agwacom/avad-autoplan

<!-- AUTO-GENERATED from SKILL.md.tmpl — do not edit directly --> <!-- Regenerate: bun run gen:skill-docs -->

/avad-autoplan — Auto-Review Pipeline

One command. Rough plan in, fully reviewed plan out.

/avad-autoplan reads the full CEO, design, and eng review skill files from disk and follows them at full depth — same rigor, same sections, same methodology as running each skill manually. The only difference: intermediate AskUserQuestion calls are auto-decided using the 6 principles below. Taste decisions (where reasonable people could disagree) are surfaced at a final approval gate.

---

The 6 Decision Principles

These rules auto-answer every intermediate question:

1. Choose completeness — Ship the whole thing. Pick the approach that covers more edge cases.
2. Boil lakes — Fix everything in the blast radius (files modified by this plan + direct importers). Auto-approve expansions that are in blast radius AND < 1 day CC effort (< 5 files, no new infra).
3. Pragmatic — If two options fix the same thing, pick the cleaner one. 5 seconds choosing, not 5 minutes.
4. DRY — Duplicates existing functionality? Reject. Reuse what exists.
5. Explicit over clever — 10-line obvious fix > 200-line abstraction. Pick what a new contributor reads in 30 seconds.
6. Bias toward action — Merge > review cycles > stale deliberation. Flag concerns but don't block.

Conflict resolution (context-dependent tiebreakers):

• CEO phase: P1 (completeness) + P2 (boil lakes) dominate.
• Eng phase: P5 (explicit) + P3 (pragmatic) dominate.
• Design phase: P5 (explicit) + P1 (completeness) dominate.

---

Decision Classification

Every auto-decision is classified:

Mechanical — one clearly right answer. Auto-decide silently. Examples: run evals (always yes), reduce scope on a complete plan (always no).

Taste — reasonable people could disagree. Auto-decide with recommendation, but surface at the final gate. Two natural sources:

1. Close approaches — top two are both viable with different tradeoffs.
2. Borderline scope — in blast radius but 3-5 files, or ambiguous radius.

---

What "Auto-Decide" Means

Auto-decide replaces the USER'S judgment with the 6 principles. It does NOT replace the ANALYSIS. Every section in the loaded skill files must still be executed at the same depth as the interactive version. The only thing that changes is who answers the AskUserQuestion: you do, using the 6 principles, instead of the user.

You MUST still:

• READ the actual code, diffs, and files each section references
• PRODUCE every output the section requires (diagrams, tables, registries, artifacts)
• IDENTIFY every issue the section is designed to catch
• DECIDE each issue using the 6 principles (instead of asking the user)
• LOG each decision in the audit trail
• WRITE all required artifacts to disk

You MUST NOT:

• Compress a review section into a one-liner table row
• Write "no issues found" without showing what you examined
• Skip a section because "it doesn't apply" without stating what you checked and why
• Produce a summary instead of the required output (e.g., "architecture looks good" instead of the ASCII dependency graph the section requires)

"No issues found" is a valid output for a section — but only after doing the analysis. State what you examined and why nothing was flagged (1-2 sentences minimum). "Skipped" is never valid for a non-skip-listed section.

---

Phase 0: Intake + Restore Point

Step 1: Capture restore point

Before doing anything, save the plan file's current state to an external file:

SLUG=$(git remote get-url origin 2>/dev/null | sed 's|.*[:/]\([^/]*/[^/]*\)\.git$|\1|;s|.*[:/]\([^/]*/[^/]*\)$|\1|' | tr '/' '-')
mkdir -p ~/.avadbot/projects/$SLUG
BRANCH=$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD 2>/dev/null | tr '/' '-')
DATETIME=$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S)
echo "RESTORE_PATH=$HOME/.avadbot/projects/$SLUG/${BRANCH}-autoplan-restore-${DATETIME}.md"

Write the plan file's full contents to the restore path with this header:

# /avad-autoplan Restore Point
Captured: [timestamp] | Branch: [branch] | Commit: [short hash]

## Re-run Instructions
1. Copy "Original Plan State" below back to your plan file
2. Invoke /avad-autoplan

## Original Plan State
[verbatim plan file contents]

Then prepend a one-line HTML comment to the plan file: <!-- /avad-autoplan restore point: [RESTORE_PATH] -->

Step 2: Read context

• Read CLAUDE.md, TODOS.md, git log -30, git diff against the base branch --stat
• Discover design docs: ls -t ~/.avadbot/projects/$SLUG/*-design-*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1
• Detect UI scope: grep the plan for view/rendering terms (component, screen, form, button, modal, layout, dashboard, sidebar, nav, dialog). Require 2+ matches. Exclude false positives ("page" alone, "UI" in acronyms).

Step 3: Load skill files from disk

Read each file using the Read tool. Before reading each sibling skill file, verify it exists. If a skill file is missing, skip that review phase and note it in the log.

CEO review skill:

1. Construct path: ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../avad-plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md
2. Read the file. If it does not exist, skip Phase 1 and log: "CEO review skill not found — skipped."

Design review skill (only if UI scope detected):

1. Construct path: ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../avad-plan-design-review/SKILL.md
2. Read the file. If it does not exist, skip Phase 2 and log: "Design review skill not found — skipped."

Eng review skill:

1. Construct path: ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../avad-plan-eng-review/SKILL.md
2. Read the file. If it does not exist, skip Phase 3 and log: "Eng review skill not found — skipped."

Section skip list — when following a loaded skill file, SKIP these sections (they are already handled by /avad-autoplan):

• AskUserQuestion Format
• Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
• Search Before Building
• Contributor Mode
• Completion Status Protocol
• Step 0: Detect base branch
• Review Readiness Dashboard
• Plan File Review Report

Follow ONLY the review-specific methodology, sections, and required outputs.

Output: "Here's what I'm working with: [plan summary]. UI scope: [yes/no]. Loaded review skills from disk. Starting full review pipeline with auto-decisions."

---

Phase 1: CEO Review (Strategy & Scope)

Follow avad-plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md — all sections, full depth. Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.

Override rules:

• Mode selection: SELECTIVE EXPANSION
• Premises: accept reasonable ones (P6), challenge only clearly wrong ones
• GATE: Present premises to user for confirmation — this is the ONE AskUserQuestion that is NOT auto-decided. Premises require human judgment.
• Alternatives: pick highest completeness (P1). If tied, pick simplest (P5). If top 2 are close → mark TASTE DECISION.
• Scope expansion: in blast radius + <1d CC → approve (P2). Outside → defer to TODOS.md (P3). Duplicates → reject (P4). Borderline (3-5 files) → mark TASTE DECISION.
• All 10 review sections: run fully, auto-decide each issue, log every decision.

Required execution checklist (CEO):

Step 0 (0A-0F) — run each sub-step and produce:

• 0A: Premise challenge with specific premises named and evaluated
• 0B: Existing code leverage map (sub-problems → existing code)
• 0C: Dream state diagram (CURRENT → THIS PLAN → 12-MONTH IDEAL)
• 0C-bis: Implementation alternatives table (2-3 approaches with effort/risk/pros/cons)
• 0D: Mode-specific analysis with scope decisions logged
• 0E: Temporal interrogation (HOUR 1 → HOUR 6+)
• 0F: Mode selection confirmation

Sections 1-10 — for EACH section, run the evaluation criteria from the loaded skill file:

• Sections WITH findings: full analysis, auto-decide each issue, log to audit trail
• Sections with NO findings: 1-2 sentences stating what was examined and why nothing was flagged. NEVER compress a section to just its name in a table row.
• Section 11 (Design): run only if UI scope was detected in Phase 0

Mandatory outputs from Phase 1:

• "NOT in scope" section with deferred items and rationale
• "What already exists" section mapping sub-problems to existing code
• Error & Rescue Registry table (from Section 2)
• Failure Modes Registry table (from review sections)
• Dream state delta (where this plan leaves us vs 12-month ideal)
• Completion Summary (the full summary table from the CEO skill)

---

Phase 2: Design Review (conditional — skip if no UI scope)

Follow avad-plan-design-review/SKILL.md — all 7 dimensions, full depth. Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.

Override rules:

• Focus areas: all relevant dimensions (P1)
• Structural issues (missing states, broken hierarchy): auto-fix (P5)
• Aesthetic/taste issues: mark TASTE DECISION
• Design system alignment: auto-fix if DESIGN.md exists and fix is obvious

---

Phase 3: Eng Review

Follow avad-plan-eng-review/SKILL.md — all sections, full depth. Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.

Override rules:

• Scope challenge: never reduce (P2)
• Architecture choices: explicit over clever (P5)
• Evals: always include all relevant suites (P1)
• Test plan: generate artifact at ~/.avadbot/projects/$SLUG/{user}-{branch}-test-plan-{datetime}.md
• TODOS.md: collect all deferred scope expansions from Phase 1, auto-write

Required execution checklist (Eng):

1. Step 0 (Scope Challenge): Read actual code referenced by the plan. Map each sub-problem to existing code. Run the complexity check. Produce concrete findings.

2. Section 1 (Architecture): Produce ASCII dependency graph showing new components and their relationships to existing ones. Evaluate coupling, scaling, security.

3. Section 2 (Code Quality): Identify DRY violations, naming issues, complexity. Reference specific files and patterns. Auto-decide each finding.

4. Section 3 (Test Review) — NEVER SKIP OR COMPRESS. This section requires reading actual code, not summarizing from memory.

   • Read the diff or the plan's affected files
   • Build the test diagram: list every NEW UX flow, data flow, codepath, and branch
   • For EACH item in the diagram: what type of test covers it? Does one exist? Gaps?
   • For LLM/prompt changes: which eval suites must run?
   • Auto-deciding test gaps means: identify the gap → decide whether to add a test or defer (with rationale and principle) → log the decision. It does NOT mean skipping the analysis.
   • Write the test plan artifact to disk

5. Section 4 (Performance): Evaluate N+1 queries, memory, caching, slow paths.

Mandatory outputs from Phase 3:

• "NOT in scope" section
• "What already exists" section
• Architecture ASCII diagram (Section 1)
• Test diagram mapping codepaths to coverage (Section 3)
• Test plan artifact written to disk (Section 3)
• Failure modes registry with critical gap flags
• Completion Summary (the full summary from the Eng skill)
• TODOS.md updates (collected from all phases)

---

Decision Audit Trail

After each auto-decision, append a row to the plan file using Edit:

<!-- AUTONOMOUS DECISION LOG -->
## Decision Audit Trail

| # | Phase | Decision | Principle | Rationale | Rejected |
|---|-------|----------|-----------|-----------|----------|

Write one row per decision incrementally (via Edit). This keeps the audit on disk, not accumulated in conversation context.

---

Pre-Gate Verification

Before presenting the Final Approval Gate, verify that required outputs were actually produced. Check the plan file and conversation for each item.

Phase 1 (CEO) outputs:

• [ ] Premise challenge with specific premises named (not just "premises accepted")
• [ ] All applicable review sections have findings OR explicit "examined X, nothing flagged"
• [ ] Error & Rescue Registry table produced (or noted N/A with reason)
• [ ] Failure Modes Registry table produced (or noted N/A with reason)
• [ ] "NOT in scope" section written
• [ ] "What already exists" section written
• [ ] Dream state delta written
• [ ] Completion Summary produced

Phase 2 (Design) outputs — only if UI scope detected:

• [ ] All 7 dimensions evaluated with scores
• [ ] Issues identified and auto-decided

Phase 3 (Eng) outputs:

• [ ] Scope challenge with actual code analysis (not just "scope is fine")
• [ ] Architecture ASCII diagram produced
• [ ] Test diagram mapping codepaths to test coverage
• [ ] Test plan artifact written to disk at ~/.avadbot/projects/$SLUG/
• [ ] "NOT in scope" section written
• [ ] "What already exists" section written
• [ ] Failure modes registry with critical gap assessment
• [ ] Completion Summary produced

Audit trail:

• [ ] Decision Audit Trail has at least one row per auto-decision (not empty)

If ANY checkbox above is missing, go back and produce the missing output. Max 2 attempts — if still missing after retrying twice, proceed to the gate with a warning noting which items are incomplete. Do not loop indefinitely.

---

Phase 4: Final Approval Gate

STOP here and present the final state to the user.

Present as a message, then use AskUserQuestion:

## /avad-autoplan Review Complete

### Plan Summary
[1-3 sentence summary]

### Decisions Made: [N] total ([M] auto-decided, [K] choices for you)

### Your Choices (taste decisions)
[For each taste decision:]
**Choice [N]: [title]** (from [phase])
I recommend [X] — [principle]. But [Y] is also viable:
  [1-sentence downstream impact if you pick Y]

### Auto-Decided: [M] decisions [see Decision Audit Trail in plan file]

### Review Scores
- CEO: [summary]
- Design: [summary or "skipped, no UI scope"]
- Eng: [summary]

### Deferred to TODOS.md
[Items auto-deferred with reasons]

Cognitive load management:

• 0 taste decisions: skip "Your Choices" section
• 1-7 taste decisions: flat list
• 8+: group by phase. Add warning: "This plan had unusually high ambiguity ([N] taste decisions). Review carefully."

AskUserQuestion options:

• A) Approve as-is (accept all recommendations)
• B) Approve with overrides (specify which taste decisions to change)
• C) Interrogate (ask about any specific decision)
• D) Revise (the plan itself needs changes)
• E) Reject (start over)

Option handling:

• A: mark APPROVED, write review logs, suggest /avad-ship
• B: ask which overrides, apply, re-present gate
• C: answer freeform, re-present gate
• D: make changes, re-run affected phases (scope→1B, design→2, test plan→3, arch→3). Max 3 cycles.
• E: start over

---

Completion: Write Review Logs

On approval, write review log entries so /avad-ship's dashboard recognizes them:

SLUG=$(git remote get-url origin 2>/dev/null | sed 's|.*[:/]\([^/]*/[^/]*\)\.git$|\1|;s|.*[:/]\([^/]*/[^/]*\)$|\1|' | tr '/' '-')
BRANCH=$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD 2>/dev/null | tr '/' '-')
COMMIT=$(git rev-parse --short HEAD 2>/dev/null)
TIMESTAMP=$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)
mkdir -p ~/.avadbot/projects/$SLUG

echo '{"skill":"avad-plan-ceo-review","timestamp":"'"$TIMESTAMP"'","status":"clean","unresolved":0,"critical_gaps":0,"mode":"SELECTIVE_EXPANSION","via":"avad-autoplan","commit":"'"$COMMIT"'"}' >> ~/.avadbot/projects/$SLUG/$BRANCH-reviews.jsonl

echo '{"skill":"avad-plan-eng-review","timestamp":"'"$TIMESTAMP"'","status":"clean","unresolved":0,"critical_gaps":0,"issues_found":0,"mode":"FULL_REVIEW","via":"avad-autoplan","commit":"'"$COMMIT"'"}' >> ~/.avadbot/projects/$SLUG/$BRANCH-reviews.jsonl

If Phase 2 ran (UI scope):

echo '{"skill":"avad-plan-design-review","timestamp":"'"$TIMESTAMP"'","status":"clean","unresolved":0,"via":"avad-autoplan","commit":"'"$COMMIT"'"}' >> ~/.avadbot/projects/$SLUG/$BRANCH-reviews.jsonl

Replace field values with actual counts from the review.

Suggest next step: /avad-ship when ready to create the PR.

---

Important Rules

• Never abort. The user chose /avad-autoplan. Respect that choice. Surface all taste decisions, never redirect to interactive review.
• Premises are the one gate. The only non-auto-decided AskUserQuestion is the premise confirmation in Phase 1.
• Log every decision. No silent auto-decisions. Every choice gets a row in the audit trail.
• Full depth means full depth. Do not compress or skip sections from the loaded skill files (except the skip list in Phase 0). "Full depth" means: read the code the section asks you to read, produce the outputs the section requires, identify every issue, and decide each one. A one-sentence summary of a section is not "full depth" — it is a skip. If you catch yourself writing fewer than 3 sentences for any review section, you are likely compressing.
• Artifacts are deliverables. Test plan artifact, failure modes registry, error/rescue table, ASCII diagrams — these must exist on disk or in the plan file when the review completes. If they don't exist, the review is incomplete.
• Sequential order. CEO → Design → Eng. Each phase builds on the last.