/ln-11-plan-reviewer

name: ln-11-plan-reviewer
description: "Reviews implementation plans against repository evidence and current authoritative guidance. Use before execution to expose gaps and risks; not for completed delivery review."

Plan Reviewer

**Goal:** Perform a read-only, evidence-first second pass over an implementation plan. Verify the plan; do not execute it. A strong result is decision-complete, grounded in the actual repository, explicit about uncertainty, no more complex than the problem requires, and expressed in the fewest words and execution steps that preserve safety.

**Execution contract:** Treat the ordered checkbox workflow below as this skill's Definition of Done. Before reviewing, create an internal coverage ledger with one `PENDING` row per checkbox, using the heading's ID range in printed order. Change a row only to `PROVEN` with a concrete evidence reference, `CLEARED` with evidence that its conditional trigger is absent, or `UNPROVEN`; reading, mentioning, delegating, skipping, or tool failure is not proof. At the end of each numbered section, reconcile its ledger rows and resolve every `PENDING`. Before verdict, run exactly one closure pass over the ledger, evidence, and draft: challenge unsupported `PROVEN` or `CLEARED` states, surface every accepted finding, and align matrices, limitations, and verdict. Correct the report or downgrade the verdict; do not rescan the repository, restart the review, or launch another subagent round. Before returning, derive the count from the ledger with only `PROVEN` and `CLEARED` rows complete, apply this skill's verdict rules to every `UNPROVEN`, allow no `PENDING`, and prepend **Checklist: X/Y complete**<br>**Incomplete: None | ID — reason; outcome impact; exact next action**; list every `UNPROVEN` row.

Tool Routing

| Need | Preferred tool | Use it when | Fallback | |---|---|---|---| | Repository instructions and current state | Native file read plus Git | Always read the active host's applicable repository instructions; use `git status`, `diff`, and history when branch or change context matters | Equivalent host file and shell tools | | Paths, text, config, docs, and focused code reads | Native file listing, search, outline, and range reads | The question is textual or structural and does not require symbol identity | Narrow the path and pattern before expanding content | | Symbols, references, callers, implementations, cycles, and blast radius | Language server or host-native code intelligence | A plan changes existing code relationships, public APIs, module boundaries, or architecture | Targeted search plus direct inspection of definitions and consumers | | Planned edit risk | Code intelligence plus caller and consumer search | The plan names an edit region, route, event, response contract, or existing change surface | Inspect named symbols and adjacent integration points manually | | Build, test, migration, and script feasibility | Repository-defined commands through the shell | The plan depends on a command, baseline, generated artifact, or existing test surface being available | Inspect scripts and CI configuration; mark execution unverified | | Correction and external-claim research | Official vendor documentation, specifications, or standards through documentation search or the web | External behavior affects the plan or a material candidate needs its required practice reference | Reputable primary engineering material; otherwise mark the claim or correction `UNVERIFIED` | | Independent challenge | Native subagents in separate contexts | A plan benefits from execution, fresh-context, or adversarial perspective | Run the selected perspectives once as one bounded self-review batch and report reduced independence |

Use the preferred tool only when it answers the current evidence question. Tool failure is not a domain finding: report reduced confidence and block only when missing evidence prevents a safe decision. Do not use semantic tooling for prose or configuration questions, and do not use web research to rediscover stable local facts.

Evidence Rules

| Evidence | Authority | |---|---| | Repository files, manifests, schemas, generated contracts, and executable behavior | Source of truth for the current project state | | Official vendor documentation, specifications, RFCs, and security standards | Source of truth for external contracts and current supported behavior | | Release notes and migration guides matching the project's actual version range | Source of truth for compatibility and upgrade claims | | Reputable primary engineering material | Supporting evidence when official sources do not address a design tradeoff | | Community discussion or training knowledge | Leads only; never sufficient for a blocking factual claim |

When sources disagree, prefer the repository for what is installed and implemented, and official documentation for what an external system promises. Repository evidence proves a plan defect; external practice sources justify the correction mechanism and cannot invent a local requirement. State disagreements instead of silently choosing the convenient answer.

Checklist

1. Establish the Review Contract (`CONTRACT-1` through `CONTRACT-9`)

• [ ] Resolve the exact plan, user request, linked requirements, and repository scope. If no concrete plan exists, stop with `BLOCKED` rather than inventing one to review.
• [ ] Read all applicable repository instruction files before interpreting code, documentation, or expected workflow. Identify only change-relevant project policies, standards, and ADRs; distinguish current accepted authority from draft, superseded, stale, or merely descriptive material instead of treating every document as binding.
• [ ] Inspect Git state when it can affect the review: current branch, uncommitted changes, comparison base, and relevant recent history.
• [ ] Separate the literal request and proposed solution from the underlying intent; state the actor, protected out