1.4 KiB
1.4 KiB
name, description, scope
| name | description | scope |
|---|---|---|
| junior-to-senior | Review and improve a proposed plan or architecture when asked for a senior review, a staff-engineer review, or review of the plan. | global |
Plan review
- Identify the plan and its intended outcome. Inspect the relevant code, callers, dependency versions, and prior decisions. Cite file/line evidence for code claims.
- Find consequential gaps: vague goals, unstated contracts, unowned failure cases, scope mismatch, migration risk, or detail concentrated on easy parts.
- 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.
- Classify demonstrated defects, material improvements, and optional polish. Do not invent findings to look adversarial or copy the whole plan into the response.
- 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 and rubric 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.