plan-review

To catch plan issues before coding, you review the implementation plan text alongside related requirements and existing codebase context. This validates integrity, completeness, and implementation order to detect conceptual drift, documentation gaps, and delivery risk.

Conceptual drift occurs when an architecture plan introduces redundant or overlapping abstractions that misalign with the existing codebase. Reviewing the plan early identifies these structural inconsistencies before development begins, ensuring the proposed design fits the current system architecture.

Identifying missing documentation in a feature proposal requires analyzing the plan for user-facing and agent-facing docs that need updates, creation, or removal. A documentation impact analysis catches these gaps before implementation, preventing outdated references in the codebase.

You need a completeness and risk review for a refactor when the draft plan involves architecture changes or new workflows. This review identifies missing requirements, edge cases, testing gaps, sequencing issues, and regression risks while they are still cheap to fix.

No, relevant code context is required to assess integrity and completeness. Reviewing implementation plans requires the plan text, related requirements, and existing codebase context to properly evaluate whether the proposed changes fit the architecture and avoid redundant abstractions.