ralplan

Consensus-driven planning coordinates multiple roles like Planner, Architect, and Critic to reach a formal agreement on scope, risks, and testable acceptance criteria before implementation begins. This gated process reduces ambiguity and rework on policy-driven changes.

You can plan high-risk refactoring by running a multi-agent workflow that iterates through planning, architecture, and critique phases. This generates a review-ready plan containing explicit scope, rationale, alternatives considered, and handoff guidance before execution.

Yes, automated consensus planning supports fully automated modes with gating processes to ensure explicit scope and testable acceptance criteria. It is ideal for high-risk or policy-driven changes where clear rationale and tests are required before implementation.

The best way is to use a consensus planning loop that applies Planner, Architect, and Critic iterations. This gated process produces a final plan with drivers, alternatives considered, and handoff guidance to satisfy formal review requirements before execution.

No, consensus planning supports both interactive and fully automated modes. You can apply the Planner, Architect, and Critic iterations automatically to generate a review-ready plan with testable acceptance criteria without requiring interactive input for every decision.

You should avoid formal gated planning for low-risk or trivial changes that do not require explicit scoping, risk awareness, or testable acceptance criteria. The consensus-driven workflow adds overhead best suited for complex, high-risk, or policy-driven software tasks.