RomanNum3ral
/
gstack
mirror of https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
gstack/plan-ceo-review/sections/review-sections.md

57 KiB
Raw Blame History

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 is the precise failure mode of the May 2026 transcript bug — the model explored, found issues, and dumped them into a deliverable rather than 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 find yourself wanting to write a plan with findings before asking, stop and call AskUserQuestion now — that's the bug, recognize it.

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 (upstream 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             | RateLimitError
                           | API returns malformed JSON  | JSONParseError
                           | DB connection pool exhausted| ConnectionPoolExhausted
                           | Record not found            | RecordNotFound
  -------------------------|-----------------------------|-----------------

  EXCEPTION CLASS              | RESCUED?  | RESCUE ACTION          | USER SEES
  -----------------------------|-----------|------------------------|------------------
  TimeoutError                 | Y         | Retry 2x, then raise   | "Service temporarily unavailable"
  RateLimitError               | Y         | Backoff + retry         | Nothing (transparent)
  JSONParseError               | N ← GAP   | —                      | 500 error ← BAD
  ConnectionPoolExhausted      | N ← GAP   | —                      | 500 error ← BAD
  RecordNotFound               | Y         | Return nil, log warning | "Not found" message

Rules for this section:

  • Catch-all error handling (rescue StandardError, catch (Exception e), except Exception) is ALWAYS a smell. Name the specific exceptions.
  • Catching an error with only a generic log message is insufficient. Log the full context: what was being attempted, with what arguments, for what user/request.
  • Every rescued error must either: retry with backoff, degrade gracefully with a user-visible message, or re-raise with added context. "Swallow and continue" is almost never acceptable.
  • For each GAP (unrescued error that should be rescued): specify the rescue action and what the user should see.
  • For LLM/AI service calls specifically: what happens when the response is malformed? When it's empty? When it hallucinates invalid JSON? When the model returns a refusal? Each of these is a distinct failure mode. 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 3: Security & Threat Model

Security is not a sub-bullet of architecture. It gets its own section. Evaluate:

  • Attack surface expansion. What new attack vectors does this plan introduce? New endpoints, new params, new file paths, new background jobs?
  • Input validation. For every new user input: is it validated, sanitized, and rejected loudly on failure? What happens with: nil, empty string, string when integer expected, string exceeding max length, unicode edge cases, HTML/script injection attempts?
  • Authorization. For every new data access: is it scoped to the right user/role? Is there a direct object reference vulnerability? Can user A access user B's data by manipulating IDs?
  • Secrets and credentials. New secrets? In env vars, not hardcoded? Rotatable?
  • Dependency risk. New gems/npm packages? Security track record?
  • Data classification. PII, payment data, credentials? Handling consistent with existing patterns?
  • Injection vectors. SQL, command, template, LLM prompt injection — check all.
  • Audit logging. For sensitive operations: is there an audit trail?

For each finding: threat, likelihood (High/Med/Low), impact (High/Med/Low), and whether the plan mitigates it. 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 4: Data Flow & Interaction Edge Cases

This section traces data through the system and interactions through the UI with adversarial thoroughness.

Data Flow Tracing: For every new data flow, produce an ASCII diagram showing:

  INPUT ──▶ VALIDATION ──▶ TRANSFORM ──▶ PERSIST ──▶ OUTPUT
    │            │              │            │           │
    ▼            ▼              ▼            ▼           ▼
  [nil?]    [invalid?]    [exception?]  [conflict?]  [stale?]
  [empty?]  [too long?]   [timeout?]    [dup key?]   [partial?]
  [wrong    [wrong type?] [OOM?]        [locked?]    [encoding?]
   type?]

For each node: what happens on each shadow path? Is it tested?

Interaction Edge Cases: For every new user-visible interaction, evaluate:

  INTERACTION          | EDGE CASE              | HANDLED? | HOW?
  ---------------------|------------------------|----------|--------
  Form submission      | Double-click submit    | ?        |
                       | Submit with stale CSRF | ?        |
                       | Submit during deploy   | ?        |
  Async operation      | User navigates away    | ?        |
                       | Operation times out    | ?        |
                       | Retry while in-flight  | ?        |
  List/table view      | Zero results           | ?        |
                       | 10,000 results         | ?        |
                       | Results change mid-page| ?        |
  Background job       | Job fails after 3 of   | ?        |
                       | 10 items processed     |          |
                       | Job runs twice (dup)   | ?        |
                       | Queue backs up 2 hours | ?        |

Flag any unhandled edge case as a gap. For each gap, specify the fix. 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 5: Code Quality Review

Evaluate:

  • Code organization and module structure. Does new code fit existing patterns? If it deviates, is there a reason?
  • DRY violations. Be aggressive. If the same logic exists elsewhere, flag it and reference the file and line.
  • Naming quality. Are new classes, methods, and variables named for what they do, not how they do it?
  • Error handling patterns. (Cross-reference with Section 2 — this section reviews the patterns; Section 2 maps the specifics.)
  • Missing edge cases. List explicitly: "What happens when X is nil?" "When the API returns 429?" etc.
  • Over-engineering check. Any new abstraction solving a problem that doesn't exist yet?
  • Under-engineering check. Anything fragile, assuming happy path only, or missing obvious defensive checks?
  • Cyclomatic complexity. Flag any new method that branches more than 5 times. Propose a refactor. 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 6: Test Review

Make a complete diagram of every new thing this plan introduces:

  NEW UX FLOWS:
    [list each new user-visible interaction]

  NEW DATA FLOWS:
    [list each new path data takes through the system]

  NEW CODEPATHS:
    [list each new branch, condition, or execution path]

  NEW BACKGROUND JOBS / ASYNC WORK:
    [list each]

  NEW INTEGRATIONS / EXTERNAL CALLS:
    [list each]

  NEW ERROR/RESCUE PATHS:
    [list each — cross-reference Section 2]

For each item in the diagram:

  • What type of test covers it? (Unit / Integration / System / E2E)
  • Does a test for it exist in the plan? If not, write the test spec header.
  • What is the happy path test?
  • What is the failure path test? (Be specific — which failure?)
  • What is the edge case test? (nil, empty, boundary values, concurrent access)

Test ambition check (all modes): For each new feature, answer:

  • What's the test that would make you confident shipping at 2am on a Friday?
  • What's the test a hostile QA engineer would write to break this?
  • What's the chaos test?

Test pyramid check: Many unit, fewer integration, few E2E? Or inverted? Flakiness risk: Flag any test depending on time, randomness, external services, or ordering. Load/stress test requirements: For any new codepath called frequently or processing significant data.

For LLM/prompt changes: Check CLAUDE.md for the "Prompt/LLM changes" file patterns. If this plan touches ANY of those patterns, state which eval suites must be run, which cases should be added, and what baselines to compare against. 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 7: Performance Review

Evaluate:

  • N+1 queries. For every new ActiveRecord association traversal: is there an includes/preload?
  • Memory usage. For every new data structure: what's the maximum size in production?
  • Database indexes. For every new query: is there an index?
  • Caching opportunities. For every expensive computation or external call: should it be cached?
  • Background job sizing. For every new job: worst-case payload, runtime, retry behavior?
  • Slow paths. Top 3 slowest new codepaths and estimated p99 latency.
  • Connection pool pressure. New DB connections, Redis connections, HTTP connections? 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 8: Observability & Debuggability Review

New systems break. This section ensures you can see why. Evaluate:

  • Logging. For every new codepath: structured log lines at entry, exit, and each significant branch?
  • Metrics. For every new feature: what metric tells you it's working? What tells you it's broken?
  • Tracing. For new cross-service or cross-job flows: trace IDs propagated?
  • Alerting. What new alerts should exist?
  • Dashboards. What new dashboard panels do you want on day 1?
  • Debuggability. If a bug is reported 3 weeks post-ship, can you reconstruct what happened from logs alone?
  • Admin tooling. New operational tasks that need admin UI or rake tasks?
  • Runbooks. For each new failure mode: what's the operational response?

EXPANSION and SELECTIVE EXPANSION addition:

  • What observability would make this feature a joy to operate? (For SELECTIVE EXPANSION, include observability for any accepted cherry-picks.) 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 9: Deployment & Rollout Review

Evaluate:

  • Migration safety. For every new DB migration: backward-compatible? Zero-downtime? Table locks?
  • Feature flags. Should any part be behind a feature flag?
  • Rollout order. Correct sequence: migrate first, deploy second?
  • Rollback plan. Explicit step-by-step.
  • Deploy-time risk window. Old code and new code running simultaneously — what breaks?
  • Environment parity. Tested in staging?
  • Post-deploy verification checklist. First 5 minutes? First hour?
  • Smoke tests. What automated checks should run immediately post-deploy?

EXPANSION and SELECTIVE EXPANSION addition:

  • What deploy infrastructure would make shipping this feature routine? (For SELECTIVE EXPANSION, assess whether accepted cherry-picks change the deployment risk profile.) 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 10: Long-Term Trajectory Review

Evaluate:

  • Technical debt introduced. Code debt, operational debt, testing debt, documentation debt.
  • Path dependency. Does this make future changes harder?
  • Knowledge concentration. Documentation sufficient for a new engineer?
  • Reversibility. Rate 1-5: 1 = one-way door, 5 = easily reversible.
  • Ecosystem fit. Aligns with Rails/JS ecosystem direction?
  • The 1-year question. Read this plan as a new engineer in 12 months — obvious?

EXPANSION and SELECTIVE EXPANSION additions:

  • What comes after this ships? Phase 2? Phase 3? Does the architecture support that trajectory?
  • Platform potential. Does this create capabilities other features can leverage?
  • (SELECTIVE EXPANSION only) Retrospective: Were the right cherry-picks accepted? Did any rejected expansions turn out to be load-bearing for the accepted 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 11: Design & UX Review (skip if no UI scope detected)

The CEO calling in the designer. Not a pixel-level audit — that's /plan-design-review and /design-review. This is ensuring the plan has design intentionality.

Evaluate:

  • Information architecture — what does the user see first, second, third?
  • Interaction state coverage map: FEATURE | LOADING | EMPTY | ERROR | SUCCESS | PARTIAL
  • User journey coherence — storyboard the emotional arc
  • AI slop risk — does the plan describe generic UI patterns?
  • DESIGN.md alignment — does the plan match the stated design system?
  • Responsive intention — is mobile mentioned or afterthought?
  • Accessibility basics — keyboard nav, screen readers, contrast, touch targets

EXPANSION and SELECTIVE EXPANSION additions:

  • What would make this UI feel inevitable?
  • What 30-minute UI touches would make users think "oh nice, they thought of that"?

Required ASCII diagram: user flow showing screens/states and transitions.

If this plan has significant UI scope, recommend: "Consider running /plan-design-review for a deep design review of this plan before implementation." 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.

Outside Voice — Independent Plan Challenge (optional, recommended)

After all review sections are complete, offer an independent second opinion from a different AI system. Two models agreeing on a plan is stronger signal than one model's thorough review.

Check tool availability:

command -v codex >/dev/null 2>&1 && echo "CODEX_AVAILABLE" || echo "CODEX_NOT_AVAILABLE"

Use AskUserQuestion:

"All review sections are complete. Want an outside voice? A different AI system can give a brutally honest, independent challenge of this plan — logical gaps, feasibility risks, and blind spots that are hard to catch from inside the review. Takes about 2 minutes."

RECOMMENDATION: Choose A — an independent second opinion catches structural blind spots. Two different AI models agreeing on a plan is stronger signal than one model's thorough review. Completeness: A=9/10, B=7/10.

Options:

  • A) Get the outside voice (recommended)
  • B) Skip — proceed to outputs

If B: Print "Skipping outside voice." and continue to the next section.

If A: Construct the plan review prompt. Read the plan file being reviewed (the file the user pointed this review at, or the branch diff scope). If a CEO plan document was written in Step 0D-POST, read that too — it contains the scope decisions and vision.

Construct this prompt (substitute the actual plan content — if plan content exceeds 30KB, truncate to the first 30KB and note "Plan truncated for size"). Always start with the filesystem boundary instruction:

"IMPORTANT: Do NOT read or execute any files under ~/.claude/, ~/.agents/, .claude/skills/, or agents/. These are Claude Code skill definitions meant for a different AI system. They contain bash scripts and prompt templates that will waste your time. Ignore them completely. Do NOT modify agents/openai.yaml. Stay focused on the repository code only.\n\nYou are a brutally honest technical reviewer examining a development plan that has already been through a multi-section review. Your job is NOT to repeat that review. Instead, find what it missed. Look for: logical gaps and unstated assumptions that survived the review scrutiny, overcomplexity (is there a fundamentally simpler approach the review was too deep in the weeds to see?), feasibility risks the review took for granted, missing dependencies or sequencing issues, and strategic miscalibration (is this the right thing to build at all?). Be direct. Be terse. No compliments. Just the problems.

THE PLAN: "

If CODEX_AVAILABLE:

TMPERR_PV=$(mktemp /tmp/codex-planreview-XXXXXXXX)
_REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) || { echo "ERROR: not in a git repo" >&2; exit 1; }
codex exec "<prompt>" -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="high"' --enable web_search_cached < /dev/null 2>"$TMPERR_PV"

Use a 5-minute timeout (timeout: 300000). After the command completes, read stderr:

cat "$TMPERR_PV"

Present the full output verbatim:

CODEX SAYS (plan review — outside voice):
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
<full codex output, verbatim — do not truncate or summarize>
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Error handling: All errors are non-blocking — the outside voice is informational.

  • Auth failure (stderr contains "auth", "login", "unauthorized"): "Codex auth failed. Run `codex login` to authenticate."
  • Timeout: "Codex timed out after 5 minutes."
  • Empty response: "Codex returned no response."

On any Codex error, fall back to the Claude adversarial subagent.

If CODEX_NOT_AVAILABLE (or Codex errored):

Dispatch via the Agent tool. The subagent has fresh context — genuine independence.

Subagent prompt: same plan review prompt as above.

Present findings under an OUTSIDE VOICE (Claude subagent): header.

If the subagent fails or times out: "Outside voice unavailable. Continuing to outputs."

Cross-model tension:

After presenting the outside voice findings, note any points where the outside voice disagrees with the review findings from earlier sections. Flag these as:

CROSS-MODEL TENSION:
  [Topic]: Review said X. Outside voice says Y. [Present both perspectives neutrally.
  State what context you might be missing that would change the answer.]

User Sovereignty: Do NOT auto-incorporate outside voice recommendations into the plan. Present each tension point to the user. The user decides. Cross-model agreement is a strong signal — present it as such — but it is NOT permission to act. You may state which argument you find more compelling, but you MUST NOT apply the change without explicit user approval.

For each substantive tension point, use AskUserQuestion:

"Cross-model disagreement on [topic]. The review found [X] but the outside voice argues [Y]. [One sentence on what context you might be missing.]"

RECOMMENDATION: Choose [A or B] because [one-line reason explaining which argument is more compelling and why]. Completeness: A=X/10, B=Y/10.

Options:

  • A) Accept the outside voice's recommendation (I'll apply this change)
  • B) Keep the current approach (reject the outside voice)
  • C) Investigate further before deciding
  • D) Add to TODOS.md for later

Wait for the user's response. Do NOT default to accepting because you agree with the outside voice. If the user chooses B, the current approach stands — do not re-argue.

If no tension points exist, note: "No cross-model tension — both reviewers agree."

Persist the result:

~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"codex-plan-review","timestamp":"'"$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)"'","status":"STATUS","source":"SOURCE","commit":"'"$(git rev-parse --short HEAD)"'"}'

Substitute: STATUS = "clean" if no findings, "issues_found" if findings exist. SOURCE = "codex" if Codex ran, "claude" if subagent ran.

Cleanup: Run rm -f "$TMPERR_PV" after processing (if Codex was used).

Outside Voice Integration Rule

Outside voice findings are INFORMATIONAL until the user explicitly approves each one. Do NOT incorporate outside voice recommendations into the plan without presenting each finding via AskUserQuestion and getting explicit approval. This applies even when you agree with the outside voice. Cross-model consensus is a strong signal — present it as such — but the user makes the decision.

Post-Implementation Design Audit (if UI scope detected)

After implementation, run /design-review on the live site to catch visual issues that can only be evaluated with rendered output.

CRITICAL RULE — How to ask questions

Follow the AskUserQuestion format from the Preamble above. Additional rules for plan reviews:

  • One issue = one AskUserQuestion call. Never combine multiple issues into one question.
  • Describe the problem concretely, with file and line references.
  • Present 2-3 options, including "do nothing" where reasonable.
  • For each option: effort, risk, and maintenance burden in one line.
  • Map the reasoning to my engineering preferences above. One sentence connecting your recommendation to a specific preference.
  • Label with issue NUMBER + option LETTER (e.g., "3A", "3B").
  • Zero findings: if a section has zero findings, state "No issues, moving on" and proceed. Otherwise, use AskUserQuestion for each finding — a finding with an "obvious fix" is still a finding and still needs user approval before any change lands in the plan.

Required Outputs

"NOT in scope" section

List work considered and explicitly deferred, with one-line rationale each.

"What already exists" section

List existing code/flows that partially solve sub-problems and whether the plan reuses them.

"Dream state delta" section

Where this plan leaves us relative to the 12-month ideal.

Error & Rescue Registry (from Section 2)

Complete table of every method that can fail, every exception class, rescued status, rescue action, user impact.

Failure Modes Registry

  CODEPATH | FAILURE MODE   | RESCUED? | TEST? | USER SEES?     | LOGGED?
  ---------|----------------|----------|-------|----------------|--------

Any row with RESCUED=N, TEST=N, USER SEES=Silent → CRITICAL GAP.

TODOS.md updates

Present each potential TODO as its own individual AskUserQuestion. Never batch TODOs — one per question. Never silently skip this step. Follow the format in .claude/skills/review/TODOS-format.md.

For each TODO, describe:

  • What: One-line description of the work.
  • Why: The concrete problem it solves or value it unlocks.
  • Pros: What you gain by doing this work.
  • Cons: Cost, complexity, or risks of doing it.
  • Context: Enough detail that someone picking this up in 3 months understands the motivation, the current state, and where to start.
  • Effort estimate: S/M/L/XL (human team) → with CC+gstack: S→S, M→S, L→M, XL→L
  • Priority: P1/P2/P3
  • Depends on / blocked by: Any prerequisites or ordering constraints.

Then present options: A) Add to TODOS.md B) Skip — not valuable enough C) Build it now in this PR instead of deferring.

Scope Expansion Decisions (EXPANSION and SELECTIVE EXPANSION only)

For EXPANSION and SELECTIVE EXPANSION modes: expansion opportunities and delight items were surfaced and decided in Step 0D (opt-in/cherry-pick ceremony). The decisions are persisted in the CEO plan document. Reference the CEO plan for the full record. Do not re-surface them here — list the accepted expansions for completeness:

  • Accepted: {list items added to scope}
  • Deferred: {list items sent to TODOS.md}
  • Skipped: {list items rejected}

Diagrams (mandatory, produce all that apply)

  1. System architecture
  2. Data flow (including shadow paths)
  3. State machine
  4. Error flow
  5. Deployment sequence
  6. Rollback flowchart

Stale Diagram Audit

List every ASCII diagram in files this plan touches. Still accurate?

Implementation Tasks

Before closing this review, synthesize the findings above into a flat list of build-actionable tasks. Each task derives from a specific finding — no padding. Emit the markdown section AND write a JSONL artifact that /autoplan can aggregate across phases.

Markdown section (always emit)

## Implementation Tasks
Synthesized from this review's findings. Each task derives from a specific
finding above. Run with Claude Code or Codex; checkbox as you ship.

- [ ] **T1 (P1, human: ~2h / CC: ~15min)** — <component> — <imperative title>
  - Surfaced by: <section name> — <specific finding text or line reference>
  - Files: <paths to touch>
  - Verify: <test command or manual check>
- [ ] **T2 (P2, human: ~30min / CC: ~5min)** — ...

Rules:

  • P1 blocks ship; P2 should land same branch; P3 is a follow-up TODO.
  • If a finding produced no actionable task, do not invent one.
  • If a section had zero findings, emit _No new tasks from <section>._
  • Effort uses the AI-compression table from CLAUDE.md.

JSONL artifact (always write, even if zero tasks)

/autoplan reads this file to aggregate across phases. Build each line with jq -nc so titles and source findings containing quotes, newlines, or backslashes serialize cleanly — never use hand-rolled echo / printf.

eval "$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)"
TASKS_DIR="${HOME}/.gstack/projects/${SLUG:-unknown}"
mkdir -p "$TASKS_DIR"
TASKS_FILE="$TASKS_DIR/tasks-ceo-review-$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S).jsonl"
COMMIT=$(git rev-parse HEAD 2>/dev/null || echo unknown)
BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo unknown)
RUN_ID="$(date -u +%Y%m%dT%H%M%SZ)-$$"

# Repeat ONE jq invocation per task identified during this review.
# Substitute the placeholders inline with shell variables you set per task:
#   TASK_ID (T1, T2, ...), PRIORITY (P1/P2/P3), COMPONENT, TITLE,
#   SOURCE_FINDING, EFFORT_HUMAN, EFFORT_CC, FILES_JSON (a JSON array literal
#   like '["browse/src/sanitize.ts","browse/src/server.ts"]').
jq -nc \
  --arg phase 'ceo-review' \
  --arg run_id "$RUN_ID" \
  --arg branch "$BRANCH" \
  --arg commit "$COMMIT" \
  --arg id "$TASK_ID" \
  --arg priority "$PRIORITY" \
  --arg component "$COMPONENT" \
  --arg effort_human "$EFFORT_HUMAN" \
  --arg effort_cc "$EFFORT_CC" \
  --arg title "$TITLE" \
  --arg source_finding "$SOURCE_FINDING" \
  --argjson files "$FILES_JSON" \
  '{phase:$phase, run_id:$run_id, branch:$branch, commit:$commit, id:$id, priority:$priority, component:$component, files:$files, effort_human:$effort_human, effort_cc:$effort_cc, title:$title, source_finding:$source_finding}' \
  >> "$TASKS_FILE"

If jq is not installed, fall back to skipping the JSONL write and warn the user to install jq for autoplan aggregation. Never hand-roll JSONL.

If zero tasks were identified in this review, still touch the JSONL file (: > "$TASKS_FILE") so the aggregator sees that the phase produced output this run (an empty file means "ran, no findings" — distinct from "didn't run").

Completion Summary

  +====================================================================+
  |            MEGA PLAN REVIEW — COMPLETION SUMMARY                   |
  +====================================================================+
  | Mode selected        | EXPANSION / SELECTIVE / HOLD / REDUCTION     |
  | System Audit         | [key findings]                              |
  | Step 0               | [mode + key decisions]                      |
  | Section 1  (Arch)    | ___ issues found                            |
  | Section 2  (Errors)  | ___ error paths mapped, ___ GAPS            |
  | Section 3  (Security)| ___ issues found, ___ High severity         |
  | Section 4  (Data/UX) | ___ edge cases mapped, ___ unhandled        |
  | Section 5  (Quality) | ___ issues found                            |
  | Section 6  (Tests)   | Diagram produced, ___ gaps                  |
  | Section 7  (Perf)    | ___ issues found                            |
  | Section 8  (Observ)  | ___ gaps found                              |
  | Section 9  (Deploy)  | ___ risks flagged                           |
  | Section 10 (Future)  | Reversibility: _/5, debt items: ___         |
  | Section 11 (Design)  | ___ issues / SKIPPED (no UI scope)          |
  +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
  | NOT in scope         | written (___ items)                          |
  | What already exists  | written                                     |
  | Dream state delta    | written                                     |
  | Error/rescue registry| ___ methods, ___ CRITICAL GAPS              |
  | Failure modes        | ___ total, ___ CRITICAL GAPS                |
  | TODOS.md updates     | ___ items proposed                          |
  | Scope proposals      | ___ proposed, ___ accepted (EXP + SEL)      |
  | CEO plan             | written / skipped (HOLD/REDUCTION)           |
  | Outside voice        | ran (codex/claude) / skipped                 |
  | Lake Score           | X/Y recommendations chose complete option   |
  | Diagrams produced    | ___ (list types)                            |
  | Stale diagrams found | ___                                         |
  | Unresolved decisions | ___ (listed below)                          |
  +====================================================================+

Unresolved Decisions

If any AskUserQuestion goes unanswered, note it here. Never silently default.

Handoff Note Cleanup

After producing the Completion Summary, clean up any handoff notes for this branch — the review is complete and the context is no longer needed.

setopt +o nomatch 2>/dev/null || true  # zsh compat
eval "$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)"
rm -f ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-ceo-handoff-*.md 2>/dev/null || true

Review Log

After producing the Completion Summary above, persist the review result.

PLAN MODE EXCEPTION — ALWAYS RUN: This command writes review metadata to ~/.gstack/ (user config directory, not project files). The skill preamble already writes to ~/.gstack/sessions/ and ~/.gstack/analytics/ — this is the same pattern. The review dashboard depends on this data. Skipping this command breaks the review readiness dashboard in /ship.

~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"plan-ceo-review","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","unresolved":N,"critical_gaps":N,"mode":"MODE","scope_proposed":N,"scope_accepted":N,"scope_deferred":N,"commit":"COMMIT"}'

Before running this command, substitute the placeholder values from the Completion Summary you just produced:

  • TIMESTAMP: current ISO 8601 datetime (e.g., 2026-03-16T14:30:00)
  • STATUS: "clean" if 0 unresolved decisions AND 0 critical gaps; otherwise "issues_open"
  • unresolved: number from "Unresolved decisions" in the summary
  • critical_gaps: number from "Failure modes: ___ CRITICAL GAPS" in the summary
  • MODE: the mode the user selected (SCOPE_EXPANSION / SELECTIVE_EXPANSION / HOLD_SCOPE / SCOPE_REDUCTION)
  • scope_proposed: number from "Scope proposals: ___ proposed" in the summary (0 for HOLD/REDUCTION)
  • scope_accepted: number from "Scope proposals: ___ accepted" in the summary (0 for HOLD/REDUCTION)
  • scope_deferred: number of items deferred to TODOS.md from scope decisions (0 for HOLD/REDUCTION)
  • COMMIT: output of git rev-parse --short HEAD

Review Readiness Dashboard

After completing the review, read the review log and config to display the dashboard.

~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-read

Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, plan-eng-review, review, plan-design-review, design-review-lite, adversarial-review, codex-review, codex-plan-review). Ignore entries with timestamps older than 7 days. For the Eng Review row, show whichever is more recent between review (diff-scoped pre-landing review) and plan-eng-review (plan-stage architecture review). Append "(DIFF)" or "(PLAN)" to the status to distinguish. For the Adversarial row, show whichever is more recent between adversarial-review (new auto-scaled) and codex-review (legacy). For Design Review, show whichever is more recent between plan-design-review (full visual audit) and design-review-lite (code-level check). Append "(FULL)" or "(LITE)" to the status to distinguish. For the Outside Voice row, show the most recent codex-plan-review entry — this captures outside voices from both /plan-ceo-review and /plan-eng-review.

Source attribution: If the most recent entry for a skill has a `"via"` field, append it to the status label in parentheses. Examples: plan-eng-review with via:"autoplan" shows as "CLEAR (PLAN via /autoplan)". review with via:"ship" shows as "CLEAR (DIFF via /ship)". Entries without a via field show as "CLEAR (PLAN)" or "CLEAR (DIFF)" as before.

Note: autoplan-voices and design-outside-voices entries are audit-trail-only (forensic data for cross-model consensus analysis). They do not appear in the dashboard and are not checked by any consumer.

Display:

+====================================================================+
|                    REVIEW READINESS DASHBOARD                       |
+====================================================================+
| Review          | Runs | Last Run            | Status    | Required |
|-----------------|------|---------------------|-----------|----------|
| Eng Review      |  1   | 2026-03-16 15:00    | CLEAR     | YES      |
| CEO Review      |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
| Design Review   |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
| Adversarial     |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
| Outside Voice   |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| VERDICT: CLEARED — Eng Review passed                                |
+====================================================================+

Review tiers:

  • Eng Review (required by default): The only review that gates shipping. Covers architecture, code quality, tests, performance. Can be disabled globally with `gstack-config set skip_eng_review true` (the "don't bother me" setting).
  • CEO Review (optional): Use your judgment. Recommend it for big product/business changes, new user-facing features, or scope decisions. Skip for bug fixes, refactors, infra, and cleanup.
  • Design Review (optional): Use your judgment. Recommend it for UI/UX changes. Skip for backend-only, infra, or prompt-only changes.
  • Adversarial Review (automatic): Always-on for every review. Every diff gets both Claude adversarial subagent and Codex adversarial challenge. Large diffs (200+ lines) additionally get Codex structured review with P1 gate. No configuration needed.
  • Outside Voice (optional): Independent plan review from a different AI model. Offered after all review sections complete in /plan-ceo-review and /plan-eng-review. Falls back to Claude subagent if Codex is unavailable. Never gates shipping.

Verdict logic:

  • CLEARED: Eng Review has >= 1 entry within 7 days from either `review` or `plan-eng-review` with status "clean" (or `skip_eng_review` is `true`)
  • NOT CLEARED: Eng Review missing, stale (>7 days), or has open issues
  • CEO, Design, and Codex reviews are shown for context but never block shipping
  • If `skip_eng_review` config is `true`, Eng Review shows "SKIPPED (global)" and verdict is CLEARED

Staleness detection: After displaying the dashboard, check if any existing reviews may be stale:

  • Parse the `---HEAD---` section from the bash output to get the current HEAD commit hash
  • For each review entry that has a `commit` field: compare it against the current HEAD. If different, count elapsed commits: `git rev-list --count STORED_COMMIT..HEAD`. Display: "Note: {skill} review from {date} may be stale — {N} commits since review"
  • For entries without a `commit` field (legacy entries): display "Note: {skill} review from {date} has no commit tracking — consider re-running for accurate staleness detection"
  • If all reviews match the current HEAD, do not display any staleness notes

Plan File Review Report

After displaying the Review Readiness Dashboard in conversation output, also update the plan file itself so review status is visible to anyone reading the plan.

Detect the plan file

  1. Check if there is an active plan file in this conversation (the host provides plan file paths in system messages — look for plan file references in the conversation context).
  2. If not found, skip this section silently — not every review runs in plan mode.

Generate the report

Read the review log output you already have from the Review Readiness Dashboard step above. Parse each JSONL entry. Each skill logs different fields:

  • plan-ceo-review: `status`, `unresolved`, `critical_gaps`, `mode`, `scope_proposed`, `scope_accepted`, `scope_deferred`, `commit` → Findings: "{scope_proposed} proposals, {scope_accepted} accepted, {scope_deferred} deferred" → If scope fields are 0 or missing (HOLD/REDUCTION mode): "mode: {mode}, {critical_gaps} critical gaps"
  • plan-eng-review: `status`, `unresolved`, `critical_gaps`, `issues_found`, `mode`, `commit` → Findings: "{issues_found} issues, {critical_gaps} critical gaps"
  • plan-design-review: `status`, `initial_score`, `overall_score`, `unresolved`, `decisions_made`, `commit` → Findings: "score: {initial_score}/10 → {overall_score}/10, {decisions_made} decisions"
  • plan-devex-review: `status`, `initial_score`, `overall_score`, `product_type`, `tthw_current`, `tthw_target`, `mode`, `persona`, `competitive_tier`, `unresolved`, `commit` → Findings: "score: {initial_score}/10 → {overall_score}/10, TTHW: {tthw_current} → {tthw_target}"
  • devex-review: `status`, `overall_score`, `product_type`, `tthw_measured`, `dimensions_tested`, `dimensions_inferred`, `boomerang`, `commit` → Findings: "score: {overall_score}/10, TTHW: {tthw_measured}, {dimensions_tested} tested/{dimensions_inferred} inferred"
  • codex-review: `status`, `gate`, `findings`, `findings_fixed` → Findings: "{findings} findings, {findings_fixed}/{findings} fixed"

All fields needed for the Findings column are now present in the JSONL entries. For the review you just completed, you may use richer details from your own Completion Summary. For prior reviews, use the JSONL fields directly — they contain all required data.

Produce this markdown table:

```markdown

GSTACK REVIEW REPORT

Review Trigger Why Runs Status Findings
CEO Review `/plan-ceo-review` Scope & strategy {runs} {status} {findings}
Codex Review `/codex review` Independent 2nd opinion {runs} {status} {findings}
Eng Review `/plan-eng-review` Architecture & tests (required) {runs} {status} {findings}
Design Review `/plan-design-review` UI/UX gaps {runs} {status} {findings}
DX Review `/plan-devex-review` Developer experience gaps {runs} {status} {findings}
```

Below the table, add these lines (omit any that are empty/not applicable):

  • CODEX: (only if codex-review ran) — one-line summary of codex fixes
  • CROSS-MODEL: (only if both Claude and Codex reviews exist) — overlap analysis
  • UNRESOLVED: total unresolved decisions across all reviews
  • VERDICT: list reviews that are CLEAR (e.g., "CEO + ENG CLEARED — ready to implement"). If Eng Review is not CLEAR and not skipped globally, append "eng review required".

Write to the plan file

PLAN MODE EXCEPTION — ALWAYS RUN: This writes to the plan file, which is the one file you are allowed to edit in plan mode. The plan file review report is part of the plan's living status.

The report must always be the LAST section of the plan file — never mid-file. Use a single delete-then-append flow:

  1. Read the plan file (Read tool) to see its full current content. Search the read output for a `## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT` heading anywhere in the file.
  2. If found, use the Edit tool to DELETE the entire existing section. Match from `## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT` through either the next `## ` heading or end of file, whichever comes first. Replace with the empty string. This applies regardless of where the section currently lives — mid-file deletion is intentional, not a special case. If the Edit fails (e.g., concurrent edit changed the content), re-read the plan file and retry once.
  3. After the delete (or skipped, if no section existed), append the new `## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT` section at the END of the file. Use the Edit tool to match the file's current last paragraph and add the section after it, or use Write to re-emit the whole file with the section at the end.
  4. Verify with the Read tool that `## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT` is the last `## ` heading in the file before continuing. If it isn't, repeat steps 2-3 once.

Do NOT replace the section in place. The "replace mid-file" path is what allowed prior versions to leave the report mid-file when an older report already lived there — the user then sees a plan whose review report is not at the bottom and (correctly) rejects it.

Next Steps — Review Chaining

After displaying the Review Readiness Dashboard, recommend the next review(s) based on what this CEO review discovered. Read the dashboard output to see which reviews have already been run and whether they are stale.

Recommend /plan-eng-review if eng review is not skipped globally — check the dashboard output for skip_eng_review. If it is true, eng review is opted out — do not recommend it. Otherwise, eng review is the required shipping gate. If this CEO review expanded scope, changed architectural direction, or accepted scope expansions, emphasize that a fresh eng review is needed. If an eng review already exists in the dashboard but the commit hash shows it predates this CEO review, note that it may be stale and should be re-run.

Recommend /plan-design-review if UI scope was detected — specifically if Section 11 (Design & UX Review) was NOT skipped, or if accepted scope expansions included UI-facing features. If an existing design review is stale (commit hash drift), note that. In SCOPE REDUCTION mode, skip this recommendation — design review is unlikely relevant for scope cuts.

If both are needed, recommend eng review first (required gate), then design review.

Use AskUserQuestion to present the next step. Include only applicable options:

  • A) Run /plan-eng-review next (required gate)
  • B) Run /plan-design-review next (only if UI scope detected)
  • C) Skip — I'll handle reviews manually

docs/designs Promotion (EXPANSION and SELECTIVE EXPANSION only)

At the end of the review, if the vision produced a compelling feature direction, offer to promote the CEO plan to the project repo. AskUserQuestion:

"The vision from this review produced {N} accepted scope expansions. Want to promote it to a design doc in the repo?"

  • A) Promote to docs/designs/{FEATURE}.md (committed to repo, visible to the team)
  • B) Keep in ~/.gstack/projects/ only (local, personal reference)
  • C) Skip

If promoted, copy the CEO plan content to docs/designs/{FEATURE}.md (create the directory if needed) and update the status field in the original CEO plan from ACTIVE to PROMOTED.

Formatting Rules

  • NUMBER issues (1, 2, 3...) and LETTERS for options (A, B, C...).
  • Label with NUMBER + LETTER (e.g., "3A", "3B").
  • One sentence max per option.
  • After each section, pause and wait for feedback.
  • Use CRITICAL GAP / WARNING / OK for scannability.

Capture Learnings

If you discovered a non-obvious pattern, pitfall, or architectural insight during this session, log it for future sessions:

~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-learnings-log '{"skill":"plan-ceo-review","type":"TYPE","key":"SHORT_KEY","insight":"DESCRIPTION","confidence":N,"source":"SOURCE","files":["path/to/relevant/file"]}'

Types: pattern (reusable approach), pitfall (what NOT to do), preference (user stated), architecture (structural decision), tool (library/framework insight), operational (project environment/CLI/workflow knowledge).

Sources: observed (you found this in the code), user-stated (user told you), inferred (AI deduction), cross-model (both Claude and Codex agree).

Confidence: 1-10. Be honest. An observed pattern you verified in the code is 8-9. An inference you're not sure about is 4-5. A user preference they explicitly stated is 10.

files: Include the specific file paths this learning references. This enables staleness detection: if those files are later deleted, the learning can be flagged.

Only log genuine discoveries. Don't log obvious things. Don't log things the user already knows. A good test: would this insight save time in a future session? If yes, log it.

Brain Calibration Write-Back (Phase 2 / gated)

When the skill makes a typed prediction worth tracking (scope decision, TTHW target, architectural bet, wedge commitment), it MAY write a kind=bet take to the brain so a calibration profile builds over time.

Gated on two things:

  1. Brain trust policy for the active endpoint is personal (check via ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get brain_trust_policy@<endpoint-hash>). Shared brains skip write-back to avoid polluting team calibration.
  2. Feature flag BRAIN_CALIBRATION_WRITEBACK is set (today: false; flips to true when upstream gbrain v0.42+ ships takes_add MCP op).

When both gates pass, the write-back path uses mcp__gbrain__takes_add to record a take with weight 0.8 (per SKILL_CALIBRATION_WEIGHTS). If the MCP op is unavailable, fall back to mcp__gbrain__put_page with a gstack:takes fence block (documented but uglier path).

Mandatory take frontmatter shape:

kind: bet
holder: <user identity from whoami>
claim: <one-line prediction the skill is making>
weight: 0.8
since_date: <today's date>
expected_resolution: <date in 1-3 months depending on skill>
source_skill: plan-ceo-review

After write, invalidate the affected digests so the next preflight reflects the new state:

eval "$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)" 2>/dev/null || true
  ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-brain-cache invalidate product --project "$SLUG" 2>/dev/null || true
  ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-brain-cache invalidate goals --project "$SLUG" 2>/dev/null || true
  ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-brain-cache invalidate competitive-intel --project "$SLUG" 2>/dev/null || true

Brain Cache Background Refresh

After the skill's work completes (and telemetry has logged), kick a background refresh of any cache digest that's getting close to its TTL. This is non-blocking — the user doesn't wait. Next invocation benefits from the warm cache.

eval "$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)" 2>/dev/null || true
(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-brain-cache refresh --project "$SLUG" 2>/dev/null &) || true

Mode Quick Reference

  ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
  │                            MODE COMPARISON                                     │
  ├─────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┬────────────────────┤
  │             │  EXPANSION   │  SELECTIVE   │  HOLD SCOPE  │  REDUCTION         │
  ├─────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────┤
  │ Scope       │ Push UP      │ Hold + offer │ Maintain     │ Push DOWN          │
  │             │ (opt-in)     │              │              │                    │
  │ Recommend   │ Enthusiastic │ Neutral      │ N/A          │ N/A                │
  │ posture     │              │              │              │                    │
  │ 10x check   │ Mandatory    │ Surface as   │ Optional     │ Skip               │
  │             │              │ cherry-pick  │              │                    │
  │ Platonic    │ Yes          │ No           │ No           │ No                 │
  │ ideal       │              │              │              │                    │
  │ Delight     │ Opt-in       │ Cherry-pick  │ Note if seen │ Skip               │
  │ opps        │ ceremony     │ ceremony     │              │                    │
  │ Complexity  │ "Is it big   │ "Is it right │ "Is it too   │ "Is it the bare    │
  │ question    │  enough?"    │  + what else │  complex?"   │  minimum?"         │
  │             │              │  is tempting"│              │                    │
  │ Taste       │ Yes          │ Yes          │ No           │ No                 │
  │ calibration │              │              │              │                    │
  │ Temporal    │ Full (hr 1-6)│ Full (hr 1-6)│ Key decisions│ Skip               │
  │ interrogate │              │              │  only        │                    │
  │ Observ.     │ "Joy to      │ "Joy to      │ "Can we      │ "Can we see if     │
  │ standard    │  operate"    │  operate"    │  debug it?"  │  it's broken?"     │
  │ Deploy      │ Infra as     │ Safe deploy  │ Safe deploy  │ Simplest possible  │
  │ standard    │ feature scope│ + cherry-pick│  + rollback  │  deploy            │
  │             │              │  risk check  │              │                    │
  │ Error map   │ Full + chaos │ Full + chaos │ Full         │ Critical paths     │
  │             │  scenarios   │ for accepted │              │  only              │
  │ CEO plan    │ Written      │ Written      │ Skipped      │ Skipped            │
  │ Phase 2/3   │ Map accepted │ Map accepted │ Note it      │ Skip               │
  │ planning    │              │ cherry-picks │              │                    │
  │ Design      │ "Inevitable" │ If UI scope  │ If UI scope  │ Skip               │
  │ (Sec 11)    │  UI review   │  detected    │  detected    │                    │
  └─────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┴────────────────────┘