planreview

You can conduct an adversarial plan review to stress-test implementation plans, hunting for evidence gaps, hidden assumptions, and residual failure modes before coding starts. This process generates a structured review artifact with a final pass, pass-with-risks, or fail conclusion.

Adversarial analysis for migration planning applies a 'don't assume it's safe' posture to challenge fragile assumptions, incorrect sequencing, and scope gaps. It produces evidence-based findings that separate true blockers from deferred risks in migration phase plans.

To validate architecture boundaries and state-machine designs in a feature slice plan, you perform an evidence-based assessment. This actively checks for incorrect sequencing, concurrency and recovery issues, and schema or storage risks, generating actionable findings for what can go wrong.

Yes, adversarial reviews are designed to validate Gateflow handoff plans and public contract designs. The review process identifies residual risks and scope gaps, outputting a timestamped report into docs/reviews to ensure the handoff is safe for implementation.

The best way to document residual risks and evidence gaps is by generating a structured plan review artifact in docs/reviews. This artifact records evidence-based findings and concludes with a final pass, pass-with-risks, or fail status to clearly communicate implementation readiness.

You should not use an adversarial plan review if your plan lacks sufficient detail for evidence-based assessment, or if you need a simple syntax check rather than a deep analysis of state-machine, concurrency, schema, and architecture boundary risks.