---
name: junior-to-senior
description: >
  Review and improve a proposed plan or architecture when asked for a senior review, a staff-engineer review, or review of the plan.
scope: global
---

# Plan review

1. Identify the plan and its intended outcome. Inspect the relevant code, callers,
   dependency versions, and prior decisions. Cite file/line evidence for code claims.
2. Find consequential gaps: vague goals, unstated contracts, unowned failure cases,
   scope mismatch, migration risk, or detail concentrated on easy parts.
3. Verify load-bearing external assumptions against primary sources for the installed
   versions. Research only what can change a material decision; unavailable evidence
   stays unverified rather than becoming a blocker.
4. Classify demonstrated defects, material improvements, and optional polish.
   Do not invent findings to look adversarial or copy the whole plan into the response.
5. Provide concrete remedies. Rewrite the plan when requested or when a short revision
   makes the recommendations actionable; preserve sound choices and user intent.

Use the [research playbook](references/research-playbook.md) and
[rubric](references/review-rubric.md) only for relevant questions. A review can be
brief when the plan is sound. Do not force this workflow onto a direct implementation
request; focused risk inspection can be part of implementing it. Follow
[shared workflow](../../protocols/workflow.md).