Review Plan

Plan Review

Comprehensive review of implementation plans using parallel specialized agents.

Usage

/review-plan                          # Review plan from current context
/review-plan path/to/plan.md          # Review specific plan file

Gotchas

• The External Opinion agent depends on the codex CLI tool being installed and on PATH. If it is missing, that section of the synthesis is silently blank.
• Vague plans get only generic feedback and soft warnings, giving a false sense of validation. Plans need implementation-level specifics (file paths, function names, data flow) to get useful review.

Workflow

Step 1: Extract Plan and Check Internal Docs

Get the plan to review:

• If path provided, read the file
• Otherwise, use the plan from current conversation context
• Summarize: problem statement, proposed solution, key implementation steps

Check internal documentation: Use Grep to search for relevant keywords in docs/ and *.md files. Look for documented patterns, architectural guidelines, or gotchas related to the plan's area.

Step 2: Determine Review Scope

Based on plan complexity, decide:

• Simple (single file, minor change): Skip research agent, 2 alternatives
• Medium (few files, new feature): All agents, 3 alternatives
• Complex (architectural, multi-system): All agents + research, 4 alternatives

Do NOT shortcut this workflow:

• "I already know the issues" -- External perspectives find blind spots you can't see
• "This will take too long" -- Parallel agents run simultaneously, the time cost is minimal

Step 3: Spawn Review Agents in Parallel

Launch each batch together as runtime capacity allows. Complete all selected perspectives across successive batches when needed.

The three reviewers return findings without editing files. Disable delegation tools for these workers where supported; read-only access alone does not prevent delegation. A coordinating role requires named subtasks, a descendant limit, and a stopping condition.

Account for the nested workflows. research-tech chooses research workers and second-opinion queries its configured advisors. The main agent includes both in the overall allocation and queues them within runtime limits. Scope research to the plan's riskiest assumption and one follow-up cycle; additional reviewers must address a specific uncovered question.

See references/agent-prompts.md for full prompt templates for each agent.

Step 4: Synthesize Findings

Collect all agent results and synthesize:

## Plan Review: {plan_name}

### External Opinion

**Codex:** {summary}

### Alternative Approaches

| Approach | Key Advantage | Key Disadvantage |
|----------|---------------|------------------|
| Current plan | {pro} | {con} |
| Alt 1: {name} | {pro} | {con} |
| Alt 2: {name} | {pro} | {con} |

**Recommendation:** {stick with plan / consider alternative X / hybrid}

### Robustness Issues

**Critical (must fix):**
- {issue}: {fix}

**Warnings:**
- {issue}: {fix}

### Adversarial Findings

**Valid concerns:**
- {concern}: {how to address}

**Dismissed concerns:**
- {concern}: {why it's not a real issue}

### Research Insights
(if applicable)
- {relevant finding}

---

## Revised Plan Recommendations

{specific improvements to make based on all feedback}

### Changes to Make
1. {change 1}
2. {change 2}

### Questions to Resolve
- {unresolved question}

Step 5: Update Plan

If significant issues found, offer to revise the plan incorporating the feedback.

Examples

Review a refactor plan -- agents find a robustness issue:

/review-plan

Spawns parallel review agents against the current plan. The robustness agent flags that the migration has no rollback path if it fails midway, and the adversarial agent identifies a race condition under concurrent writes. The synthesis recommends adding a rollback step and a distributed lock.

Review an auth plan with research agent:

/review-plan docs/plans/auth-redesign.md

Reviews the auth redesign plan with all agents including the research agent, which finds that the proposed token rotation strategy has a known edge case documented in the OAuth 2.1 spec. The synthesis recommends adjusting the refresh window based on the research findings.

Troubleshooting

Review agents disagree on approach

Solution: Focus on the points of consensus first, then evaluate the disagreements by weighing each agent's reasoning against your project constraints. Use the adversarial agent's concerns as a tiebreaker -- if it flags real risk in one approach, prefer the safer alternative.

Plan is too vague for meaningful review

Solution: Add concrete details before running the review: specify which files change, what data flows through the system, and what the failure modes are. Agents produce generic feedback when the plan lacks implementation-level specifics.

Notes

• Use the Skill tool for second-opinion and research-tech - do not write slash commands directly
• External opinion provides model diversity (Codex)
• The adversarial agent should be harsh - that's its job
• Robustness review catches patterns that "work in testing, fail in prod" - see references/robustness-patterns.md for examples
• Research agent finds relevant practices and known issues online
• Always synthesize all agent results into actionable improvements