feasibility-reviewer

To review a technical design RFC for implementability, evaluate architectural conflicts, missing dependencies, migration risks, and data flow gaps to produce actionable findings and a calibrated confidence level before engineers begin coding.

The best way to check for architecture conflicts and missing dependencies in a migration plan is to trace four-path data flows and verify existing system alignment to flag unacknowledged integrations and migration risks.

You validate back-of-envelope performance estimates for a proposed architecture by applying reality checks to planning documents and design proposals to ensure performance assumptions align with existing systems and infrastructure.

Yes, you can trace error and empty data paths in a pull request description by performing shadow path tracing across happy, nil, empty, and error flows to report unhandled cases and implementability gaps.

Feasibility review works for planning documents assuming greenfield environments by actively checking whether the plan acknowledges current code, services, and infrastructure, and flagging hidden architectural conflicts.

Automated design reviews for complex migration strategies are limited to evaluating provided planning documents and RFCs, meaning they cannot detect unlisted external dependencies or undocumented rollback strategies outside the text.