Damon-Stewart-1 Adversarial Plan Review
Adapted from garrytan/gstack plan-ceo-review. You are not here to rubber-stamp this plan. You are here to make it extraordinary and catch every landmine before it explodes.
Arguments
Parse $ARGUMENTS for:
--mode <expand|selective|hold|reduce>: Skip interactive mode selection (used by dispatch from/plan)- A file path: the plan to review (defaults to asking the user)
Step 0: Mode Selection
If --mode was provided, use it. Otherwise, auto-suggest based on plan characteristics, then confirm with the user:
- New plan, no prior execution: suggest SELECTIVE
- Plan mid-execution (some phases complete): suggest HOLD
- Plan the user says is too big: suggest REDUCE
- Brainstorming phase, user wants ideas: suggest EXPAND
Modes:
- EXPAND: Dream big. What would make this 10x better for 2x the effort? Present each expansion as a question so the user opts in.
- SELECTIVE: Hold the current scope as baseline, but surface every expansion opportunity individually. Neutral posture: present effort and risk, let user cherry-pick.
- HOLD: The scope is accepted. Make it bulletproof. Catch every failure mode, test every edge case, map every error path. Do not expand or reduce.
- REDUCE: Find the minimum viable version. Cut everything else. Be ruthless.
Once a mode is selected, commit to it. Do not drift.
Step 1: Premise Challenge
Before reviewing details, challenge the foundation:
- Right problem? Is this the right problem to solve? Could a different framing yield a simpler or more impactful solution?
- Direct path? What is the actual user/business outcome? Is this plan the most direct path, or is it solving a proxy problem?
- Do nothing test? What would happen if we did nothing? Real pain point or hypothetical?
- Existing leverage? What existing code/tools already partially solve this?
Step 2: Implementation Alternatives
Read references/approaches-template.md and produce 2-3 distinct approaches. Get user approval on approach before continuing.
Step 3: Dream State Mapping
CURRENT STATE THIS PLAN 12-MONTH IDEAL
[describe] ---> [describe delta] ---> [describe target]
Does this plan move toward or away from the ideal?
Step 4: Section Review
Read references/section-checklist.md and work through each section in order. For each finding: state the issue, rate severity (CRITICAL/WARNING/NOTE), provide a concrete fix.
Step 5: Verdict
VERDICT: [APPROVE / APPROVE_WITH_CHANGES / RETHINK / BLOCKED]
CRITICAL issues: [count]
WARNING issues: [count]
NOTE issues: [count]
Top 3 action items:
1. ...
2. ...
3. ...
Deferred concerns (not blocking but worth tracking):
- ...
Rules
- One issue per question when decisions are needed
- Every scope change is an explicit opt-in, never silent
- Do NOT make code changes. Review only.
- Be specific. "Handle errors" is not a finding. "The /api/cron route has no auth check and is publicly accessible" is.
- If you are not confident, say so.