{
  "source": "77fd0890ddfeaf2bdd6d78183a2d989d9a4e8d4c",
  "description": "Actual completed native Office Hours choice; pending panes in tests are explicitly synthetic. The paid verdict remains independent.",
  "completedCall": {
    "sessionId": "152a9a2d-e9e8-4abe-8c3e-01afc90c03ea",
    "toolUseId": "toolu_01AyTba52v4f9mrRiF2XwiEE",
    "questions": [
      {
        "question": "D2 \u2014 No design doc found. Run /office-hours first, or proceed with the standard review?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-Q69F4e on main, reviewing PLAN.md (Multi-tenant Auth Refactor).\nELI10: A design doc is a per-feature write-up of the problem, the constraints, and the alternatives that were considered before landing on this approach. /office-hours produces one in about 10 minutes (human: ~1 hour / CC: ~10 min) by pushing back on the premise and exploring alternatives. This review gets sharper input with one, because right now the plan describes a set of mechanics (shared cache, new services, rewritten legacy flow) without stating what problem the multi-tenant refactor solves or what constraints ruled out simpler shapes.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skipping means the review judges the plan against inferred goals and may miss a premise-level mistake; running it costs ~10 minutes before any review findings land.\nRecommendation: B because the plan already carries concrete, reviewable engineering facts (5 sequential IDP calls, swallowed error classes, untested legacy rewrite) and this review can flag the missing problem statement as a finding rather than blocking on it.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10\nNet: sharper premise vs faster path to the engineering findings you asked for.",
        "header": "Design doc",
        "multiSelect": false,
        "options": [
          {
            "label": "Run /office-hours now",
            "description": "\u2705 Produces a structured problem statement and explored alternatives the review can score against.\n\u2705 Catches premise-level mistakes (wrong problem) that an engineering review alone cannot.\n\u274c Adds ~10 minutes before any architecture, test, or performance findings appear."
          },
          {
            "label": "Skip, standard review (recommended)",
            "description": "\u2705 Goes straight to the engineering findings on the concrete facts already in PLAN.md.\n\u2705 The missing problem statement gets recorded as a finding in the reviewed plan rather than lost.\n\u274c Recommendations are judged against inferred goals; a wrong premise would not be caught here."
          }
        ]
      }
    ],
    "answered": true,
    "failed": false,
    "answers": {
      "D2 \u2014 No design doc found. Run /office-hours first, or proceed with the standard review?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-Q69F4e on main, reviewing PLAN.md (Multi-tenant Auth Refactor).\nELI10: A design doc is a per-feature write-up of the problem, the constraints, and the alternatives that were considered before landing on this approach. /office-hours produces one in about 10 minutes (human: ~1 hour / CC: ~10 min) by pushing back on the premise and exploring alternatives. This review gets sharper input with one, because right now the plan describes a set of mechanics (shared cache, new services, rewritten legacy flow) without stating what problem the multi-tenant refactor solves or what constraints ruled out simpler shapes.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skipping means the review judges the plan against inferred goals and may miss a premise-level mistake; running it costs ~10 minutes before any review findings land.\nRecommendation: B because the plan already carries concrete, reviewable engineering facts (5 sequential IDP calls, swallowed error classes, untested legacy rewrite) and this review can flag the missing problem statement as a finding rather than blocking on it.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10\nNet: sharper premise vs faster path to the engineering findings you asked for.": "Run /office-hours now"
    },
    "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
    "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T17:12:57.957Z"
  }
}