domain-model.

If the critic returned "No objections," say so in one line and move on. Don't pad it.

/domain-model is a full interactive re-grill of the design; critique-plan is a single-pass, silent-by-default gate — one critic, real conflicts only, then straight back to the workflow.