gstack/plan-eng-review/sections/review-sections.md.tmpl

## Review preparation

Follow the blocks below in order after startup. Confidence Calibration and
Decision procedure are reference rules, not additional review passes.

## Review record and write policy

- **Target:** the plan, diff or code path selected at the Scope gate. It stays fixed.
- **Working plan:** the proposed work and its current approvals. For a plan target,
  start with that plan; for code, build a remedy plan from the findings. This is
  review content, not permission to edit implementation or create another file.
- **Report file:** the one destination for the working plan, findings, decision
  ledger and final structured report. It may be the selected plan or a separate file.

| Target | Evidence to examine |
|---|---|
| Plan or design document | Proposed paths, checked against existing interfaces and tests |
| Branch diff | Changed behavior and surrounding code, traced from entry points |
| Specific file or directory | Existing behavior and relevant callers/tests |

When Test review or Outside Voice refers to the plan, use the current working
plan and this target evidence. Trace current behavior and proposed changes
separately. Include actual decisions in Outside Voice's bounded input.

Choose the **report file** before any ledger write:
1. Use the output/report path explicitly requested by the user.
2. Otherwise use the selected plan file, if there is one.
3. Otherwise use `$GSTACK_STATE_ROOT/projects/$SLUG/$BRANCH-eng-review-{YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS}.md`, adding a suffix on collision. Obtain assignments from `~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-paths` and `~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug`; failed commands or missing values make this path unavailable.

Never substitute an unrelated active plan or silently replace a requested destination.

**Check each artifact and parent directory's permission before writing.** Honor
user and host limits, including active-plan-only restrictions. Permission for one
path authorizes no other; implementation edits require explicit authority.

| Artifact | Destination | If writing is forbidden |
|---|---|---|
| Working plan, ledger and complete review report | Selected report file | Ask for a permitted destination if the user can supply one; wait without completion telemetry. If none is permitted, use **Read-only review** below, then **Report-back outcome**. |
| QA Test Plan and task JSONL | Discovery paths below | Present each completely as **not persisted** and continue. |
| TODOS.md | The project's TODO file | Present accepted TODO content as **not persisted** and continue. |
| Required Review Log | The helper's state location | Present its fields as **not persisted**; at Review Log, use **Report-back outcome** instead of publishing a saved review. The final gate cannot pass without this log. |
| Best-effort metadata/learning logs | Helper-defined locations | Skip forbidden writes; otherwise keep their best-effort behavior. |

QA Test Plan/task JSONL keep discovery paths `$GSTACK_STATE_ROOT/projects/{slug}/`:
`{user}-{branch}-eng-review-test-plan-{datetime}.md` and
`tasks-eng-review-{datetime}.jsonl`. Keep their formats; do not relocate.

**First report save:** Name the fixed target in the report header. Read an
existing destination and preserve its content. For a new file, create permitted
parent directories, then write that header, an unchanged copy of the original
plan (for plan targets), and the scope record or ledger being saved. Recheck option 3's collision before
creation; use a suffix rather than overwrite. Findings and fixes first enter
through Scope Challenge C's ledger saves, never earlier. Put records before an existing `## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT`, or
at EOF if absent; create that terminal report only at Plan File Review Report.

**Write routes.** A forbidden write follows its row above.
- **Read-only review:** At each scope/decision record save, present the complete
  record, grid and authorized amendments as **not persisted** instead. At both
  pre-question and post-answer verification gates, perform the same comparisons
  on that presentation instead of a saved Read. This supports chat review, never
  the saved-report gate.
- **Failed permitted save** (error or failed Read-back): use **Recovery routing →
  Repairable write/read failure**, never the routes above. Do not ask from an
  unsaved record; an unrecovered failed write blocks the review.

{{LEARNINGS_SEARCH}}

## Retrospective learning
History paths by review target:
- Plan: named existing paths. Mark named future paths `not available`; missing
  history proves nothing about proposed behavior. Never invent paths.
- Branch diff: changed files.
- File/directory: selected path.

Run `git log --oneline -- <paths>` and `git log --grep=revert --oneline -- <paths>`.
Check recurring issues and reversals.

**Plan-review evidence:** Implementation/validation steps are proposals. Calibrate
findings below: quote the motivating plan requirement (file:line) and check existing interfaces
where applicable. Do not require future code or call a proposed regression observed.
Code-specific examples concern existing code.

Bounded probes address named current-behavior/interface uncertainties. Report
evidence, limits, unknowns and future verification. Complete the review without
building proposed code. Keep suppressed findings for the output appendix.

{{CONFIDENCE_CALIBRATION}}

## Decision procedure

Use this transaction for findings from Scope Challenge, Sections 1–4, Outside
Voice, late changes and TODO choices. Finish one choice before the next.

Context Recovery/prerequisites, Prior Learnings configuration and the initial
target selector use their own menus, without a pre-answer ledger. Scope Challenge
B also uses its own selectors and post-answer scope record. These selections
approve no engineering remedy; navigation likewise grants no implementation scope.

Use the preamble's tool resolution, failure fallback and authorized auto-decision
rules. Use Review record and write policy for every save below.

### Prepare an unanswered choice

**Establish current state.**

Read the request, source and actual answers. Give each finding a number, severity,
confidence, file:line and reviewer. Record two separate facts:
- **Plan baseline:** the last approved value, exact scope and answer reference;
  if nothing was approved, record the original proposal.
- **Runtime evidence:** what existing code or a probe shows. Mark unverified
  behavior unknown.

Approval does not prove deployed behavior, and observed behavior does not grant
approval. Drafts, recommendations and reviewer agreement grant neither. For a
factual correction that changes no behavior, record the correction and evidence;
no question or comparison grid is needed.

If an exact prior approval covers the work, cite its answer and disposition.
Carry its necessary code, tests, documentation and later-discovered required
proof forward without asking again. Otherwise leave the remedy pending. Reopen
an approved choice only for a concrete new risk, contradictory evidence or a
changed assumption. Explain the reason and retain earlier values, complete
briefs and answers in History. Record remaining unknowns and uncertain risks.
If no new answer is needed, continue the calling section; otherwise prepare one
pending choice below.

**Separate independent choices.**

Before drafting options, list each current value and proposed change: behavior,
approach, guarantee or bound. Include response timing, resources, lifetimes and
optional verification method or depth. Give each bound a measure and unit.

Give independently selectable changes separate IDs. If the user can accept one
while another stays approved or undecided, they are separate choices even in the
same finding, function or patch. A reopened choice keeps its ID and receives the
next continuous `D<N>` question number.

Keep one behavior with its necessary code, tests and documentation. Alternative
mechanisms for that fixed behavior belong in one question; independently
selectable runtime outcomes do not. Optional depths of one verification form
one choice. Separate instrumentation, follow-ups, guarantees and policies need
their own choices, and their tests wait for approval.

**Compare one choice.**

Select one pending ID. Prepare its question in this order:

**Draft the native fields:** build `currentDecision`:
- `question`: the complete D-numbered preamble brief, including Project, ELI10,
  Stakes, Recommendation and applicable completeness/net fields.
- `header`: the exact native header.
- `options`: every exact label and full description.

Put the problem and file:line in the native fields. Offer 2–3 options, including
do-nothing when reasonable; Outside Voice retains its four-option menu.
Each option must explain human/CC effort, risk and maintenance. Tie the
recommendation to the engineering preferences; prefer complete coverage when
extra CC effort is marginal. Make the header and every label final before saving:
within the host's stated length limits, or under 5 words each when none are stated.
Put details in descriptions.

For one fixed approved contract, coverage choices vary implementation or proof
depth. Apply the preamble's Completeness scores or kind-note accordingly.
Test-review scores rate existing/proposed tests, not answer status.

**Audit the commitments.** Build a separate **comparison grid** for the whole
brief. Give every selectable
behavior, approach, guarantee or bound a row. Show its concrete current value,
each option's value and work, and any approval citation. Include shared, fixed
and pending choices.

Use these three checks for every column:
1. Vary only this choice: every column repeats each other approved value
   unchanged and leaves each other pending choice pending. A value shared by all
   options still needs approval if it is new.
2. Treat necessary implementation and proof of an approved contract as common
   work. Cite its answer instead of creating another approval row. Never cut an
   established contract or its required proof.
3. An Investigate/Defer option must bound the investigation and name what stays
   unchanged or pending. It approves no implementation, including a conditional
   fix. Keep that remedy pending.

**Reconcile before saving.** Compare each option's full label and description
with every row in its grid column. They must make the same commitments and retain
the same conditions. Put all deliberation in the native question/descriptions;
a saved-only Pros/cons block cannot supply missing decision context. Repair
contradictions now. If you discover another independent choice, separate it and
rebuild this comparison before saving or sending the question.

For example, jitter and a delay cap can be chosen independently. A menu of “both / cap only / neither” bundles them by omitting “jitter only.” Ask about jitter first:

| Choice | Current | A | B |
|---|---|---|---|
| R1 jitter | unspecified, pending | on | off |
| R2 delay cap | unspecified, pending | unspecified, pending | unspecified, pending |

After the jitter answer, carry that value into both options of the later cap question.

**Pending-record checkpoint.**

Save the record, complete grid and exact `currentDecision` using the report
placement above. Include every native field, the recommendation
and all options. A–D record selectors are ledger notation only: if a saved label
already starts `A)`/`B)`/`C)`/`D)`, keep that one prefix; otherwise add it. Compare
the label separately from that notation by removing the selector before matching.

When revising, replace the whole current payload for this record: comparison
grid, question, header, options, state, actual answer and accepted scope. Keep
other choices' headings, content and approvals intact; move superseded payloads
to History. Do not leave duplicate Question, Header or Options fields.

```markdown
## Decision ledger

### R1: <one independently selectable choice>
Finding: <number, severity, confidence, file:line and reviewer>
Plan baseline: <last approved value, exact scope and answer reference; otherwise the original proposal>
Runtime evidence: <observed value and source/probe; unknown if unverified>
Comparison grid: <complete comparison grid>
Question D2:
<currentDecision.question in full, including its D2 title and recommendation>
Header: <currentDecision.header>
Options:
<first option's exact label, with one A) record selector>
<first option's full description>
<second option's exact label, with one B) record selector>
<second option's full description>

State: <pending, or approved>
Actual answer: <unanswered, or actual option and answer reference>
Accepted scope: <exact approved work; none if no change approved>
History: <earlier values, briefs, answers and reason for reopening>
```

Check the Write/Edit result, then use Read to fetch the entire saved record.
Compare every native field with `currentDecision` and the whole saved grid with
the prepared comparison.
Read after the final edit, even if Edit says the content is current in context.
Grep, chat references, summaries and planned writes do not verify the record.
Repair any difference and repeat the complete Read before asking. A failed save
blocks the question; unreadable or unverifiable records use **Recovery routing**.

If any payload field changes, including a shortened label or formatting edit,
rebuild the comparison, replace the whole saved payload and Read it again. An older
comparison or a critic's advice cannot substitute for this verification.

### Send once and wait

Send `AskUserQuestion({ questions: [currentDecision] })` only after the pending-record checkpoint passes. Send one
question object for one choice; other IDs wait. Copy the verified question,
header, labels and descriptions literally. Do not add or strip brief paragraphs
or rebuild options. Authorized prose and auto-decisions use this same verified
brief with the preamble's rendering and answer rules.
When Question Tuning is enabled, copying the verified question preserves its
`<gstack-qid:{question_id}>` marker.

**STOP until the actual answer arrives.** Do not apply a remedy, make another
call, start the next section or call ExitPlanMode while the choice awaits an
answer. An obvious fix still needs an answer unless exact prior approval covers it.

### Record the answer

Read the selected saved label, full description and grid column together. Carry
all commitments, conditions, unchanged values and pending choices forward. If
they conflict or bundle independent choices, preserve the actual answer, explain
the conflict and return to **Prepare an unanswered choice** for a new verified
brief and another answer. Do not reinterpret a caption,
drop a commitment or advance with conflicting approvals.

Replace the whole adjacent `State` / `Actual answer` / `Accepted scope` block
after the options. Use the actual option and answer reference. Set State to
`approved` for accepted scope or `pending` for an unresolved remedy. Each field
must occur once outside History. Preserve the options and move superseded states
to History. If older fields are separated, consolidate all three and remove their
old occurrences in the same edit; never update only the answer/scope tail.

Use a scoped Edit to save this record and only the authorized working-plan
amendments. Leave other choices unchanged.

Check the save result, then Read the entire resolution block, including State.
Verify that its unique state, actual answer and accepted scope match the complete
selected option and grid column. An answer-only search or current-in-context hint
cannot replace Read. Correct any discrepancy before advancing; apply the write
policy to failures.

For the next choice, use the updated working plan and answer; when finished,
continue the calling section. Keep chosen values
fixed in later questions, and explain when a choice has become irrelevant rather
than asking it again. Start the next section only when no answer is pending in
this section. Keep unresolved risks and verification visible; resolve risk and
safety choices before readiness. /autoplan uses its authorized decisions and
audit trail, leaving User Challenges for its final gate.

## Scope Challenge

### A. Assess the target

Complete these checks before the complexity decision in B. Do not apply scope
changes or write findings into the plan yet.

- **What already solves each sub-problem?** Inspect helpers, libraries, callers and reusable outputs: behavior and dependency/deployment boundaries. Cite authored sources; label proposed callers with their motivating plan requirement and assumptions.
- **What minimum changes achieve the goal?** Flag work deferrable without blocking it; challenge scope creep.
- **Complexity check:** Count the selected work, not files read only as evidence:
  for a plan, its proposed changed files and new classes/services; for a diff,
  changed files and classes/services introduced by that diff; for a file/directory,
  files in that selected scope and any explicitly proposed new classes/services.
  Count each once, label estimates, and seek fewer moving parts. Use these counts in B.
- **Search check:** For each new architectural pattern, infrastructure component
   or concurrency approach, research built-ins, current practice and pitfalls
   through Aside (entrypoint readiness), one read-only request per pattern.
   Prompt file text (create, write and send it with the Web research runs in Aside blocks in SKILL.md):
   `{framework} {pattern} built-in, {pattern} best practice {current year}, and {framework} {pattern} pitfalls. Reply with up to 8 bullets, each with its source URL.`

   If Aside is unavailable, use host WebSearch for these queries. With neither,
   skip and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."

   Prefer available built-ins. Label recommendations **[Layer 1]**, **[Layer 2]**,
   **[Layer 3]** or **[EUREKA]** per Search Before Building; explain departures
   from standard practice.
- **TODOS cross-reference:** Read existing `TODOS.md`: what blocks this plan,
   fits this PR without expanding scope, or needs a new TODO?

- **Completeness check:** Full tests, edges and errors cost 10-100x less with AI.
   Prefer completeness when a shortcut saves only CC+gstack minutes. Boil the ocean.

- **Distribution check:** For new artifacts, verify build/publish CI/CD, target
   OS/architectures and download/install channels. Put deferrals in "NOT in scope".

{{PLAN_REALITY_ROWS:eng}}

### B. Resolve complexity selectors

With fewer than 8 files AND fewer than 2 new classes/services, skip B's questions
and go directly to **C. Resolve findings**.
At 8+ files or 2+ new classes/services, STOP before Section 1. Use the
preamble's decision-brief format for this complexity gate, in this order:

Initial scope selectors need no grid or **pre-answer** ledger write. Ask and
wait before changes.

1. Explain the complexity. Ask each proposed feature cut/deferral separately;
   wait before changing scope.
2. Always resolve the structure question when this gate trips, even with no cuts,
   as question_id `plan-eng-review-structure` (no per-plan slug); `AUTO_DECIDE`
   picks the recommendation. Compare only the file/class arrangement, labeled
   `Original arrangement` and `Smaller arrangement`, with files/classes per
   option. Both retain
   the same approved feature list, contracts and approved
   security/error/test/performance fixes. Include `Pending remedies not decided here: <ids>` in the
   question; unapproved fixes stay pending. If no smaller arrangement preserves
   these commitments, explain that and offer confirmation of the original
   arrangement or a pause to investigate a smaller one. Wait for the answer.
   A pause leaves the arrangement undecided: investigate only the agreed question,
   then return to the selector. Do not continue to C until it is settled.
3. Save the actual feature and structure answers as one scope record: `feature
   answers: <refs>; structure: <A/B + ref>; accepted scope: <exact scope>;
   pending remedies: <ids or none>`.

This is a post-answer scope summary, not a remedy's pending ledger record.
Save it under the write policy and Read it back against the actual answers;
on the permitted read-only route, present and verify it as **not persisted**.
Do not invent a pre-answer record afterward. A failed save or Read blocks advancement.

After verification, apply only accepted scope changes. Do not re-argue reduction
or skip approved components. Continue to **C. Resolve findings**.

### C. Resolve findings

Run C whether B was completed or skipped.

1. Present numbered Scope Challenge findings with calibrated severity, confidence
   and source; use "No issues found" for an empty list.
2. Resolve each remedy through Decision procedure, reusing exact answers.
   Findings and scope answers approve no remedies.
3. Report accepted/rejected/deferred/pending dispositions from those answers.

Record the Scope Challenge result from actual accepted changes: with a scope
reduction, `scope reduced per recommendation`; otherwise `scope accepted as-is`,
including when B was skipped. A smaller arrangement that preserves scope is not
a scope reduction. This result supplies MODE; it approves no pending remedy.
Keep it current if later approved choices change scope.
Continue to Section 1 only when no answer is pending.

{{PLAN_REALITY_ROWS:deep}}

## Review Sections (after scope is agreed)

Evaluate Architecture → Code Quality → Tests → Performance. Never condense,
abbreviate or skip a section, including strategy/spec/infra plans.

After each of Sections 1–4, resolve new or reopened choices through Decision
procedure, report findings and dispositions, then continue. Per section, output
every main-report finding in the Confidence Calibration format, most severe first
(or "No issues found"), one question per new or reopened choice, then `Dispositions:` (accepted, rejected,
deferred or pending, with D-number or answer) for each finding.

### 1. Architecture review
Evaluate:
* System/component boundaries, dependencies and coupling.
* Data flow, bottlenecks, scaling and single points of failure.
* Security: auth, data access and API boundaries.
* Key flows needing ASCII diagrams in plans/code.
* One realistic production failure per new path/integration; does the plan handle it?
* **Distribution architecture:** New artifacts' build, publish and update paths; included or deferred CI/CD.

### 2. Code quality review
Evaluate:
* Organization and module structure.
* Shared-code opportunities in the target and related callers, using the rubric below. No standalone history/PR sweep or quotas. Check proposed caller assumptions against existing interfaces.
* Explicitly flag error handling gaps and missing edge cases.
* Technical debt, fragility and needless complexity per engineering preferences.
* Accuracy of touched files' ASCII diagrams.

{{SHARED_LIBS_RUBRIC}}

Use Decision procedure for new/reopened extraction choices; scope approval does not approve extraction.

### 3. Test review

For shared-code changes, audit existing/missing shared-contract tests (behavior,
errors, side effects, boundaries) and each migrated caller's integration/differences.
Rejected extractions still need coverage for real duplicated-code defects.

{{TEST_COVERAGE_AUDIT_PLAN}}

After **Add missing tests to the plan** resolves test/eval decisions and the Test Plan Artifact is saved or presented, report the Test review findings and their dispositions and continue to Performance review.

### 4. Performance review
Evaluate:
* N+1 queries and database access patterns.
* Memory usage.
* Caching opportunities.
* Slow or complex paths.

On per-request or looped paths, check queries in loops, unbounded
queries or caches, missing indexes, whole-file loads and blocking calls without
timeouts. Give each finding's scale (rows, requests/s, bytes) or mark it
unknown; never invent benchmarks.

{{CODEX_PLAN_REVIEW}}

### Continue after Outside Voice

Finish the Outside Voice branch. Only completed reviews enter Cross-model tension. Record the actual coverage, including disabled or unavailable outcomes, in the Completion summary, then continue below.

## Final planning decisions

After Sections 1–4 and Outside Voice, resolve the TODO choices, then check Approval readiness before Required outputs.

### TODOS.md updates
Review every potential TODO. Reuse an exact prior disposition under Decision procedure; ask about each unanswered proposal in its own AskUserQuestion. Never batch TODOs or silently skip them. Use `~/.claude/skills/gstack/review/TODOS-format.md`.

For each TODO, record **What**, **Why**, **Pros**, **Cons** (cost/complexity/risk),
**Context** (motivation, current state, where to start in 3 months), and
**Depends on / blocked by** (prerequisites/order).

Then present options: **A)** Add to TODOS.md **B)** Skip — not valuable enough **C)** Build it now in this PR instead of deferring.

Option C records accepted implementation scope; still do not edit product code.

{{PLAN_REVIEW_APPROVAL_CHECK}}

## Required outputs

After Approval readiness passes, follow this finish sequence using the reference
sections below; those references are not another review cycle.

For recovery or changed outputs, use the entrypoint's **Recovery routing**.
Reuse a successful Review Log only for unchanged saved outputs; changed outputs
must pass steps 1–4 again.

1. **Prepare the review body.** Complete the working plan, Implementation Tasks
   and Completion summary below. Leave choices pending according to each record's
   current State, actual answer and accepted scope. Save permitted auxiliary artifacts under the write policy.
   Check the Test Plan already produced in Test review; update that artifact only
   if later approved decisions changed its requirements. Do not recreate unchanged output.
2. **Save and Read back.** Use Plan File Review Report to save the complete body
   and terminal `## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT`; pass its Read-back gate. Forbidden
   persistence uses **Report-back outcome**; an unrecovered save requires
   **Blocked outcome**, not logging.
3. **Log the saved review.** Run Review Log with saved Completion summary values.
   If the required log is forbidden, show fields as not persisted and take **Report-back outcome**;
   failures use the write policy's recovery.
4. **Publish.** Display the Review Readiness Dashboard, then present the saved
   Completion summary to the user.
5. **Choose navigation.** Use Next Steps — Review Chaining; wait for its answer.
   A substantive change follows
   **Recovery routing → Late change or missing work** before navigation resumes.
6. **Finish.** Run Learning hooks, including gated Brain Calibration Write-Back;
   then return to the entrypoint's Section self-check and read-only EXIT PLAN MODE GATE in
   every host mode. Only after both pass, run success telemetry and cache refresh;
   call ExitPlanMode only in host plan mode.

### Output reference — review body

Place `Suppressed findings` as a body appendix before the terminal
`## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT`; nothing follows that terminal report.

### "NOT in scope" section
List considered work that was explicitly deferred, with one sentence explaining each deferral.

### "What already exists" section
Link existing solutions and distinguish reuse/rebuilding. For accepted shared-code
choices, reference their Code Quality/Test decisions and complete rubric evidence.
Explain safer separation or net growth; never re-ask settled remedies.

### Diagrams
Diagram non-trivial flows, states and pipelines in ASCII. Name files needing inline
diagrams for complex model, service or mixin behavior.

### Failure modes
For each new diagrammed path, name a realistic production failure, its test/error
handling coverage, and whether users see a clear error or a silent failure.

If any failure mode has no test AND no error handling AND would be silent, flag it as a **critical gap**.

### Worktree parallelization strategy

Group implementation into parallel git worktrees (`isolation: "worktree"`) or workspaces.
With one primary module or fewer than 2 independent workstreams, write:
"Sequential implementation, no parallelization opportunity." Otherwise give a
**Dependency table** by module, not guessed file:

| Step | Modules touched | Depends on |
|------|----------------|------------|
| (step name) | (directories/modules, NOT specific files) | (other steps, or —) |

**Parallel lanes:** disjoint modules together; shared modules sequentially, dependencies
later (`Lane A: step1 → step2 (shared models/)` / `Lane B: step3 (independent)`).
**Execution order:** launch/wait points ("Launch A + B. Merge both. Then C.").
**Conflict flags:** cross-lane shared modules to sequence or coordinate.

{{TASKS_SECTION_EMIT:eng-review}}

### Unresolved decisions
List unanswered/interrupted choices as "Unresolved decisions that may bite you later",
with IDs and missing answers. Never silently default. Count each once, excluding
prior reviews; the terminal report adds those separately.

### Completion summary
From final decisions/outputs; publish after report Read-back and Review Log:
- Step 0: Scope Challenge — ___ (scope accepted as-is / scope reduced per recommendation)
{{PLAN_REALITY_ROWS:summary}}
- Architecture Review: ___ issues found
- Code Quality Review: ___ issues found
- Test Review: diagram produced, ___ gaps identified
- Performance Review: ___ issues found
- NOT in scope: written
- What already exists: written
- TODOS.md updates: ___ items proposed to user
- Failure modes: ___ critical gaps flagged
- Unresolved decisions: ___ in this review
- Outside voice: recorded provider, completed / unavailable / disabled / skipped (reason)
- Parallelization: ___ lanes, ___ parallel / ___ sequential
- Lake Score: X/Y = answers picking a 10/10 option / answers scored for Completeness; N/A if Y=0.

{{PLAN_FILE_REVIEW_REPORT}}

## Review Log

Use these commands in finish step 3, after successful Read-back. Both logs follow the write policy: required review log, best-effort decision log.

```bash
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"plan-eng-review","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","unresolved":N,"critical_gaps":N,"issues_found":N,"mode":"MODE","commit":"COMMIT"}' || exit $?
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-decision-log '{"decision":"Eng review (MODE): ARCH_SUMMARY","rationale":"KEY_DECISION","scope":"branch","source":"skill","confidence":8}' 2>/dev/null || true
```

Second command: `ARCH_SUMMARY` = findings/dispositions; `KEY_DECISION` = durable
architecture choice. Omit it when none exists.

- **TIMESTAMP**: current ISO 8601 datetime
- **STATUS**: "clean" if `issues_found=0`, `unresolved=0` and `critical_gaps=0`; else "issues_open". Count resolved findings too; "issues_open" can mean mapped work, not failure.
- **unresolved**: this review's "Unresolved decisions" count; do not include prior reviews
- **critical_gaps**: number from "Failure modes: ___ critical gaps flagged"
- **issues_found**: four-section count only (Architecture + Code Quality + Performance + Test gaps). Report Scope Challenge and Outside Voice findings separately.
- **MODE**: FULL_REVIEW for the Scope Challenge result "scope accepted as-is"; SCOPE_REDUCED for "scope reduced per recommendation".
- **COMMIT**: output of `git rev-parse --short HEAD`

Only a successful required log permits publication as a saved review.

{{REVIEW_DASHBOARD}}

## Next Steps — Review Chaining

In finish step 5, offer applicable routes from the published dashboard:
- **A) Run /plan-design-review:** unreviewed UI scope (frontend, CSS, views or
  interactions in the diagram/findings).
- **B) Run /plan-ceo-review:** optionally, an unreviewed significant product change
  (new user-facing features, changed direction or substantial scope expansion).
- **C) Ready to implement — run /ship when done**

Flag stale CEO/design reviews from contradictory assumptions or significant commit
drift. If no further review is needed or `skip_eng_review: true`, state
"All relevant reviews complete. Run /ship when ready."

AskUserQuestion with only the applicable options. This is **navigation only**:
copy the working plan's task prerequisites, dependencies and execution order
without adding or strengthening them in the question or descriptions. A test
required before editing one function does not make every independent lane wait.
A next-step answer approves no implementation change.

When the user chooses C: {{IMPLEMENTATION_MODEL_HANDOFF}}

## Learning hooks

In finish step 6, keep the working plan/approvals fixed. Review operational learnings
per preamble; use Capture Learnings below for other discoveries. Never log twice.

{{LEARNINGS_LOG}}

{{GBRAIN_SAVE_RESULTS}}

**Calibration gate status:** No supported preamble/config produces `BRAIN_CALIBRATION_WRITEBACK`. Skip unless that source explicitly enables it. Personal trust/MCP availability cannot enable it; never set it yourself.

{{BRAIN_WRITE_BACK}}