Host Compatibility

If you are running this skill in Codex, read ../references/codex-compatibility.md before following host-specific tool instructions. Claude Code should continue to use the Claude-specific tools and command wrappers described here.

Read ../references/work-size.md before continuing. If the user did not ask to autoplan / run all reviews, stop this skill. A plan file existing is not a trigger.

Model posture (Soloship)

See the auto-loaded model-mode rule. Standard posture (the default): execute this skill exactly as written. Fable posture (model id contains fable/mythos): every gate this skill names — evidence to produce, verifications to run, dispatches it mandates, user checkpoints — remains binding; its step ordering and procedural scaffolding are method guidance you may adapt when the work is better served. Never skip a step that produces evidence; when ambiguous, treat it as a gate.

Soloship preamble (run first)

# Static defaults — Soloship is non-coder-first, so terse prose is the default.
# Sections below self-gate on these echoes. No external binary calls.
echo "EXPLAIN_LEVEL: terse"
echo "QUESTION_TUNING: false"
echo "BRANCH: $(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo 'unknown')"
echo "REPO_MODE: ${REPO_MODE:-solo}"

_BRANCH is captured for use in AskUserQuestion grounding sentences. REPO_MODE: solo is the Soloship default — single operator, owns everything.

AskUserQuestion Format

Tool resolution (read first)

"AskUserQuestion" can resolve to two tools at runtime: the host MCP variant (e.g. mcp__conductor__AskUserQuestion — appears in your tool list when the host registers it) or the native Claude Code tool.

Rule: if any mcp__*__AskUserQuestion variant is in your tool list, prefer it. Hosts may disable native AUQ via --disallowedTools AskUserQuestion (Conductor does, by default) and route through their MCP variant; calling native there silently fails. Same questions/options shape; same decision-brief format applies.

If no AskUserQuestion variant appears in your tool list: In Claude Code, stop and report BLOCKED — AskUserQuestion unavailable. In Codex, ask the same numbered question directly in chat and wait for the user reply; use request_user_input when that tool is available. Do not write decisions to the plan file as a substitute and do not silently auto-decide.

Format

Every AskUserQuestion is a decision brief and must be sent as tool_use, not prose.

D<N> — <one-line question title>
Project/branch/task: <1 short grounding sentence using _BRANCH>
ELI10: <plain English a 16-year-old could follow, 2-4 sentences, name the stakes>
Stakes if we pick wrong: <one sentence on what breaks, what user sees, what's lost>
Recommendation: <choice> because <one-line reason>
Completeness: A=X/10, B=Y/10   (or: Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score)
Pros / cons:
A) <option label> (recommended)
  ✅ <pro — concrete, observable, ≥40 chars>
  ❌ <con — honest, ≥40 chars>
B) <option label>
  ✅ <pro>
  ❌ <con>
Net: <one-line synthesis of what you're actually trading off>

D-numbering: first question in a skill invocation is D1; increment yourself. This is a model-level instruction, not a runtime counter.

ELI10 is always present, in plain English, not function names. Recommendation is always present. Keep the (recommended) label.

Completeness: use Completeness: N/10 only when options differ in coverage. 10 = complete, 7 = happy path, 3 = shortcut. If options differ in kind, write: Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.

Pros / cons: use ✅ and ❌. Minimum 2 pros and 1 con per option when the choice is real; minimum 40 characters per bullet. Hard-stop escape for one-way/destructive confirmations: ✅ No cons — this is a hard-stop choice.

Neutral posture: Recommendation: <default> — this is a taste call, no strong preference either way; (recommended) stays on the default option.

Effort both-scales: when an option involves effort, label both human-team and AI-agent time, e.g. (human: ~2 days / AI: ~15 min). Makes AI compression visible at decision time.

Net line closes the tradeoff. Per-skill instructions may add stricter rules.

Non-ASCII characters — write directly, never \u-escape. When any string field (question, option label, option description) contains Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or other non-ASCII text, emit the literal UTF-8 characters in the JSON string. Never escape them as \uXXXX.

Only JSON-mandatory escapes remain allowed: \n, \t, \", \\.

Self-check before emitting

Before calling AskUserQuestion, verify:

• D<N> header present
• ELI10 paragraph present (stakes line too)
• Recommendation line present with concrete reason
• Completeness scored (coverage) OR kind-note present (kind)
• Every option has ≥2 ✅ and ≥1 ❌, each ≥40 chars (or hard-stop escape)
• (recommended) label on one option (even for neutral-posture)
• Dual-scale effort labels on effort-bearing options (human / AI)
• Net line closes the decision
• You are calling the tool, not writing prose
• Non-ASCII characters written directly, not \u-escaped

Voice

Soloship voice: builder-shaped product and engineering judgment, compressed for runtime. Designed for solo operators using AI agents.

• Lead with the point. Say what it does, why it matters, and what changes for the builder.
• Be concrete. Name files, functions, line numbers, commands, outputs, evals, and real numbers.
• Tie technical choices to user outcomes: what the real user sees, loses, waits for, or can now do.
• Be direct about quality. Bugs matter. Edge cases matter. Fix the whole thing, not the demo path.
• Sound like a builder talking to a builder, not a consultant presenting to a client.
• Never corporate, academic, PR, or hype. Avoid filler, throat-clearing, generic optimism, and founder cosplay.
• No em dashes. No AI vocabulary: delve, crucial, robust, comprehensive, nuanced, multifaceted, furthermore, moreover, additionally, pivotal, landscape, tapestry, underscore, foster, showcase, intricate, vibrant, fundamental, significant.
• The user has context you do not: domain knowledge, timing, relationships, taste. Cross-model agreement is a recommendation, not a decision. The user decides.

Good: "auth.ts:47 returns undefined when the session cookie expires. Users hit a white screen. Fix: add a null check and redirect to /login. Two lines." Bad: "I've identified a potential issue in the authentication flow that may cause problems under certain conditions."

Writing Style (skip entirely if EXPLAIN_LEVEL: terse appears in the preamble echo OR the user's current message explicitly requests terse / no-explanations output)

Applies to AskUserQuestion, user replies, and findings. AskUserQuestion Format is structure; this is prose quality.

• Gloss curated jargon on first use per skill invocation, even if the user pasted the term.
• Frame questions in outcome terms: what pain is avoided, what capability unlocks, what user experience changes.
• Use short sentences, concrete nouns, active voice.
• Close decisions with user impact: what the user sees, waits for, loses, or gains.
• User-turn override wins: if the current message asks for terse / no explanations / just the answer, skip this section.
• Terse mode (EXPLAIN_LEVEL: terse): no glosses, no outcome-framing layer, shorter responses.

Soloship default is EXPLAIN_LEVEL: terse (set by the preamble shim above). The verbose-prose layer is off by default for Soloship — the audience is non-coders, and outcome-framing layered on top of every question makes interfaces unreadable. The Self-check items above are still mandatory; this section only governs prose embellishment around them.

Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake

AI makes completeness cheap. Recommend complete lakes (tests, edge cases, error paths); flag oceans (rewrites, multi-quarter migrations).

When options differ in coverage, include Completeness: X/10 (10 = all edge cases, 7 = happy path, 3 = shortcut). When options differ in kind, write: Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score. Do not fabricate scores.

Confusion Protocol

For high-stakes ambiguity (architecture, data model, destructive scope, missing context), stop. Name it in one sentence, present 2-3 options with tradeoffs, and ask. Do not use for routine coding or obvious changes.

Context Health (soft directive)

During long-running skill sessions, periodically write a brief [PROGRESS] summary: done, next, surprises.

If you are looping on the same diagnostic, same file, or failed fix variants, stop and reassess. Consider escalation or context-save. Progress summaries must never mutate git state.

Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something

REPO_MODE controls how to handle issues outside your branch:

• solo (Soloship default) — You own everything. Investigate and offer to fix proactively.
• collaborative / unknown — Flag via AskUserQuestion, don't fix (may be someone else's).

Always flag anything that looks wrong — one sentence, what you noticed and its impact.

Step 0: Detect platform and base branch

First, detect the git hosting platform from the remote URL:

git remote get-url origin 2>/dev/null

• If the URL contains "github.com" → platform is GitHub
• If the URL contains "gitlab" → platform is GitLab
• Otherwise, check CLI availability:
  • gh auth status 2>/dev/null succeeds → platform is GitHub (covers GitHub Enterprise)
  • glab auth status 2>/dev/null succeeds → platform is GitLab (covers self-hosted)
  • Neither → unknown (use git-native commands only)

Determine which branch this PR/MR targets, or the repo's default branch if no PR/MR exists. Use the result as "the base branch" in all subsequent steps.

If GitHub:

1. gh pr view --json baseRefName -q .baseRefName — if succeeds, use it
2. gh repo view --json defaultBranchRef -q .defaultBranchRef.name — if succeeds, use it

If GitLab:

1. glab mr view -F json 2>/dev/null and extract the target_branch field — if succeeds, use it
2. glab repo view -F json 2>/dev/null and extract the default_branch field — if succeeds, use it

Git-native fallback (if unknown platform, or CLI commands fail):

1. git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD 2>/dev/null | sed 's|refs/remotes/origin/||'
2. If that fails: git rev-parse --verify origin/main 2>/dev/null → use main
3. If that fails: git rev-parse --verify origin/master 2>/dev/null → use master

If all fail, fall back to main.

Print the detected base branch name. In every subsequent git diff, git log, git fetch, git merge, and PR/MR creation command, substitute the detected branch name wherever the instructions say "the base branch" or <default>.

Prerequisite Skill Offer

When the design doc check above prints "No design doc found," offer the prerequisite skill before proceeding.

Say to the user via AskUserQuestion:

"No design doc found for this branch. /office-hours produces a structured problem statement, premise challenge, and explored alternatives — it gives this review much sharper input to work with. Takes about 10 minutes. The design doc is per-feature, not per-product — it captures the thinking behind this specific change."

Options:

• A) Run /office-hours now (we'll pick up the review right after)
• B) Skip — proceed with standard review

If they skip: "No worries — standard review. If you ever want sharper input, try /office-hours first next time." Then proceed normally. Do not re-offer later in the session.

If they choose A:

Say: "Running /office-hours inline. Once the design doc is ready, I'll pick up the review right where we left off."

Locate office-hours's SKILL.md (use Glob pattern **/soloship/**/skills/office-hours/SKILL.md or ~/.claude/skills/soloship-office-hours/SKILL.md). Read it with the Read tool.

If unreadable: Skip with "Could not load /office-hours — skipping." and continue.

Follow its instructions from top to bottom, skipping these sections (already handled by the parent skill):

• Preamble (run first)
• AskUserQuestion Format
• Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
• Search Before Building
• Contributor Mode
• Completion Status Protocol
• Telemetry (run last)
• Step 0: Detect platform and base branch
• Review Readiness Dashboard
• Plan File Review Report
• Prerequisite Skill Offer
• Plan Status Footer

Execute every other section at full depth. When the loaded skill's instructions are complete, continue with the next step below.

After /office-hours completes, re-run the design doc check:

setopt +o nomatch 2>/dev/null || true  # zsh compat
SLUG=$(basename "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || pwd)" | tr ' ' '-')
BRANCH=$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD 2>/dev/null | tr '/' '-' || echo 'no-branch')
DESIGN=$(ls -t ~/.soloship/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-design-*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1)
[ -z "$DESIGN" ] && DESIGN=$(ls -t ~/.soloship/projects/$SLUG/*-design-*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1)
[ -n "$DESIGN" ] && echo "Design doc found: $DESIGN" || echo "No design doc found"

If a design doc is now found, read it and continue the review. If none was produced (user may have cancelled), proceed with standard review.

/autoplan — Auto-Review Pipeline

One command. Rough plan in, fully reviewed plan out.

/autoplan reads the full CEO, design, eng, and DX review skill files from disk and follows them at full depth — same rigor, same sections, same methodology as running each skill manually. The only difference: intermediate AskUserQuestion calls are auto-decided using the 6 principles below. Taste decisions (where reasonable people could disagree) are surfaced at a final approval gate.

The 6 Decision Principles

These rules auto-answer every intermediate question:

1. Choose completeness — Ship the whole thing. Pick the approach that covers more edge cases.
2. Boil lakes — Fix everything in the blast radius (files modified by this plan + direct importers). Auto-approve expansions that are in blast radius AND < 1 day CC effort (< 5 files, no new infra).
3. Pragmatic — If two options fix the same thing, pick the cleaner one. 5 seconds choosing, not 5 minutes.
4. DRY — Duplicates existing functionality? Reject. Reuse what exists.
5. Explicit over clever — 10-line obvious fix > 200-line abstraction. Pick what a new contributor reads in 30 seconds.
6. Bias toward action — Merge > review cycles > stale deliberation. Flag concerns but don't block.

Conflict resolution (context-dependent tiebreakers):

• CEO phase: P1 (completeness) + P2 (boil lakes) dominate.
• Eng phase: P5 (explicit) + P3 (pragmatic) dominate.
• Design phase: P5 (explicit) + P1 (completeness) dominate.

Decision Classification

Every auto-decision is classified:

Mechanical — one clearly right answer. Auto-decide silently. Examples: run codex (always yes), run evals (always yes), reduce scope on a complete plan (always no).

Taste — reasonable people could disagree. Auto-decide with recommendation, but surface at the final gate. Three natural sources:

1. Close approaches — top two are both viable with different tradeoffs.
2. Borderline scope — in blast radius but 3-5 files, or ambiguous radius.
3. Codex disagreements — codex recommends differently and has a valid point.

User Challenge — both models agree the user's stated direction should change. This is qualitatively different from taste decisions. When Claude and Codex both recommend merging, splitting, adding, or removing features/skills/workflows that the user specified, this is a User Challenge. It is NEVER auto-decided.

User Challenges go to the final approval gate with richer context than taste decisions:

• What the user said: (their original direction)
• What both models recommend: (the change)
• Why: (the models' reasoning)
• What context we might be missing: (explicit acknowledgment of blind spots)
• If we're wrong, the cost is: (what happens if the user's original direction was right and we changed it)

The user's original direction is the default. The models must make the case for change, not the other way around.

Exception: If both models flag the change as a security vulnerability or feasibility blocker (not a preference), the AskUserQuestion framing explicitly warns: "Both models believe this is a security/feasibility risk, not just a preference." The user still decides, but the framing is appropriately urgent.

Sequential execution (strict order, never parallel)

Phases MUST execute in strict order: CEO → Design → Eng → DX. Each phase MUST complete fully before the next begins. NEVER run phases in parallel — each builds on the previous.

This skill's mandated dispatches are the ceiling, not the floor — run the dispatches it names, and do not add discretionary subagents on top (no extra verification or review dispatches, no splitting one modest task across parallel workers); see references/delegation-discipline.md.

Between each phase, emit a phase-transition summary and verify that all required outputs from the prior phase are written before starting the next.

What "Auto-Decide" Means

Auto-decide replaces the USER'S judgment with the 6 principles. It does NOT replace the ANALYSIS. Every section in the loaded skill files must still be executed at the same depth as the interactive version. The only thing that changes is who answers the AskUserQuestion: you do, using the 6 principles, instead of the user.

Two exceptions — never auto-decided:

1. Premises (Phase 1) — require human judgment about what problem to solve.
2. User Challenges — when both models agree the user's stated direction should change (merge, split, add, remove features/workflows). The user always has context models lack. See Decision Classification above.

You MUST still:

• READ the actual code, diffs, and files each section references
• PRODUCE every output the section requires (diagrams, tables, registries, artifacts)
• IDENTIFY every issue the section is designed to catch
• DECIDE each issue using the 6 principles (instead of asking the user)
• LOG each decision in the audit trail
• WRITE all required artifacts to disk

You MUST NOT:

• Compress a review section into a one-liner table row
• Write "no issues found" without showing what you examined
• Skip a section because "it doesn't apply" without stating what you checked and why
• Produce a summary instead of the required output (e.g., "architecture looks good" instead of the ASCII dependency graph the section requires)

"No issues found" is a valid output for a section — but only after doing the analysis. State what you examined and why nothing was flagged (1-2 sentences minimum). "Skipped" is never valid for a non-skip-listed section.

Filesystem Boundary — Codex Prompts

All prompts sent to Codex (via codex exec or codex review) MUST be prefixed with this boundary instruction:

IMPORTANT: Do NOT read or execute any SKILL.md files or files in skill definition directories (paths containing skills/soloship-gs-). These are AI assistant skill definitions meant for a different system. They contain bash scripts and prompt templates that will waste your time. Ignore them completely. Stay focused on the repository code only.

This prevents Codex from discovering Soloship skill files on disk and following their instructions instead of reviewing the plan.

Phase 0: Intake + Restore Point

Step 1: Capture restore point

Before doing anything, save the plan file's current state to an external file:

SLUG=$(basename "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || pwd)" | tr ' ' '-')
mkdir -p "$HOME/.soloship/projects/$SLUG"
BRANCH=$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD 2>/dev/null | tr '/' '-')
DATETIME=$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S)
echo "RESTORE_PATH=$HOME/.soloship/projects/$SLUG/${BRANCH}-autoplan-restore-${DATETIME}.md"

Write the plan file's full contents to the restore path with this header:

# /autoplan Restore Point
Captured: [timestamp] | Branch: [branch] | Commit: [short hash]

## Re-run Instructions
1. Copy "Original Plan State" below back to your plan file
2. Invoke /autoplan

## Original Plan State
[verbatim plan file contents]

Then prepend a one-line HTML comment to the plan file: <!-- /autoplan restore point: [RESTORE_PATH] -->

Step 2: Read context

• Read CLAUDE.md, TODOS.md, git log -30, git diff against the base branch --stat
• Discover design docs: ls -t ~/.soloship/projects/$SLUG/*-design-*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1
• Detect UI scope: grep the plan for view/rendering terms (component, screen, form, button, modal, layout, dashboard, sidebar, nav, dialog). Require 2+ matches. Exclude false positives ("page" alone, "UI" in acronyms).
• Detect DX scope: grep the plan for developer-facing terms (API, endpoint, REST, GraphQL, gRPC, webhook, CLI, command, flag, argument, terminal, shell, SDK, library, package, npm, pip, import, require, SKILL.md, skill template, Claude Code, MCP, agent, OpenClaw, action, developer docs, getting started, onboarding, integration, debug, implement, error message). Require 2+ matches. Also trigger DX scope if the product IS a developer tool (the plan describes something developers install, integrate, or build on top of) or if an AI agent is the primary user (OpenClaw actions, Claude Code skills, MCP servers).

Step 2.5: Claim Verification (gate — runs before any review)

A plan is a set of assertions about a codebase. Reviewing or auto-deciding on a plan whose factual claims are wrong wastes the entire pipeline — every downstream review reasons from a false premise. Before loading the review skills, verify the plan's factual claims against the live repo.

Extract every factual assertion from the plan — "X is already implemented", file/function locations, "there are tests for Y", config/pricing/rate/limit values, dependency claims ("Z calls W", "nothing else uses this") — and verify each with git grep / file reads against the actual repo (not from memory, not from the plan's own words). Emit a Claims Table:

CLAIM VERIFICATION (autoplan Phase 0)
  | claim                                | verified? | evidence                    |
  |--------------------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------|
  | "rate limiting already exists"       | FALSE     | git grep rateLimit → 0 hits |
  | "pricing is $29/mo"                  | TRUE      | config/pricing.ts:12 = 2900 |

If any load-bearing claim is FALSE or unverifiable: do not proceed to the reviews. Surface the false claims to the user at the final approval gate as a User Challenge (per Decision Classification) with the evidence, and either correct the plan to match reality or mark the claim as an explicit assumption-to-validate. A plan with an unverified load-bearing claim does not enter the review pipeline. This is the load-bearing audit step — it runs every time, not only when someone remembers to ask for it.

Step 3: Load skill files from disk

Use the Glob tool to find each review skill, in this order of preference:

For each of the 4 review skills (ceo-review, plan-design-review, eng-review, devex-review):

1. First, try the vendored Soloship location. Glob pattern:
   • **/soloship/**/skills/<skill-name>/SKILL.md
   • or **/skills/<skill-name>/SKILL.md scoped to Soloship plugin paths
2. If not found, fall back to: ~/.claude/skills/soloship-gs-plan-<role>-review/SKILL.md

Read the first path that exists. If neither exists for a required review (eng review is always required; design + DX are conditional), abort with: "Cannot find <skill-name>. Install the Soloship plugin, or run the reviews individually via /<skill-name>."

Load only:

• eng-review (always)
• plan-design-review (only if UI scope detected)
• ceo-review (always for strategy review)
• devex-review (only if DX scope detected)

Section skip list — when following a loaded skill file, SKIP these sections (they are already handled by /autoplan):

• Preamble (run first)
• AskUserQuestion Format
• Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
• Search Before Building
• Completion Status Protocol
• Telemetry (run last)
• Step 0: Detect base branch
• Review Readiness Dashboard
• Plan File Review Report
• Prerequisite Skill Offer (BENEFITS_FROM)
• Outside Voice — Independent Plan Challenge
• Design Outside Voices (parallel)

Follow ONLY the review-specific methodology, sections, and required outputs.

Output: "Here's what I'm working with: [plan summary]. UI scope: [yes/no]. DX scope: [yes/no]. Loaded review skills from disk. Starting full review pipeline with auto-decisions."

Phase 0.5: Codex auth + version preflight

Before invoking any Codex voice, check whether the codex CLI is on PATH and authenticated:

if ! command -v codex >/dev/null 2>&1; then
  echo "_CODEX_AVAILABLE=false"
elif ! codex auth status >/dev/null 2>&1; then
  echo "_CODEX_AVAILABLE=false"
else
  echo "_CODEX_AVAILABLE=true"
fi

If _CODEX_AVAILABLE=false, all Phase 1-3.5 Codex voices below degrade to [codex-unavailable] in the degradation matrix. /autoplan completes with Claude subagent only — saves token spend on Codex prompts we can't use.

Phase 1: CEO Review (Strategy & Scope)

Follow plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md — all sections, full depth. Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.

Override rules:

• Mode selection: SELECTIVE EXPANSION
• Premises: accept reasonable ones (P6), challenge only clearly wrong ones
• GATE: Present premises to user for confirmation — this is the ONE AskUserQuestion that is NOT auto-decided. Premises require human judgment.
• Alternatives: pick highest completeness (P1). If tied, pick simplest (P5). If top 2 are close → mark TASTE DECISION.
• Scope expansion: in blast radius + <1d CC → approve (P2). Outside → defer to TODOS.md (P3). Duplicates → reject (P4). Borderline (3-5 files) → mark TASTE DECISION.
• All 10 review sections: run fully, auto-decide each issue, log every decision.

• Dual voices: always run BOTH Claude subagent AND Codex if available (P6). Run them sequentially in foreground. First the Claude subagent (Agent tool, foreground — do NOT use run_in_background), then Codex (Bash). Both must complete before building the consensus table.

  Codex CEO voice (via Bash):

  _REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) || { echo "ERROR: not in a git repo" >&2; exit 1; }
  timeout 600s codex exec "IMPORTANT: Do NOT read or execute any SKILL.md files or files in skill definition directories (paths containing skills/soloship-gs-). These are AI assistant skill definitions meant for a different system. Stay focused on repository code only.
  
  You are a CEO/founder advisor reviewing a development plan.
  Challenge the strategic foundations: Are the premises valid or assumed? Is this the
  right problem to solve, or is there a reframing that would be 10x more impactful?
  What alternatives were dismissed too quickly? What competitive or market risks are
  unaddressed? What scope decisions will look foolish in 6 months? Be adversarial.
  No compliments. Just the strategic blind spots.
  File: <plan_path>" -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only --enable web_search_cached < /dev/null
  _CODEX_EXIT=$?
  if [ "$_CODEX_EXIT" = "124" ]; then
    echo "[codex stalled past 10 minutes — tagging as [codex-unavailable] for this phase and proceeding with Claude subagent only]"
  fi

  Timeout: 10 minutes (shell-wrapper) + 12 minutes (Bash outer gate). On hang, auto-degrades this phase's Codex voice.

  Claude CEO subagent (via Agent tool): "Read the plan file at <plan_path>. You are an independent CEO/strategist reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate:

  1. Is this the right problem to solve? Could a reframing yield 10x impact?
  2. Are the premises stated or just assumed? Which ones could be wrong?
  3. What's the 6-month regret scenario — what will look foolish?
  4. What alternatives were dismissed without sufficient analysis?
  5. What's the competitive risk — could someone else solve this first/better? For each finding: what's wrong, severity (critical/high/medium), and the fix."

  Error handling: Both calls block in foreground. Codex auth/timeout/empty → proceed with Claude subagent only, tagged [single-model]. If Claude subagent also fails → "Outside voices unavailable — continuing with primary review."

  Degradation matrix: Both fail → "single-reviewer mode". Codex only → tag [codex-only]. Subagent only → tag [subagent-only].

• Strategy choices: if codex disagrees with a premise or scope decision with valid strategic reason → TASTE DECISION. If both models agree the user's stated structure should change (merge, split, add, remove) → USER CHALLENGE (never auto-decided).

Required execution checklist (CEO):

Step 0 (0A-0F) — run each sub-step and produce:

• 0A: Premise challenge with specific premises named and evaluated
• 0B: Existing code leverage map (sub-problems → existing code)
• 0C: Dream state diagram (CURRENT → THIS PLAN → 12-MONTH IDEAL)
• 0C-bis: Implementation alternatives table (2-3 approaches with effort/risk/pros/cons)
• 0D: Mode-specific analysis with scope decisions logged
• 0E: Temporal interrogation (HOUR 1 → HOUR 6+)
• 0F: Mode selection confirmation

Step 0.5 (Dual Voices): Run Claude subagent (foreground Agent tool) first, then Codex (Bash). Present Codex output under CODEX SAYS (CEO — strategy challenge) header. Present subagent output under CLAUDE SUBAGENT (CEO — strategic independence) header. Produce CEO consensus table:

CEO DUAL VOICES — CONSENSUS TABLE:
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
  Dimension                           Claude  Codex  Consensus
  ──────────────────────────────────── ─────── ─────── ─────────
  1. Premises valid?                   —       —      —
  2. Right problem to solve?           —       —      —
  3. Scope calibration correct?        —       —      —
  4. Alternatives sufficiently explored?—      —      —
  5. Competitive/market risks covered? —       —      —
  6. 6-month trajectory sound?         —       —      —
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
CONFIRMED = both agree. DISAGREE = models differ (→ taste decision).
Missing voice = N/A (not CONFIRMED). Single critical finding from one voice = flagged regardless.

Sections 1-10 — for EACH section, run the evaluation criteria from the loaded skill file:

• Sections WITH findings: full analysis, auto-decide each issue, log to audit trail
• Sections with NO findings: 1-2 sentences stating what was examined and why nothing was flagged. NEVER compress a section to just its name in a table row.
• Section 11 (Design): run only if UI scope was detected in Phase 0

Mandatory outputs from Phase 1:

• "NOT in scope" section with deferred items and rationale
• "What already exists" section mapping sub-problems to existing code
• Error & Rescue Registry table (from Section 2)
• Failure Modes Registry table (from review sections)
• Dream state delta (where this plan leaves us vs 12-month ideal)
• Completion Summary (the full summary table from the CEO skill)

PHASE 1 COMPLETE. Emit phase-transition summary:

Phase 1 complete. Codex: [N concerns]. Claude subagent: [N issues]. Consensus: [X/6 confirmed, Y disagreements → surfaced at gate]. Passing to Phase 2.

Do NOT begin Phase 2 until all Phase 1 outputs are written to the plan file and the premise gate has been passed.

Pre-Phase 2 checklist (verify before starting):

• CEO completion summary written to plan file
• CEO dual voices ran (Codex + Claude subagent, or noted unavailable)
• CEO consensus table produced
• Premise gate passed (user confirmed)
• Phase-transition summary emitted

Phase 2: Design Review (conditional — skip if no UI scope)

Follow plan-design-review/SKILL.md — all 7 dimensions, full depth. Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.

Override rules:

• Focus areas: all relevant dimensions (P1)
• Structural issues (missing states, broken hierarchy): auto-fix (P5)
• Aesthetic/taste issues: mark TASTE DECISION
• Design system alignment: auto-fix if DESIGN.md exists and fix is obvious

• Dual voices: always run BOTH Claude subagent AND Codex if available (P6).

  Codex design voice (via Bash):

  _REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) || { echo "ERROR: not in a git repo" >&2; exit 1; }
  timeout 600s codex exec "IMPORTANT: Do NOT read or execute any SKILL.md files or files in skill definition directories (paths containing skills/soloship-gs-). These are AI assistant skill definitions meant for a different system. Stay focused on repository code only.
  
  Read the plan file at <plan_path>. Evaluate this plan's
  UI/UX design decisions.
  
  Also consider these findings from the CEO review phase:
  <insert CEO dual voice findings summary — key concerns, disagreements>
  
  Does the information hierarchy serve the user or the developer? Are interaction
  states (loading, empty, error, partial) specified or left to the implementer's
  imagination? Is the responsive strategy intentional or afterthought? Are
  accessibility requirements (keyboard nav, contrast, touch targets) specified or
  aspirational? Does the plan describe specific UI decisions or generic patterns?
  What design decisions will haunt the implementer if left ambiguous?
  Be opinionated. No hedging." -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only --enable web_search_cached < /dev/null
  _CODEX_EXIT=$?
  if [ "$_CODEX_EXIT" = "124" ]; then
    echo "[codex stalled past 10 minutes — tagging as [codex-unavailable] for this phase and proceeding with Claude subagent only]"
  fi

  Timeout: 10 minutes (shell-wrapper) + 12 minutes (Bash outer gate). On hang, auto-degrades this phase's Codex voice.

  Claude design subagent (via Agent tool): "Read the plan file at <plan_path>. You are an independent senior product designer reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate:

  1. Information hierarchy: what does the user see first, second, third? Is it right?
  2. Missing states: loading, empty, error, success, partial — which are unspecified?
  3. User journey: what's the emotional arc? Where does it break?
  4. Specificity: does the plan describe SPECIFIC UI or generic patterns?
  5. What design decisions will haunt the implementer if left ambiguous? For each finding: what's wrong, severity (critical/high/medium), and the fix." NO prior-phase context — subagent must be truly independent.

  Error handling: same as Phase 1 (both foreground/blocking, degradation matrix applies).

• Design choices: if codex disagrees with a design decision with valid UX reasoning → TASTE DECISION. Scope changes both models agree on → USER CHALLENGE.

Required execution checklist (Design):

1. Step 0 (Design Scope): Rate completeness 0-10. Check DESIGN.md. Map existing patterns.
2. Step 0.5 (Dual Voices): Run Claude subagent (foreground) first, then Codex. Present under CODEX SAYS (design — UX challenge) and CLAUDE SUBAGENT (design — independent review) headers. Produce design litmus scorecard (consensus table). Use the litmus scorecard format from plan-design-review. Include CEO phase findings in Codex prompt ONLY (not Claude subagent — stays independent).
3. Passes 1-7: Run each from loaded skill. Rate 0-10. Auto-decide each issue. DISAGREE items from scorecard → raised in the relevant pass with both perspectives.

PHASE 2 COMPLETE. Emit phase-transition summary:

Phase 2 complete. Codex: [N concerns]. Claude subagent: [N issues]. Consensus: [X/Y confirmed, Z disagreements → surfaced at gate]. Passing to Phase 3.

Do NOT begin Phase 3 until all Phase 2 outputs (if run) are written to the plan file.

Pre-Phase 3 checklist (verify before starting):

• All Phase 1 items above confirmed
• Design completion summary written (or "skipped, no UI scope")
• Design dual voices ran (if Phase 2 ran)
• Design consensus table produced (if Phase 2 ran)
• Phase-transition summary emitted

Phase 3: Eng Review + Dual Voices

Follow plan-eng-review/SKILL.md — all sections, full depth. Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.

Override rules:

• Scope challenge: never reduce (P2)

• Dual voices: always run BOTH Claude subagent AND Codex if available (P6).

  Codex eng voice (via Bash):

  _REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) || { echo "ERROR: not in a git repo" >&2; exit 1; }
  timeout 600s codex exec "IMPORTANT: Do NOT read or execute any SKILL.md files or files in skill definition directories (paths containing skills/soloship-gs-). These are AI assistant skill definitions meant for a different system. Stay focused on repository code only.
  
  Review this plan for architectural issues, missing edge cases,
  and hidden complexity. Be adversarial.
  
  Also consider these findings from prior review phases:
  CEO: <insert CEO consensus table summary — key concerns, DISAGREEs>
  Design: <insert Design consensus table summary, or 'skipped, no UI scope'>
  
  File: <plan_path>" -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only --enable web_search_cached < /dev/null
  _CODEX_EXIT=$?
  if [ "$_CODEX_EXIT" = "124" ]; then
    echo "[codex stalled past 10 minutes — tagging as [codex-unavailable] for this phase and proceeding with Claude subagent only]"
  fi

  Timeout: 10 minutes (shell-wrapper) + 12 minutes (Bash outer gate). On hang, auto-degrades this phase's Codex voice.

  Claude eng subagent (via Agent tool): "Read the plan file at <plan_path>. You are an independent senior engineer reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate:

  1. Architecture: Is the component structure sound? Coupling concerns?
  2. Edge cases: What breaks under 10x load? What's the nil/empty/error path?
  3. Tests: What's missing from the test plan? What would break at 2am Friday?
  4. Security: New attack surface? Auth boundaries? Input validation?
  5. Hidden complexity: What looks simple but isn't? For each finding: what's wrong, severity, and the fix." NO prior-phase context — subagent must be truly independent.

  Error handling: same as Phase 1 (both foreground/blocking, degradation matrix applies).

• Architecture choices: explicit over clever (P5). If codex disagrees with valid reason → TASTE DECISION. Scope changes both models agree on → USER CHALLENGE.
• Evals: always include all relevant suites (P1)
• Test plan: generate artifact at ~/.soloship/projects/$SLUG/{user}-{branch}-test-plan-{datetime}.md
• TODOS.md: collect all deferred scope expansions from Phase 1, auto-write

Required execution checklist (Eng):

1. Step 0 (Scope Challenge): Read actual code referenced by the plan. Map each sub-problem to existing code. Run the complexity check. Produce concrete findings.
2. Step 0.5 (Dual Voices): Run Claude subagent (foreground) first, then Codex. Present Codex output under CODEX SAYS (eng — architecture challenge) header. Present subagent output under CLAUDE SUBAGENT (eng — independent review) header. Produce eng consensus table:

ENG DUAL VOICES — CONSENSUS TABLE:
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
  Dimension                           Claude  Codex  Consensus
  ──────────────────────────────────── ─────── ─────── ─────────
  1. Architecture sound?               —       —      —
  2. Test coverage sufficient?         —       —      —
  3. Performance risks addressed?      —       —      —
  4. Security threats covered?         —       —      —
  5. Error paths handled?              —       —      —
  6. Deployment risk manageable?       —       —      —
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
CONFIRMED = both agree. DISAGREE = models differ (→ taste decision).
Missing voice = N/A (not CONFIRMED). Single critical finding from one voice = flagged regardless.

3. Section 1 (Architecture): Produce ASCII dependency graph showing new components and their relationships to existing ones. Evaluate coupling, scaling, security.
4. Section 2 (Code Quality): Identify DRY violations, naming issues, complexity. Reference specific files and patterns. Auto-decide each finding.
5. Section 3 (Test Review) — NEVER SKIP OR COMPRESS. This section requires reading actual code, not summarizing from memory.
   • Read the diff or the plan's affected files
   • Build the test diagram: list every NEW UX flow, data flow, codepath, and branch
   • For EACH item in the diagram: what type of test covers it? Does one exist? Gaps?
   • For LLM/prompt changes: which eval suites must run?
   • Auto-deciding test gaps means: identify the gap → decide whether to add a test or defer (with rationale and principle) → log the decision. It does NOT mean skipping the analysis.
   • Write the test plan artifact to disk
6. Section 4 (Performance): Evaluate N+1 queries, memory, caching, slow paths.

Mandatory outputs from Phase 3:

• "NOT in scope" section
• "What already exists" section
• Architecture ASCII diagram (Section 1)
• Test diagram mapping codepaths to coverage (Section 3)
• Test plan artifact written to disk (Section 3)
• Failure modes registry with critical gap flags
• Completion Summary (the full summary from the Eng skill)
• TODOS.md updates (collected from all phases)

PHASE 3 COMPLETE. Emit phase-transition summary:

Phase 3 complete. Codex: [N concerns]. Claude subagent: [N issues]. Consensus: [X/6 confirmed, Y disagreements → surfaced at gate]. Passing to Phase 3.5 (DX Review) or Phase 4 (Final Gate).

Phase 3.5: DX Review (conditional — skip if no developer-facing scope)

Follow plan-devex-review/SKILL.md — all 8 DX dimensions, full depth. Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.

Skip condition: If DX scope was NOT detected in Phase 0, skip this phase entirely. Log: "Phase 3.5 skipped — no developer-facing scope detected."

Override rules:

• Mode selection: DX POLISH
• Persona: infer from README/docs, pick the most common developer type (P6)
• Competitive benchmark: run searches if WebSearch available, use reference benchmarks otherwise (P1)
• Magical moment: pick the lowest-effort delivery vehicle that achieves the competitive tier (P5)
• Getting started friction: always optimize toward fewer steps (P5, simpler over clever)
• Error message quality: always require problem + cause + fix (P1, completeness)
• API/CLI naming: consistency wins over cleverness (P5)
• DX taste decisions (e.g., opinionated defaults vs flexibility): mark TASTE DECISION

• Dual voices: always run BOTH Claude subagent AND Codex if available (P6).

  Codex DX voice (via Bash):

  _REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) || { echo "ERROR: not in a git repo" >&2; exit 1; }
  timeout 600s codex exec "IMPORTANT: Do NOT read or execute any SKILL.md files or files in skill definition directories (paths containing skills/soloship-gs-). These are AI assistant skill definitions meant for a different system. Stay focused on repository code only.
  
  Read the plan file at <plan_path>. Evaluate this plan's developer experience.
  
  Also consider these findings from prior review phases:
  CEO: <insert CEO consensus summary>
  Eng: <insert Eng consensus summary>
  
  You are a developer who has never seen this product. Evaluate:
  1. Time to hello world: how many steps from zero to working? Target is under 5 minutes.
  2. Error messages: when something goes wrong, does the dev know what, why, and how to fix?
  3. API/CLI design: are names guessable? Are defaults sensible? Is it consistent?
  4. Docs: can a dev find what they need in under 2 minutes? Are examples copy-paste-complete?
  5. Upgrade path: can devs upgrade without fear? Migration guides? Deprecation warnings?
  Be adversarial. Think like a developer who is evaluating this against 3 competitors." -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only --enable web_search_cached < /dev/null
  _CODEX_EXIT=$?
  if [ "$_CODEX_EXIT" = "124" ]; then
    echo "[codex stalled past 10 minutes — tagging as [codex-unavailable] for this phase and proceeding with Claude subagent only]"
  fi

  Timeout: 10 minutes (shell-wrapper) + 12 minutes (Bash outer gate). On hang, auto-degrades this phase's Codex voice.

  Claude DX subagent (via Agent tool): "Read the plan file at <plan_path>. You are an independent DX engineer reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate:

  1. Getting started: how many steps from zero to hello world? What's the TTHW?
  2. API/CLI ergonomics: naming consistency, sensible defaults, progressive disclosure?
  3. Error handling: does every error path specify problem + cause + fix + docs link?
  4. Documentation: copy-paste examples? Information architecture? Interactive elements?
  5. Escape hatches: can developers override every opinionated default? For each finding: what's wrong, severity (critical/high/medium), and the fix." NO prior-phase context — subagent must be truly independent.

  Error handling: same as Phase 1 (both foreground/blocking, degradation matrix applies).

• DX choices: if codex disagrees with a DX decision with valid developer empathy reasoning → TASTE DECISION. Scope changes both models agree on → USER CHALLENGE.

Required execution checklist (DX):

1. Step 0 (DX Scope Assessment): Auto-detect product type. Map the developer journey. Rate initial DX completeness 0-10. Assess TTHW.
2. Step 0.5 (Dual Voices): Run Claude subagent (foreground) first, then Codex. Present under CODEX SAYS (DX — developer experience challenge) and CLAUDE SUBAGENT (DX — independent review) headers. Produce DX consensus table:

DX DUAL VOICES — CONSENSUS TABLE:
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
  Dimension                           Claude  Codex  Consensus
  ──────────────────────────────────── ─────── ─────── ─────────
  1. Getting started < 5 min?          —       —      —
  2. API/CLI naming guessable?         —       —      —
  3. Error messages actionable?        —       —      —
  4. Docs findable & complete?         —       —      —
  5. Upgrade path safe?                —       —      —
  6. Dev environment friction-free?    —       —      —
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
CONFIRMED = both agree. DISAGREE = models differ (→ taste decision).
Missing voice = N/A (not CONFIRMED). Single critical finding from one voice = flagged regardless.

3. Passes 1-8: Run each from loaded skill. Rate 0-10. Auto-decide each issue. DISAGREE items from consensus table → raised in the relevant pass with both perspectives.
4. DX Scorecard: Produce the full scorecard with all 8 dimensions scored.

Mandatory outputs from Phase 3.5:

• Developer journey map (9-stage table)
• Developer empathy narrative (first-person perspective)
• DX Scorecard with all 8 dimension scores
• DX Implementation Checklist
• TTHW assessment with target

PHASE 3.5 COMPLETE. Emit phase-transition summary:

Phase 3.5 complete. DX overall: [N]/10. TTHW: [N] min → [target] min. Codex: [N concerns]. Claude subagent: [N issues]. Consensus: [X/6 confirmed, Y disagreements → surfaced at gate]. Passing to Phase 4 (Final Gate).

Decision Audit Trail

After each auto-decision, append a row to the plan file using Edit:

<!-- AUTONOMOUS DECISION LOG -->
## Decision Audit Trail

| # | Phase | Decision | Classification | Principle | Rationale | Rejected |
|---|-------|----------|-----------|-----------|----------|

Write one row per decision incrementally (via Edit). This keeps the audit on disk, not accumulated in conversation context.

Pre-Gate Verification

Before presenting the Final Approval Gate, verify that required outputs were actually produced. Check the plan file and conversation for each item.

Phase 1 (CEO) outputs:

• Premise challenge with specific premises named (not just "premises accepted")
• All applicable review sections have findings OR explicit "examined X, nothing flagged"
• Error & Rescue Registry table produced (or noted N/A with reason)
• Failure Modes Registry table produced (or noted N/A with reason)
• "NOT in scope" section written
• "What already exists" section written
• Dream state delta written
• Completion Summary produced
• Dual voices ran (Codex + Claude subagent, or noted unavailable)
• CEO consensus table produced

Phase 2 (Design) outputs — only if UI scope detected:

• All 7 dimensions evaluated with scores
• Issues identified and auto-decided
• Dual voices ran (or noted unavailable/skipped with phase)
• Design litmus scorecard produced

Phase 3 (Eng) outputs:

• Scope challenge with actual code analysis (not just "scope is fine")
• Architecture ASCII diagram produced
• Test diagram mapping codepaths to test coverage
• Test plan artifact written to disk at ~/.soloship/projects/$SLUG/
• "NOT in scope" section written
• "What already exists" section written
• Failure modes registry with critical gap assessment
• Completion Summary produced
• Dual voices ran (Codex + Claude subagent, or noted unavailable)
• Eng consensus table produced

Phase 3.5 (DX) outputs — only if DX scope detected:

• All 8 DX dimensions evaluated with scores
• Developer journey map produced
• Developer empathy narrative written
• TTHW assessment with target
• DX Implementation Checklist produced
• Dual voices ran (or noted unavailable/skipped with phase)
• DX consensus table produced

Cross-phase:

• Cross-phase themes section written

Audit trail:

• Decision Audit Trail has at least one row per auto-decision (not empty)

If ANY checkbox above is missing, go back and produce the missing output. Max 2 attempts — if still missing after retrying twice, proceed to the gate with a warning noting which items are incomplete. Do not loop indefinitely.

Phase 4: Final Approval Gate

Stop here and present the final state to the user.

Present as a message, then use AskUserQuestion:

## /autoplan Review Complete

### Plan Summary
[1-3 sentence summary]

### Decisions Made: [N] total ([M] auto-decided, [K] taste choices, [J] user challenges)

### User Challenges (both models disagree with your stated direction)
[For each user challenge:]
**Challenge [N]: [title]** (from [phase])
You said: [user's original direction]
Both models recommend: [the change]
Why: [reasoning]
What we might be missing: [blind spots]
If we're wrong, the cost is: [downside of changing]
[If security/feasibility: "⚠️ Both models flag this as a security/feasibility risk,
not just a preference."]

Your call — your original direction stands unless you explicitly change it.

### Your Choices (taste decisions)
[For each taste decision:]
**Choice [N]: [title]** (from [phase])
I recommend [X] — [principle]. But [Y] is also viable:
  [1-sentence downstream impact if you pick Y]

### Auto-Decided: [M] decisions [see Decision Audit Trail in plan file]

### Review Scores
- CEO: [summary]
- CEO Voices: Codex [summary], Claude subagent [summary], Consensus [X/6 confirmed]
- Design: [summary or "skipped, no UI scope"]
- Design Voices: Codex [summary], Claude subagent [summary], Consensus [X/7 confirmed] (or "skipped")
- Eng: [summary]
- Eng Voices: Codex [summary], Claude subagent [summary], Consensus [X/6 confirmed]
- DX: [summary or "skipped, no developer-facing scope"]
- DX Voices: Codex [summary], Claude subagent [summary], Consensus [X/6 confirmed] (or "skipped")

### Cross-Phase Themes
[For any concern that appeared in 2+ phases' dual voices independently:]
**Theme: [topic]** — flagged in [Phase 1, Phase 3]. High-confidence signal.
[If no themes span phases:] "No cross-phase themes — each phase's concerns were distinct."

### Deferred to TODOS.md
[Items auto-deferred with reasons]

Cognitive load management:

• 0 user challenges: skip "User Challenges" section
• 0 taste decisions: skip "Your Choices" section
• 1-7 taste decisions: flat list
• 8+: group by phase. Add warning: "This plan had unusually high ambiguity ([N] taste decisions). Review carefully."

AskUserQuestion options:

• A) Approve as-is (accept all recommendations)
• B) Approve with overrides (specify which taste decisions to change)
• B2) Approve with user challenge responses (accept or reject each challenge)
• C) Interrogate (ask about any specific decision)
• D) Revise (the plan itself needs changes)
• E) Reject (start over)

Option handling:

• A: mark APPROVED, write review logs, suggest /ship
• B: ask which overrides, apply, re-present gate
• C: answer freeform, re-present gate
• D: make changes, re-run affected phases (scope→1B, design→2, test plan→3, arch→3). Max 3 cycles.
• E: start over

Completion

On approval, summarize the review outcomes (CEO, Eng, Design if Phase 2 ran, DX if Phase 3.5 ran, dual-voice consensus per phase) as a markdown table in the plan file's ## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT section. STATUS is "clean" if no unresolved issues, "issues_open" otherwise. Replace consensus counts with actual values from the tables.

Suggest next step: /ship when ready to create the PR.

Important Rules

• Never abort. The user chose /autoplan. Respect that choice. Surface all taste decisions, never redirect to interactive review.
• Two gates. The non-auto-decided AskUserQuestions are: (1) premise confirmation in Phase 1, and (2) User Challenges — when both models agree the user's stated direction should change. Everything else is auto-decided using the 6 principles.
• Log every decision. No silent auto-decisions. Every choice gets a row in the audit trail.
• Full depth means full depth. Do not compress or skip sections from the loaded skill files (except the skip list in Phase 0). "Full depth" means: read the code the section asks you to read, produce the outputs the section requires, identify every issue, and decide each one. A one-sentence summary of a section is not "full depth" — it is a skip. If you catch yourself writing fewer than 3 sentences for any review section, you are likely compressing.
• Artifacts are deliverables. Test plan artifact, failure modes registry, error/rescue table, ASCII diagrams — these must exist on disk or in the plan file when the review completes. If they don't exist, the review is incomplete.
• Sequential order. CEO → Design → Eng → DX. Each phase builds on the last.