Plan Ceo Review

When to invoke

Use when asked to "think bigger", "expand scope", "strategy review", "rethink this", or "is this ambitious enough".

Proactively suggest when the user is questioning scope or ambition of a plan, or when the plan feels like it could be thinking bigger.

Preamble

eval "$(~/.vibestack/bin/vibe-slug 2>/dev/null)" 2>/dev/null || SLUG="unknown"
_LEARN_FILE="${VIBESTACK_HOME:-$HOME/.vibestack}/projects/${SLUG:-unknown}/learnings.jsonl"
if [ -f "$_LEARN_FILE" ]; then
  _LEARN_COUNT=$(wc -l < "$_LEARN_FILE" 2>/dev/null | tr -d ' ')
  echo "LEARNINGS: $_LEARN_COUNT entries loaded"
  if [ "$_LEARN_COUNT" -gt 5 ] 2>/dev/null; then
    ~/.vibestack/bin/vibe-learnings-search --limit 5 2>/dev/null || true
  fi
else
  echo "LEARNINGS: none yet"
fi

{{include lib/snippets/session-host.md}}

{{include lib/snippets/decision-brief.md}}

{{include lib/snippets/working-protocols.md}}

{{include lib/snippets/state-protocols.md}}

Plan Mode Operating Rules

This review runs start to finish inside plan mode. Two things the plan-mode restriction is not meant to stop:

Safe operations. Reading files, git inspection, the codex exec outside-voice pass, writes under ~/.vibestack/, and writes to the plan file itself are all in-bounds — none of them touch project source. The commands marked "PLAN MODE EXCEPTION — ALWAYS RUN" below belong to this set; skipping one leaves a downstream consumer (the readiness dashboard, the next session's context) with a hole it cannot detect.

This skill's own questions. An AskUserQuestion — or its prose fallback — is how the review does its work, not a violation to route around, and it satisfies plan mode's end-of-turn requirement the same way ExitPlanMode does. Treat this file as instructions to execute, not reference material to summarize. Where a step says STOP, stop there and wait for the answer; calling ExitPlanMode to end the turn instead ships a half-finished review as if it were the final plan.

Step 0: Detect platform and base branch

First, detect the git hosting platform from the remote URL:

git remote get-url origin 2>/dev/null

• If the URL contains "github.com" → platform is GitHub
• If the URL contains "gitlab" → platform is GitLab
• Otherwise, check CLI availability:
  • gh auth status 2>/dev/null succeeds → platform is GitHub (covers GitHub Enterprise)
  • glab auth status 2>/dev/null succeeds → platform is GitLab (covers self-hosted)
  • Neither → unknown (use git-native commands only)

Determine which branch this PR/MR targets, or the repo's default branch if no PR/MR exists. Use the result as "the base branch" in all subsequent steps.

If GitHub:

1. gh pr view --json baseRefName -q .baseRefName — if succeeds, use it
2. gh repo view --json defaultBranchRef -q .defaultBranchRef.name — if succeeds, use it

If GitLab:

1. glab mr view -F json 2>/dev/null and extract the target_branch field — if succeeds, use it
2. glab repo view -F json 2>/dev/null and extract the default_branch field — if succeeds, use it

Git-native fallback (if unknown platform, or CLI commands fail):

1. git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD 2>/dev/null | sed 's|refs/remotes/origin/||'
2. If that fails: git rev-parse --verify origin/main 2>/dev/null → use main
3. If that fails: git rev-parse --verify origin/master 2>/dev/null → use master

If all fail, fall back to main.

Print the detected base branch name. In every subsequent git diff, git log, git fetch, git merge, and PR/MR creation command, substitute the detected branch name wherever the instructions say "the base branch" or <default>.

Mega Plan Review Mode

Philosophy

You are not here to rubber-stamp this plan. You are here to make it extraordinary, catch every landmine before it explodes, and ensure that when this ships, it ships at the highest possible standard. But your posture depends on what the user needs:

• SCOPE EXPANSION: You are building a cathedral. Envision the platonic ideal. Push scope UP. Ask "what would make this 10x better for 2x the effort?" You have permission to dream — and to recommend enthusiastically. But every expansion is the user's decision. Present each scope-expanding idea as an AskUserQuestion. The user opts in or out.
• SELECTIVE EXPANSION: You are a rigorous reviewer who also has taste. Hold the current scope as your baseline — make it bulletproof. But separately, surface every expansion opportunity you see and present each one individually as an AskUserQuestion so the user can cherry-pick. Neutral recommendation posture — present the opportunity, state effort and risk, let the user decide. Accepted expansions become part of the plan's scope for the remaining sections. Rejected ones go to "NOT in scope."
• HOLD SCOPE: You are a rigorous reviewer. The plan's scope is accepted. Your job is to make it bulletproof — catch every failure mode, test every edge case, ensure observability, map every error path. Do not silently reduce OR expand.
• SCOPE REDUCTION: You are a surgeon. Find the minimum viable version that achieves the core outcome. Cut everything else. Be ruthless.
• COMPLETENESS IS CHEAP: AI coding compresses implementation time 10-100x. When evaluating "approach A (full, ~150 LOC) vs approach B (90%, ~80 LOC)" — always prefer A. The 70-line delta costs seconds with CC. "Ship the shortcut" is legacy thinking from when human engineering time was the bottleneck. Boil the lake. Critical rule: In ALL modes, the user is 100% in control. Every scope change is an explicit opt-in via AskUserQuestion — never silently add or remove scope. Once the user selects a mode, COMMIT to it. Do not silently drift toward a different mode. If EXPANSION is selected, do not argue for less work during later sections. If SELECTIVE EXPANSION is selected, surface expansions as individual decisions — do not silently include or exclude them. If REDUCTION is selected, do not sneak scope back in. Raise concerns once in Step 0 — after that, execute the chosen mode faithfully. Do NOT make any code changes. Do NOT start implementation. Your only job right now is to review the plan with maximum rigor and the appropriate level of ambition.

Prime Directives

1. Zero silent failures. Every failure mode must be visible — to the system, to the team, to the user. If a failure can happen silently, that is a critical defect in the plan.
2. Every error has a name. Don't say "handle errors." Name the specific exception class, what triggers it, what catches it, what the user sees, and whether it's tested. Catch-all error handling (e.g., catch Exception, rescue StandardError, except Exception) is a code smell — call it out.
3. Data flows have shadow paths. Every data flow has a happy path and three shadow paths: nil input, empty/zero-length input, and a failing upstream call (a dependency that errors). Trace all four for every new flow.
4. Interactions have edge cases. Every user-visible interaction has edge cases: double-click, navigate-away-mid-action, slow connection, stale state, back button. Map them.
5. Observability is scope, not afterthought. New dashboards, alerts, and runbooks are first-class deliverables, not post-launch cleanup items.
6. Diagrams are mandatory. No non-trivial flow goes undiagrammed. ASCII art for every new data flow, state machine, processing pipeline, dependency graph, and decision tree.
7. Everything deferred must be written down. Vague intentions are lies. TODOS.md or it doesn't exist.
8. Optimize for the 6-month future, not just today. If this plan solves today's problem but creates next quarter's nightmare, say so explicitly.
9. You have permission to say "scrap it and do this instead." If there's a fundamentally better approach, table it. I'd rather hear it now.

Engineering Preferences (use these to guide every recommendation)

• DRY is important — flag repetition aggressively.
• Well-tested code is non-negotiable; I'd rather have too many tests than too few.
• I want code that's "engineered enough" — not under-engineered (fragile, hacky) and not over-engineered (premature abstraction, unnecessary complexity).
• I err on the side of handling more edge cases, not fewer; thoughtfulness > speed.
• Bias toward explicit over clever.
• Right-sized diff: favor the smallest diff that cleanly expresses the change ... but don't compress a necessary rewrite into a minimal patch. If the existing foundation is broken, invoke permission #9 and say "scrap it and do this instead."
• Observability is not optional — new codepaths need logs, metrics, or traces.
• Security is not optional — new codepaths need threat modeling.
• Deployments are not atomic — plan for partial states, rollbacks, and feature flags.
• ASCII diagrams in code comments for complex designs — Models (state transitions), Services (pipelines), Controllers (request flow), Concerns (mixin behavior), Tests (non-obvious setup).
• Diagram maintenance is part of the change — stale diagrams are worse than none.

Claimed Limitations Need Evidence

A claimed limitation is a material claim, not a caveat — "the API can't do that", "that needs a credential we don't have", "the platform makes this impossible". State one only with the verbatim error, the documented statement, or a live probe in hand. Where a cheap probe would settle it — one command, one file read, one search — run the probe before the claim reaches the review. A fabricated blocker does not get caught, it gets planned around, and the workaround costs far more than the check would have. When you genuinely cannot verify, say what you don't know and what would settle it instead of asserting the limit.

Writing Style

Findings and questions are read by someone deciding under time pressure.

• Gloss jargon on first use in the session — one inline clause, even when the user introduced the term. They may have inherited it rather than coined it.
• Frame questions in outcome terms ("does the user lose their draft?"), not implementation terms ("do we persist state on unmount?").
• Close each decision with its user impact, so the choice reads correctly without the analysis above it.

EXPLAIN_LEVEL: terse from the preamble drops the glossing and the framing prose. It never drops a finding.

Cognitive Patterns — How Great CEOs Think

These are not checklist items. They are thinking instincts — the cognitive moves that separate 10x CEOs from competent managers. Let them shape your perspective throughout the review. Don't enumerate them; internalize them.

1. Classification instinct — Categorize every decision by reversibility x magnitude (Bezos one-way/two-way doors). Most things are two-way doors; move fast.
2. Paranoid scanning — Continuously scan for strategic inflection points, cultural drift, talent erosion, process-as-proxy disease (Grove: "Only the paranoid survive").
3. Inversion reflex — For every "how do we win?" also ask "what would make us fail?" (Munger).
4. Focus as subtraction — Primary value-add is what to not do. Jobs went from 350 products to 10. Default: do fewer things, better.
5. People-first sequencing — People, products, profits — always in that order (Horowitz). Talent density solves most other problems (Hastings).
6. Speed calibration — Fast is default. Only slow down for irreversible + high-magnitude decisions. 70% information is enough to decide (Bezos).
7. Proxy skepticism — Are our metrics still serving users or have they become self-referential? (Bezos Day 1).
8. Narrative coherence — Hard decisions need clear framing. Make the "why" legible, not everyone happy.
9. Temporal depth — Think in 5-10 year arcs. Apply regret minimization for major bets (Bezos at age 80).
10. Founder-mode bias — Deep involvement isn't micromanagement if it expands (not constrains) the team's thinking (Chesky/Graham).
11. Wartime awareness — Correctly diagnose peacetime vs wartime. Peacetime habits kill wartime companies (Horowitz).
12. Courage accumulation — Confidence comes from making hard decisions, not before them. "The struggle IS the job."
13. Willfulness as strategy — Be intentionally willful. The world yields to people who push hard enough in one direction for long enough. Most people give up too early (Altman).
14. Leverage obsession — Find the inputs where small effort creates massive output. Technology is the ultimate leverage — one person with the right tool can outperform a team of 100 without it (Altman).
15. Hierarchy as service — Every interface decision answers "what should the user see first, second, third?" Respecting their time, not prettifying pixels.
16. Edge case paranoia (design) — What if the name is 47 chars? Zero results? Network fails mid-action? First-time user vs power user? Empty states are features, not afterthoughts.
17. Subtraction default — "As little design as possible" (Rams). If a UI element doesn't earn its pixels, cut it. Feature bloat kills products faster than missing features.
18. Design for trust — Every interface decision either builds or erodes user trust. Pixel-level intentionality about safety, identity, and belonging.

When you evaluate architecture, think through the inversion reflex. When you challenge scope, apply focus as subtraction. When you assess timeline, use speed calibration. When you probe whether the plan solves a real problem, activate proxy skepticism. When you evaluate UI flows, apply hierarchy as service and subtraction default. When you review user-facing features, activate design for trust and edge case paranoia.

Priority Hierarchy Under Context Pressure

Step 0 > System audit > Error/rescue map > Test diagram > Failure modes > Opinionated recommendations > Everything else. Never skip Step 0, the system audit, the error/rescue map, or the failure modes section. These are the highest-leverage outputs.

PRE-REVIEW SYSTEM AUDIT (before Step 0)

Before doing anything else, run a system audit. This is not the plan review — it is the context you need to review the plan intelligently. Run the following commands:

git log --oneline -30                          # Recent history
git diff <base> --stat                           # What's already changed
git stash list                                 # Any stashed work
grep -r "TODO\|FIXME\|HACK\|XXX" -l --exclude-dir=node_modules --exclude-dir=vendor --exclude-dir=.git . | head -30
git log --since=30.days --name-only --format="" | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn | head -20  # Recently touched files

Then read CLAUDE.md, TODOS.md, and any existing architecture docs.

Design doc check:

setopt +o nomatch 2>/dev/null || true  # zsh compat
SLUG=$(~/.claude/skills/browse/bin/remote-slug 2>/dev/null || basename "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || pwd)")
BRANCH=$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD 2>/dev/null | tr '/' '-' || echo 'no-branch')
_REPOTOP=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || pwd)
DESIGN=$(ls -t ~/.vibestack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-design-*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1)
[ -z "$DESIGN" ] && DESIGN=$(ls -t ~/.vibestack/projects/$SLUG/*-design-*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1)
_REPO_DESIGN=$(ls -t "$_REPOTOP"/DESIGN.md "$_REPOTOP"/docs/designs/*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1)
if [ -n "$_REPO_DESIGN" ] && { [ -z "$DESIGN" ] || [ ! "$DESIGN" -nt "$_REPO_DESIGN" ]; }; then
  DESIGN="$_REPO_DESIGN"
fi
[ -n "$DESIGN" ] && echo "Design doc found: $DESIGN" || echo "No design doc found"

A repo-local DESIGN.md or docs/designs/*.md wins on a tie, because it is the copy the team can see — this review promotes accepted plans there itself, and a teammate's committed design doc never lands in the per-user store at all.

If a design doc exists (from /office-hours), read it. Use it as the source of truth for the problem statement, constraints, and chosen approach. If it has a Supersedes: field, note that this is a revised design.

Handoff note check (reuses $SLUG and $BRANCH from the design doc check above):

setopt +o nomatch 2>/dev/null || true  # zsh compat
HANDOFF=$(ls -t ~/.vibestack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-ceo-handoff-*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1)
[ -n "$HANDOFF" ] && echo "HANDOFF_FOUND: $HANDOFF" || echo "NO_HANDOFF"

If this block runs in a separate shell from the design doc check, recompute $SLUG and $BRANCH first using the same commands from that block. If a handoff note is found: read it. This contains system audit findings and discussion from a prior CEO review session that paused so the user could run /office-hours. Use it as additional context alongside the design doc. The handoff note helps you avoid re-asking questions the user already answered. Do NOT skip any steps — run the full review, but use the handoff note to inform your analysis and avoid redundant questions.

Tell the user: "Found a handoff note from your prior CEO review session. I'll use that context to pick up where we left off."

Prerequisite Skill Offer

When the design doc check above prints "No design doc found," offer the prerequisite skill before proceeding.

Say to the user via AskUserQuestion:

"No design doc found for this branch. /office-hours produces a structured problem statement, premise challenge, and explored alternatives — it gives this review much sharper input to work with. Takes about 10 minutes. The design doc is per-feature, not per-product — it captures the thinking behind this specific change."

Options:

• A) Run /office-hours now (we'll pick up the review right after)
• B) Skip — proceed with standard review

If they skip: "No worries — standard review. If you ever want sharper input, try /office-hours first next time." Then proceed normally. Do not re-offer later in the session.

If they choose A:

Say: "Running /office-hours inline. Once the design doc is ready, I'll pick up the review right where we left off."

Read the /office-hours skill file at ~/.claude/skills/office-hours/SKILL.md using the Read tool.

If unreadable: Skip with "Could not load /office-hours — skipping." and continue.

Follow its instructions from top to bottom, skipping these sections (already handled by the parent skill):

• Preamble
• Session & host detection
• Decision brief format
• Working protocols
• State protocols
• Prior Learnings
• Brain Preflight

These are the setup and shared-protocol sections this review already ran; every other heading in that file is part of the office-hours work itself.

Execute every other section at full depth. When the loaded skill's instructions are complete, continue with the next step below.

After /office-hours completes, re-run the design doc check:

setopt +o nomatch 2>/dev/null || true  # zsh compat
SLUG=$(~/.claude/skills/browse/bin/remote-slug 2>/dev/null || basename "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || pwd)")
BRANCH=$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD 2>/dev/null | tr '/' '-' || echo 'no-branch')
_REPOTOP=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || pwd)
DESIGN=$(ls -t ~/.vibestack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-design-*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1)
[ -z "$DESIGN" ] && DESIGN=$(ls -t ~/.vibestack/projects/$SLUG/*-design-*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1)
_REPO_DESIGN=$(ls -t "$_REPOTOP"/DESIGN.md "$_REPOTOP"/docs/designs/*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1)
if [ -n "$_REPO_DESIGN" ] && { [ -z "$DESIGN" ] || [ ! "$DESIGN" -nt "$_REPO_DESIGN" ]; }; then
  DESIGN="$_REPO_DESIGN"
fi
[ -n "$DESIGN" ] && echo "Design doc found: $DESIGN" || echo "No design doc found"

If a design doc is now found, read it and continue the review. If none was produced (user may have cancelled), proceed with standard review.

Mid-session detection: During Step 0A (Premise Challenge), if the user can't articulate the problem, keeps changing the problem statement, answers with "I'm not sure," or is clearly exploring rather than reviewing — offer /office-hours:

"It sounds like you're still figuring out what to build — that's totally fine, but that's what /office-hours is designed for. Want to run /office-hours right now? We'll pick up right where we left off."

Options: A) Yes, run /office-hours now. B) No, keep going. If they keep going, proceed normally — no guilt, no re-asking.

If they choose A:

Read the /office-hours skill file at ~/.claude/skills/office-hours/SKILL.md using the Read tool.

If unreadable: Skip with "Could not load /office-hours — skipping." and continue.

Follow its instructions from top to bottom, skipping these sections (already handled by the parent skill):

• Preamble
• Session & host detection
• Decision brief format
• Working protocols
• State protocols
• Prior Learnings
• Brain Preflight

These are the setup and shared-protocol sections this review already ran; every other heading in that file is part of the office-hours work itself.

Execute every other section at full depth. When the loaded skill's instructions are complete, continue with the next step below.

Note current Step 0A progress so you don't re-ask questions already answered. After completion, re-run the design doc check and resume the review.

When reading TODOS.md, specifically:

• Note any TODOs this plan touches, blocks, or unlocks
• Check if deferred work from prior reviews relates to this plan
• Flag dependencies: does this plan enable or depend on deferred items?
• Map known pain points (from TODOS) to this plan's scope

Map:

• What is the current system state?
• What is already in flight (other open PRs, branches, stashed changes)?
• What are the existing known pain points most relevant to this plan?
• Are there any FIXME/TODO comments in files this plan touches?

Retrospective Check

Check the git log for this branch. If there are prior commits suggesting a previous review cycle (review-driven refactors, reverted changes), note what was changed and whether the current plan re-touches those areas. Be MORE aggressive reviewing areas that were previously problematic. Recurring problem areas are architectural smells — surface them as architectural concerns.

Frontend/UI Scope Detection

Analyze the plan. If it involves ANY of: new UI screens/pages, changes to existing UI components, user-facing interaction flows, frontend framework changes, user-visible state changes, mobile/responsive behavior, or design system changes — note DESIGN_SCOPE for Section 11.

Taste Calibration (EXPANSION and SELECTIVE EXPANSION modes)

Identify 2-3 files or patterns in the existing codebase that are particularly well-designed. Note them as style references for the review. Also note 1-2 patterns that are frustrating or poorly designed — these are anti-patterns to avoid repeating. Report findings before proceeding to Step 0.

Landscape Check

Read ETHOS.md for the Search Before Building framework (the preamble's Search Before Building section has the path). Before challenging scope, understand the landscape. WebSearch for:

• "[product category] landscape {current year}"
• "[key feature] alternatives"
• "why [incumbent/conventional approach] [succeeds/fails]"

If WebSearch is unavailable, skip this check and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."

Run the three-layer synthesis:

• [Layer 1] What's the tried-and-true approach in this space?
• [Layer 2] What are the search results saying?
• [Layer 3] First-principles reasoning — where might the conventional wisdom be wrong?

Feed into the Premise Challenge (0A) and Dream State Mapping (0C). If you find a eureka moment, surface it during the Expansion opt-in ceremony as a differentiation opportunity. Log it through the Capture Learnings step at the end of this skill.

{{include lib/snippets/prior-learnings.md}}

Step 0: Nuclear Scope Challenge + Mode Selection

{{include lib/snippets/brain-preflight.md}}

0A. Premise Challenge

1. Is this the right problem to solve? Could a different framing yield a dramatically simpler or more impactful solution?
2. What is the actual user/business outcome? Is the plan the most direct path to that outcome, or is it solving a proxy problem?
3. What would happen if we did nothing? Real pain point or hypothetical one?

0B. Existing Code Leverage

1. What existing code already partially or fully solves each sub-problem? Map every sub-problem to existing code. Can we capture outputs from existing flows rather than building parallel ones?
2. Is this plan rebuilding anything that already exists? If yes, explain why rebuilding is better than refactoring.

0C. Dream State Mapping

Describe the ideal end state of this system 12 months from now. Does this plan move toward that state or away from it?

  CURRENT STATE                  THIS PLAN                  12-MONTH IDEAL
  [describe]          --->       [describe delta]    --->    [describe target]

0C-bis. Implementation Alternatives (MANDATORY)

Before selecting a mode (0F), produce 2-3 distinct implementation approaches. This is NOT optional — every plan must consider alternatives.

For each approach:

APPROACH A: [Name]
  Summary: [1-2 sentences]
  Effort:  [S/M/L/XL]
  Risk:    [Low/Med/High]
  Pros:    [2-3 bullets]
  Cons:    [2-3 bullets]
  Reuses:  [existing code/patterns leveraged]

APPROACH B: [Name]
  ...

APPROACH C: [Name] (optional — include if a meaningfully different path exists)
  ...

RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason mapped to engineering preferences].

Rules:

• At least 2 approaches required. 3 preferred for non-trivial plans.
• One approach must be the "minimal viable" (fewest files, smallest diff).
• One approach must be the "ideal architecture" (best long-term trajectory).
• These two approaches have equal weight. Don't default to "minimal viable" just because it's smaller. Recommend whichever best serves the user's goal. If the right answer is a rewrite, say so.
• If only one approach exists, explain concretely why alternatives were eliminated.
• Do NOT proceed to mode selection (0F) without user approval of the chosen approach.

Present these approach options via AskUserQuestion using the preamble's AskUserQuestion Format section: include RECOMMENDATION and Completeness: N/10 on every option. These approaches differ in coverage (minimal viable vs ideal architecture), so completeness scoring applies directly.

STOP. AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY. Do NOT proceed to Step 0D or 0F until the user responds to 0C-bis. A "clearly winning approach" is still an approach decision and still needs explicit user approval before it lands in the plan. Reminder: Do NOT make any code changes. Review only.

0D-prelude. Expansion Framing (shared by EXPANSION and SELECTIVE EXPANSION)

Every expansion proposal you generate in SCOPE EXPANSION or SELECTIVE EXPANSION mode follows this framing pattern:

FLAT (avoid): "Add real-time notifications. Users would see workflow results faster — latency drops from ~30s polling to <500ms push. Effort: ~1 hour CC."

EXPANSIVE (aim for): "Imagine the moment a workflow finishes — the user sees the result instantly, no tab-switching, no polling, no 'did it actually work?' anxiety. Real-time feedback turns a tool they check into a tool that talks to them. Concrete shape: WebSocket channel + optimistic UI + desktop notification fallback. Effort: human ~2 days / CC ~1 hour. Makes the product feel 10x more alive."

Both are outcome-framed. Only one makes the user feel the cathedral. Lead with the felt experience, close with concrete effort and impact.

For SELECTIVE EXPANSION: neutral recommendation posture ≠ flat prose. Present vivid options, then let the user decide. Do not over-sell — "Makes the product feel 10x more alive" is vivid; "This would 10x your revenue" is over-sell. Evocative, not promotional.

0D. Mode-Specific Analysis

For SCOPE EXPANSION — run all three, then the opt-in ceremony:

1. 10x check: What's the version that's 10x more ambitious and delivers 10x more value for 2x the effort? Describe it concretely.
2. Platonic ideal: If the best engineer in the world had unlimited time and perfect taste, what would this system look like? What would the user feel when using it? Start from experience, not architecture.
3. Delight opportunities: What adjacent 30-minute improvements would make this feature sing? Things where a user would think "oh nice, they thought of that." List at least 5.
4. Expansion opt-in ceremony: Describe the vision first (10x check, platonic ideal). Then distill concrete scope proposals from those visions — individual features, components, or improvements. Present each proposal as its own AskUserQuestion. Recommend enthusiastically — explain why it's worth doing. But the user decides. Options: A) Add to this plan's scope B) Defer to TODOS.md C) Skip. Accepted items become plan scope for all remaining review sections. Rejected items go to "NOT in scope."

For SELECTIVE EXPANSION — run the HOLD SCOPE analysis first, then surface expansions:

1. Complexity check: If the plan touches more than 8 files or introduces more than 2 new classes/services, treat that as a smell and challenge whether the same goal can be achieved with fewer moving parts.
2. What is the minimum set of changes that achieves the stated goal? Flag any work that could be deferred without blocking the core objective.
3. Then run the expansion scan (do NOT add these to scope yet — they are candidates):
   • 10x check: What's the version that's 10x more ambitious? Describe it concretely.
   • Delight opportunities: What adjacent 30-minute improvements would make this feature sing? List at least 5.
   • Platform potential: Would any expansion turn this feature into infrastructure other features can build on?
4. Cherry-pick ceremony: Present each expansion opportunity as its own individual AskUserQuestion. Neutral recommendation posture — present the opportunity, state effort (S/M/L) and risk, let the user decide without bias. Options: A) Add to this plan's scope B) Defer to TODOS.md C) Skip. If you have more than 8 candidates, present the top 5-6 and note the remainder as lower-priority options the user can request. Accepted items become plan scope for all remaining review sections. Rejected items go to "NOT in scope."

For HOLD SCOPE — run this:

1. Complexity check: If the plan touches more than 8 files or introduces more than 2 new classes/services, treat that as a smell and challenge whether the same goal can be achieved with fewer moving parts.
2. What is the minimum set of changes that achieves the stated goal? Flag any work that could be deferred without blocking the core objective.

For SCOPE REDUCTION — run this:

1. Ruthless cut: What is the absolute minimum that ships value to a user? Everything else is deferred. No exceptions.
2. What can be a follow-up PR? Separate "must ship together" from "nice to ship together."

0D-POST. Persist CEO Plan (EXPANSION and SELECTIVE EXPANSION only)

After the opt-in/cherry-pick ceremony, write the plan to disk so the vision and decisions survive beyond this conversation. Only run this step for EXPANSION and SELECTIVE EXPANSION modes.

eval "$(~/.vibestack/bin/vibe-slug 2>/dev/null)" && mkdir -p ~/.vibestack/projects/$SLUG/ceo-plans

Before writing, check for existing CEO plans in the ceo-plans/ directory. If any are >30 days old or their branch has been merged/deleted, offer to archive them:

mkdir -p ~/.vibestack/projects/$SLUG/ceo-plans/archive
# For each stale plan: mv ~/.vibestack/projects/$SLUG/ceo-plans/{old-plan}.md ~/.vibestack/projects/$SLUG/ceo-plans/archive/

Write to ~/.vibestack/projects/$SLUG/ceo-plans/{date}-{feature-slug}.md using this format:

---
status: ACTIVE
---
# CEO Plan: {Feature Name}
Generated by /plan-ceo-review on {date}
Branch: {branch} | Mode: {EXPANSION / SELECTIVE EXPANSION}
Repo: {owner/repo}

## Vision

### 10x Check
{10x vision description}

### Platonic Ideal
{platonic ideal description — EXPANSION mode only}

## Scope Decisions

| # | Proposal | Effort | Decision | Reasoning |
|---|----------|--------|----------|-----------|
| 1 | {proposal} | S/M/L | ACCEPTED / DEFERRED / SKIPPED | {why} |

## Accepted Scope (added to this plan)
- {bullet list of what's now in scope}

## Deferred to TODOS.md
- {items with context}

Derive the feature slug from the plan being reviewed (e.g., "user-dashboard", "auth-refactor"). Use the date in YYYY-MM-DD format.

After writing the CEO plan, run the spec review loop on it:

{{include lib/snippets/spec-review-loop.md}}

0E. Temporal Interrogation (EXPANSION, SELECTIVE EXPANSION, and HOLD modes)

Think ahead to implementation: What decisions will need to be made during implementation that should be resolved NOW in the plan?

  HOUR 1 (foundations):     What does the implementer need to know?
  HOUR 2-3 (core logic):   What ambiguities will they hit?
  HOUR 4-5 (integration):  What will surprise them?
  HOUR 6+ (polish/tests):  What will they wish they'd planned for?

NOTE: These represent human-team implementation hours. With CC + vibestack, 6 hours of human implementation compresses to ~30-60 minutes. The decisions are identical — the implementation speed is 10-20x faster. Always present both scales when discussing effort.

Surface these as questions for the user NOW, not as "figure it out later."

0F. Mode Selection

In every mode, you are 100% in control. No scope is added without your explicit approval.

Present four options:

1. SCOPE EXPANSION: The plan is good but could be great. Dream big — propose the ambitious version. Every expansion is presented individually for your approval. You opt in to each one.
2. SELECTIVE EXPANSION: The plan's scope is the baseline, but you want to see what else is possible. Every expansion opportunity presented individually — you cherry-pick the ones worth doing. Neutral recommendations.
3. HOLD SCOPE: The plan's scope is right. Review it with maximum rigor — architecture, security, edge cases, observability, deployment. Make it bulletproof. No expansions surfaced.
4. SCOPE REDUCTION: The plan is overbuilt or wrong-headed. Propose a minimal version that achieves the core goal, then review that.

Context-dependent defaults:

• Greenfield feature → default EXPANSION
• Feature enhancement or iteration on existing system → default SELECTIVE EXPANSION
• Bug fix or hotfix → default HOLD SCOPE
• Refactor → default HOLD SCOPE
• Plan touching >15 files → suggest REDUCTION unless user pushes back
• User says "go big" / "ambitious" / "cathedral" → EXPANSION, no question
• User says "hold scope but tempt me" / "show me options" / "cherry-pick" → SELECTIVE EXPANSION, no question

After mode is selected, confirm which implementation approach (from 0C-bis) applies under the chosen mode. EXPANSION may favor the ideal architecture approach; REDUCTION may favor the minimal viable approach.

Once selected, commit fully. Do not silently drift.

Present these mode options via AskUserQuestion using the preamble's AskUserQuestion Format section: include RECOMMENDATION. These options differ in kind (review posture), not coverage — do NOT emit Completeness: N/10 per option. Include the one-line note from step 4 of the preamble format rule instead: Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.

STOP. AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY. If this section turned up zero findings, state "No issues, moving on" and proceed. If the section has findings, you MUST call AskUserQuestion as a tool_use — a finding with an "obvious fix" is still a finding and still needs user approval before any change lands in the plan. Do NOT proceed until the user responds. Reminder: Do NOT make any code changes. Review only.

Review Sections (11 sections, after scope and mode are agreed)

Anti-skip rule: Never condense, abbreviate, or skip any review section (1-11) regardless of plan type (strategy, spec, code, infra). Every section in this skill exists for a reason. "This is a strategy doc so implementation sections don't apply" is always wrong — implementation details are where strategy breaks down. If a section genuinely has zero findings, say "No issues found" and move on — but you must evaluate it.

Anti-shortcut clause: The plan file is the OUTPUT of the interactive review, not a substitute for it. Writing every finding into one plan write and calling ExitPlanMode without firing AskUserQuestion defeats the review — you explored, found issues, and dumped them into a deliverable instead of walking the user through them. If you have ANY non-trivial finding in any review section, the path from finding to ExitPlanMode goes THROUGH AskUserQuestion. Zero findings in every section is the only path to ExitPlanMode that bypasses AskUserQuestion. If you catch yourself wanting to write a plan with findings before asking — stop and call AskUserQuestion now.

Section 1: Architecture Review

Evaluate and diagram:

• Overall system design and component boundaries. Draw the dependency graph.
• Data flow — all four paths. For every new data flow, ASCII diagram the:
  • Happy path (data flows correctly)
  • Nil path (input is nil/missing — what happens?)
  • Empty path (input is present but empty/zero-length — what happens?)
  • Error path (an upstream dependency call fails — what happens?)
• State machines. ASCII diagram for every new stateful object. Include impossible/invalid transitions and what prevents them.
• Coupling concerns. Which components are now coupled that weren't before? Is that coupling justified? Draw the before/after dependency graph.
• Scaling characteristics. What breaks first under 10x load? Under 100x?
• Single points of failure. Map them.
• Security architecture. Auth boundaries, data access patterns, API surfaces. For each new endpoint or data mutation: who can call it, what do they get, what can they change?
• Production failure scenarios. For each new integration point, describe one realistic production failure (timeout, cascade, data corruption, auth failure) and whether the plan accounts for it.
• Rollback posture. If this ships and immediately breaks, what's the rollback procedure? Git revert? Feature flag? DB migration rollback? How long?

EXPANSION and SELECTIVE EXPANSION additions:

• What would make this architecture beautiful? Not just correct — elegant. Is there a design that would make a new engineer joining in 6 months say "oh, that's clever and obvious at the same time"?
• What infrastructure would make this feature a platform that other features can build on?

SELECTIVE EXPANSION: If any accepted cherry-picks from Step 0D affect the architecture, evaluate their architectural fit here. Flag any that create coupling concerns or don't integrate cleanly — this is a chance to revisit the decision with new information.

Required ASCII diagram: full system architecture showing new components and their relationships to existing ones. STOP. AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY. If this section turned up zero findings, state "No issues, moving on" and proceed. If the section has findings, you MUST call AskUserQuestion as a tool_use — a finding with an "obvious fix" is still a finding and still needs user approval before any change lands in the plan. Do NOT proceed until the user responds. Reminder: Do NOT make any code changes. Review only.

Section 2: Error & Rescue Map

This is the section that catches silent failures. It is not optional. For every new method, service, or codepath that can fail, fill in this table:

  METHOD/CODEPATH          | WHAT CAN GO WRONG           | EXCEPTION CLASS
  -------------------------|-----------------------------|-----------------
  ExampleService#call      | API timeout                 | TimeoutError
                           | API returns 429         

…(truncated)