Plan Review

Overview

Reviews implementation plans for architectural quality — evaluates design decisions against DDD and OOP principles using multi-model review.

Announce at start: "Using ddd-workflow:plan-review for architectural evaluation."

When to Use

Use this skill when you have an implementation plan that needs review before coding begins. The skill will:

• •Dispatch reviews to Opus and Sonnet sub-agents in parallel
• •Synthesize feedback highlighting consensus issues (flagged by both models)

Criteria References

This review applies criteria from:

• •criteria/ddd-checklist.md — Domain modeling, bounded contexts, tactical patterns
• •criteria/oop-checklist.md — SRP, composition, patterns, dependency injection

Execution Process

Step 1: Prepare the Review Prompt

1. •Identify the plan content to review (file path or inline content)
2. •Read the prompt template from prompts/plan_review.txt
3. •Build the full prompt by replacing {plan_content} and {context} placeholders

Step 2: Dispatch Sub-agents in Parallel

CRITICAL: Dispatch BOTH sub-agents in a SINGLE message with TWO Task tool calls.

Opus sub-agent:

Tool: Task
subagent_type: "general-purpose"
model: "opus"
prompt: |
  You are reviewing an implementation plan for architectural quality.

  <review-prompt>
  [INSERT FULL PROMPT WITH PLAN CONTENT HERE]
  </review-prompt>

  Provide your complete review following the Required Output Format in the prompt.
  Return your review directly - do not write to any files.

Sonnet sub-agent:

Tool: Task
subagent_type: "general-purpose"
model: "sonnet"
prompt: |
  You are reviewing an implementation plan for architectural quality.

  <review-prompt>
  [INSERT FULL PROMPT WITH PLAN CONTENT HERE]
  </review-prompt>

  Provide your complete review following the Required Output Format in the prompt.
  Return your review directly - do not write to any files.

Step 3: Synthesize Findings

After both sub-agents return, synthesize their reviews:

1. •Identify consensus issues - Problems flagged by BOTH models (highest priority)
2. •Identify unique insights - Valid points raised by only one model
3. •Remove duplicates - Consolidate overlapping feedback
4. •Categorize - Group into Critical Issues, Suggestions, Nitpicks

Step 4: Present Synthesis to User

Output format:

## Plan Review Synthesis

**Models consulted:** Claude Opus, Claude Sonnet

### Critical Issues
For each issue, note: [BOTH AGREE] or [ONE MODEL]
- Issue description
- Location in plan
- Recommendation

### Suggestions
- Suggestion with consensus level

### Nitpicks
- Minor issues

### Consensus Summary
- X issues flagged by both models
- Y unique insights from individual models

### Overall Assessment
2-3 sentences on architectural strengths and primary risks.

Evaluation Criteria

The review evaluates plans against these criteria (detailed in prompts/plan_review.txt):

1. Object Oriented Design

• •Are design patterns used correctly and only where justified?
• •Is abstraction meaningful or just layering for its own sake?
• •Are encapsulation and dependency direction correct?
• •Are SOLID principles followed in practice, not just in theory?

2. Single Responsibility Principle

• •Does each class or module do exactly one job?
• •Are responsibilities explicit and non overlapping?
• •Are there any god objects, managers, or classes with mixed concerns?

3. Domain Driven Design

• •Are bounded contexts explicitly defined and enforced?
• •Are entities, value objects, aggregates, and domain services correctly modeled?
• •Is the ubiquitous language consistent across layers?
• •Is infrastructure cleanly separated from domain logic?

4. Maintainability and Debuggability

• •Is execution flow easy to trace during runtime?
• •Are side effects controlled and visible?
• •Is error handling intentional and consistent?
• •Will failures be easy to locate and diagnose?

5. Extensibility

• •Is the system open for extension and closed for modification?
• •Are extension points explicit and intentional?
• •Is there unnecessary abstraction or speculative generality?

Output on Success

## Plan Review: PASSED ✓

**Models consulted:** Claude Opus, Claude Sonnet

### Critical Issues
None

### Suggestions
- [Minor suggestions if any]

### Overall Assessment
The plan demonstrates sound architectural principles with clear separation
of concerns and appropriate pattern usage. Ready for implementation.

Modifying This Skill

• •Change review prompt: Edit prompts/plan_review.txt
• •Change criteria: Edit criteria/ddd-checklist.md or criteria/oop-checklist.md