Iterative Plan Review (Rule of 5)

Perform thorough implementation plan review using the Rule of 5 - iterative refinement until convergence.

Setup

If plan path provided: Read the plan completely

If no plan path: Ask for the plan path or list available plans from plans/

Process

Perform 5 passes, each focusing on different aspects. After each pass (starting with pass 2), check for convergence.

PASS 1 - Feasibility & Risk

Focus on:

• Technical feasibility of proposed changes
• Identified risks and their mitigations
• Dependencies on external factors (APIs, services, libraries)
• Assumptions that need validation
• Potential blockers not addressed
• Resource requirements (time, expertise, infrastructure)

Output format:

PASS 1: Feasibility & Risk

Issues Found:

[FEAS-001] [CRITICAL|HIGH|MEDIUM|LOW] - Phase/Section
Description: [What's wrong]
Evidence: [Why this is a problem]
Recommendation: [How to fix with specific guidance]

[FEAS-002] ...

What to look for:

• "We'll just..." statements hiding complexity
• External dependencies assumed to be available
• Time estimates that seem unrealistic
• Required expertise not accounted for
• Breaking changes not acknowledged
• Rollback strategy missing or inadequate

PASS 2 - Completeness & Scope

Focus on:

• Missing phases or steps
• Undefined or vague success criteria
• Gaps between current and desired state
• "Out of Scope" clearly defined
• All affected files/components identified
• Testing strategy covers all scenarios
• Edge cases considered

Prefix: COMP-001, COMP-002, etc.

What to look for:

• "And then..." without the "then" being in the plan
• Success criteria that can't be verified
• Missing integration points
• Unclear handoff points between phases
• Scope creep hiding in vague language

PASS 3 - Spec & TDD Alignment

Focus on:

• Links to spec files (if applicable)
• Tests planned before implementation (TDD)
• Success criteria are testable
• Test-first approach clear in each phase
• All requirements from specs covered
• Verification steps defined

Prefix: TDD-001, TDD-002, etc.

What to look for:

• "We'll test it" without specific test descriptions
• Implementation before tests in phase sequence
• Untestable success criteria ("works well", "is fast")
• Missing test coverage for error cases
• No mention of what tests to write

PASS 4 - Ordering & Dependencies

Focus on:

• Phases in correct order (can't do B before A)
• Dependencies between phases clearly stated
• Parallelizable work identified
• Critical path identified
• Each phase can be independently verified
• Rollback/reversal possible at phase boundaries

Prefix: ORD-001, ORD-002, etc.

What to look for:

• Phase 2 requires Phase 3 to be done first
• Circular dependencies between phases
• "Big bang" integration at the end
• No incremental verification
• All-or-nothing approach

PASS 5 - Clarity & Executability

Focus on:

• Specific enough for someone else to implement
• File paths and changes are concrete
• No ambiguous instructions
• Clear what "done" means for each phase
• Technical terms defined or understood
• Handoff points between phases clear

Prefix: EXEC-001, EXEC-002, etc.

What to look for:

• "Update the authentication" - update how? where?
• "Make it work with..." - what does "work" mean?
• "Refactor as needed" - refactor what? when?
• File paths missing or vague
• Assumptions about shared knowledge

Convergence Check

After each pass (starting with pass 2), report:

Convergence Check After Pass [N]:

1. New CRITICAL issues: [count]
2. Total new issues this pass: [count]
3. Total new issues previous pass: [count]
4. Estimated false positive rate: [percentage]

Status: [CONVERGED | ITERATE | NEEDS_HUMAN]

Convergence criteria:

• CONVERGED: No new CRITICAL, <10% new issues vs previous pass, <20% false positives
• ITERATE: Continue to next pass
• NEEDS_HUMAN: Found blocking issues requiring human judgment

If CONVERGED before Pass 5: Stop and report final findings.

Final Report

After convergence or completing all passes:

## Plan Review Final Report

**Plan:** plans/[filename].md

### Summary

Total Issues by Severity:
- CRITICAL: [count] - Must fix before implementation
- HIGH: [count] - Should fix before implementation
- MEDIUM: [count] - Consider addressing
- LOW: [count] - Nice to have

Convergence: Pass [N]

### Top 3 Most Critical Findings

1. [FEAS-001] [Description] - Phase [N]
   Impact: [Why this matters]
   Fix: [What to do]

2. [COMP-003] [Description] - Phase [N]
   Impact: [Why this matters]
   Fix: [What to do]

3. [TDD-002] [Description] - Phase [N]
   Impact: [Why this matters]
   Fix: [What to do]

### Recommended Next Actions

1. [Action 1 - specific and actionable]
2. [Action 2 - specific and actionable]
3. [Action 3 - specific and actionable]

### Verdict

[READY_TO_IMPLEMENT | NEEDS_REVISION | NEEDS_MORE_RESEARCH]

**Rationale:** [1-2 sentences explaining the verdict]

Rules

1. Be specific - Reference plan sections/phases, provide file:line if relevant
2. Provide actionable fixes - Don't just say "add more detail", say what detail
3. Validate claims - Don't flag potential issues, confirm they exist
4. Prioritize correctly:
   • CRITICAL: Blocks implementation or will cause failure
   • HIGH: Significantly impacts quality or feasibility
   • MEDIUM: Worth addressing but not blocking
   • LOW: Minor improvements
5. If converged before pass 5 - Stop and report, don't continue needlessly