Plan Review Checklist

Plan Review Checklist

1. Use Case Coverage

• Total Coverage: Every Use Case mapped to >= 1 Task?
• Traceability: Coverage table exists?

2. Structure & Formalism

• Stub-First: Every component has specific "Stub" and "Impl" phases/tasks?
• Dependencies: Task order respects dependencies?
• Phasing: Clear stages (Structure -> Logic -> Test)?

3. Task Descriptions

• Existence: File exists for every task in plan.md?

• Naming: Matches task-{ID}-{SubID}-{slug}.md?

• Sections: Contains Goal, Changes, Test Cases, Acceptance Criteria?

• Depth: Specific file paths and method signatures? (Without coding).

• Strict Mode: Usage of tdd-strict specified for critical components/bugs?

4. Register (documentation-standards §5.5)

• Scan attached: scan_register.py docs/PLAN.md docs/tasks/task-<ID>-*.md --sections --terms docs/ARCHITECTURE.md was run over every task file this plan produced, not a sample; DETECTORS shows none dead. <ID> is the Task ID from docs/TASK.md section 0. Task files carrying an earlier ID are the archive (skill-archive-task moves rotated documents into the same directory) and are out of this review's scope.
• Warns resolved: zero warn, or each survivor carries a written reason.
• Reading pass covered: every section of every task file appears in the worklist and was read for rules 3, 4 and 6.

5. References (documentation-standards §4.1)

• Resolver run: python3 .agent/skills/documentation-standards/scripts/check_positional_refs.py --all docs/PLAN.md docs/tasks/task-<ID>-*.md was run, and its path:line coverage line is quoted in the review — not asserted to have been produced. A checklist cannot prove a command ran; pasted output can.
• Verdicts resolved: zero REFERENT_ABSENT and REFERENT_AMBIGUOUS, or each survivor carries a written reason. REFERENT_MOVED is repaired by re-running with --fix, never argued about — the number is derived from the referent, so no judgement is involved.
• A coordinate carrying no referent is not a defect. It is reported as not examined and is NOT required to gain one. This review never demands a migration: most corpora carry no referents at all, and adoption is the project's decision, not the reviewer's.
• Cross-repository coordinates pinned: a path outside this repository resolves to nothing and reports UNRESOLVABLE. It carries @<rev> naming the revision measured, which is the form §4.1 already licenses for a claim about another state.

Scope caveat, the same one this checklist's Script Contract states for the register scan. docs/tasks/ is also the permanent archive sink, so the bare glob docs/tasks/*.md would put every task ever written under this section. Substitute the current Task ID for <ID>.

Execution Mode

• Mode: hybrid
• Rationale: the checklist items are reviewer judgement; the register scan named in the Script Contract is deterministic and is run, not recalled.

Script Contract

• Primary Command: python3 .agent/skills/artifact-formalizer/scripts/scan_register.py docs/PLAN.md docs/tasks/task-<ID>-*.md --sections --terms docs/ARCHITECTURE.md
• Scope: substitute the current Task ID for <ID>; docs/tasks/ is also the permanent archive sink, so the bare glob docs/tasks/*.md would put every task ever written under a gate that demands zero warn — a gate no review can pass and none can fix.
• Outputs: findings, a DETECTORS probe table, a DIAGNOSTICS block, and the per-section worklist. --json for the same content as a document.
• Failure Semantics: 0 on any number of findings (advisory); 2 on a broken rule file or a dead detector; 3 on unreadable or absent input. A 2 or 3 invalidates the run, not the artifact.

Safety Boundaries

• Scope: read-only. A review reads artifacts and runs the read-only register scan; it never edits the artifact under review. Findings go to the review notes, and the authoring role applies them.

Validation Evidence

• Primary Evidence: the register scan named in the Register section, attached to the review notes with its DETECTORS and DIAGNOSTICS blocks intact.
• Quality Gate: no dead detector; zero unresolved warn; every checklist item above ticked against the artifact under review rather than against the previous revision.

Criticality Protocol

Severity is a named value, never a glyph (§5.5 rule 5).

• BLOCKING: Missing Use Case, Missing Task File, No "Stub-First" approach, dead detector in the register scan.
• MAJOR: Missing coverage table, Vague dependencies, unresolved register warn.
• MINOR: Formatting, missing "Notes".