ShaheerKhawaja/productionos-plan-eng-review

productionos-plan-eng-review

Use this alias when you want the same workflow through a top-level Codex-safe name without the productionos: namespace.

Overview

Use this as the Codex-first engineering plan review. Its job is to make an execution plan safe to build: architecture, trust boundaries, failure modes, test coverage, dependency risks, and rollout posture.

Source references:

• .claude/commands/plan-eng-review.md
• agents/architecture-designer.md
• agents/database-auditor.md
• agents/vulnerability-explorer.md

Inputs

• target plan, design doc, or feature description
• optional current branch or diff context
• optional architecture notes or prior review artifacts

Codex Workflow

1. Restate the execution target.
   • What is being built?
   • What are the important boundaries and dependencies?
2. Review the architecture.
   • Draw or describe the component graph.
   • Check data flow, state changes, error paths, and migration risk.
3. Review for engineering completeness.
   • test matrix
   • performance budget
   • dependency and licensing risk
   • deployment and rollback posture
4. Surface issues as concrete recommendations.
   • prefer minimal-diff, explicit designs
   • call out over-engineering and under-engineering
5. End with what must change before implementation and what is safe to proceed with.

Expected Output

• Architecture notes with concrete risks
• Error-path and test-coverage gaps
• Performance or migration concerns
• A short implementation-readiness verdict

Verification

• Ground every recommendation in the actual plan or repo context.
• If a risk depends on an assumption, state the assumption plainly.

Guardrails

• Do not silently expand product scope.
• Do not optimize for novelty over maintainability.
• Prefer boring, reversible engineering choices unless the repo clearly needs otherwise.