review-plan

Review Plan

Independent review of a plan produced by plan-work. The reviewer reads only what is on disk; it does not see the planner's reasoning, by design.

Input

work/<slug>/README.md with status: pending-review and a populated # Instructions section.

Output

Same README, updated:

• On approval — frontmatter status: ready. Optionally append a short # Review Notes section summarizing why the plan was approved (one or two sentences).
• On rejection — frontmatter status: pending-plan. Append or overwrite a # Review Feedback section with specific, actionable issues for the planner to address.

Checks

For each step in the plan, verify:

1. Concreteness. Does the step name a specific tool/skill/command, or is it hand-wavy ("analyze the data", "look up papers")? Hand-wavy steps are rejected.
2. Tool fit. Is the chosen tool/skill the right one for the job? Cross-reference available skills (e.g. asta-tools:find-literature for literature search, asta-tools:experiment for running experiments). Flag misuse.
3. Dependencies. Are inputs from prior steps/work referenced by path? Do later steps actually use earlier outputs?
4. Artifacts. Does each step that produces data say where the artifact lands (ideally work/<slug>/data/...)?
5. Scope. Does the plan actually accomplish the Goal? Or does it overshoot / undershoot?
6. Realism. Are runtimes, dependencies, and credentials plausible given the environment?

Verdict rules

• Approve only if all six checks pass.
• Otherwise reject and write # Review Feedback listing the failed checks with one bullet per issue. Reference the specific step number.

Out of scope

• Rewriting the plan. The reviewer only flags issues; plan-work revises.
• Assessing executed work. That is review-work.
• Modifying anything outside the work README.