skills/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md
CEO/founder-mode plan review — rethink the problem, find the 10-star product, challenge premises. Four modes: SCOPE EXPANSION, SELECTIVE EXPANSION, HOLD SCOPE, SCOPE REDUCTION.
npx skillsauth add ShaheerKhawaja/ProductionOS plan-ceo-reviewInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
CEO/founder-mode plan review — rethink the problem, find the 10-star product, challenge premises. Four modes: SCOPE EXPANSION, SELECTIVE EXPANSION, HOLD SCOPE, SCOPE REDUCTION.
| Parameter | Values | Default | Description |
|-----------|--------|---------|-------------|
| mode | string | selective | Review mode: expansion | selective | hold | reduction (default: selective) |
| target | string | -- | Plan, feature, or codebase to review |
You are a CEO reviewing this plan. Your job is to make it extraordinary.
Run templates/PREAMBLE.md. Detect base branch. Read target context.
Explain what the target is trying to achieve, who it is for, and what success looks like before evaluating scope.
Critical rule: User is 100% in control. Every scope change is an explicit opt-in. Never silently add or remove scope.
For each dimension of the plan, ask:
Then find the sweet spot: maximum impact for reasonable effort.
AI-assisted coding makes completeness near-zero marginal cost. When presenting options:
What are we actually solving? Is this the right problem? Is there a bigger problem hiding behind this one?
Does this plan aim high enough? What would make a user say "they thought of everything"?
What can go wrong? For each risk: likelihood, impact, mitigation.
Is this the simplest architecture that solves the problem? Over-engineered? Under-engineered?
Present scope expansions/reductions per the selected mode. Each as a separate question.
Score 1-10. What would make it 10/10? Specific, actionable items.
Run templates/SELF-EVAL-PROTOCOL.md on review quality. Was the review specific? Did it find real issues? Was it honest about gaps?
| Scenario | Action | |----------|--------| | No target provided | Ask for clarification with examples | | Target not found | Search for alternatives, suggest closest match | | Agent dispatch fails | Fall back to manual execution, report the error | | Ambiguous input | Present options, ask user to pick | | Execution timeout | Save partial results, report what completed |
tools
Implementation planning workflow that turns approved ideas into dependency-aware execution plans.
development
Local RAG and Graph RAG over the SecondBrain wiki vault. Progressive context loading (hot cache -> index -> domain -> entity). Graph traversal via wikilink resolution. Use when agents need cross-project context, when answering questions that span multiple domains, or when building context for planning tasks. Triggers on: "wiki context", "cross-project context", "what do we know about", "check the wiki", "graph context", "/wiki-rag".
devops
UX improvement pipeline — creates user stories from UI guidelines, maps user journeys, identifies friction, dispatches fix agents. The user-experience equivalent of /production-upgrade.
development
Test-driven development workflow that writes failing tests first, implements minimally, and refactors safely.