iliaal/document-review

Document Review

Improve brainstorm or plan documents through structured review.

Step 1: Get the Document

If a document path is provided: Read it, then proceed to Step 2.

If no document is specified: Ask which document to review, or look for the most recent brainstorm/plan in docs/brainstorms/ or docs/plans/.

Step 2: Assess

Read through the document and ask:

• What is unclear?
• What is unnecessary?
• What decision is being avoided?
• What assumptions are unstated?
• Where could scope accidentally expand?
• Is this technically feasible with the current architecture?
• Are there security implications in what's proposed?

These questions surface issues. Don't fix yet--just note what you find.

Step 3: Activate Review Lenses

Based on the document's content, activate specialized review perspectives. Scan for signals and apply matching lenses:

| Lens | Signals | What it checks | |------|---------|----------------| | Product | User-facing features, customer language, market claims, scope decisions | Problem framing, value proposition clarity, whether scope matches stated goals | | Design | UI/UX references, user flows, wireframes, interaction descriptions | Flow completeness, interaction gaps, accessibility considerations | | Security | Auth/authorization, API endpoints, PII, payments, tokens, encryption | Auth model gaps, data exposure risks, missing threat considerations | | Scope guardian | Multiple priority tiers (P0/P1/P2), large requirement count (>8), stretch goals | Scope creep, premature abstractions, features disguised as requirements | | Adversarial | >5 distinct requirements, explicit architectural decisions, high-stakes domains | Unstated assumptions, optimistic estimates, single points of failure, missing failure modes |

Activate a lens when ANY of its signals match. Most documents trigger 1-2 lenses; brainstorm notes may trigger none. When a lens is active, weave its checks into the assessment and evaluation steps rather than running it as a separate pass.

Step 4: Evaluate

Score the document against these criteria:

| Criterion | What to Check | |-----------|---------------| | Clarity | Problem statement is clear, no vague language ("probably," "consider," "try to") | | Completeness | Required sections present, constraints stated, open questions flagged | | Specificity | Concrete enough for next step (brainstorm → can plan, plan → can implement) | | YAGNI | No hypothetical features, simplest approach chosen |

If invoked within a workflow (after /ia-brainstorm or /ia-plan), also check:

• User intent fidelity -- Document reflects what was discussed, assumptions validated

Step 5: Identify the Critical Improvement

Among everything found in Steps 2-4, does one issue stand out? If something would significantly improve the document's quality, this is the "must address" item. Highlight it prominently.

Step 6: Make Changes

Present your findings, then:

1. Auto-fix minor issues (vague language, formatting) without asking
2. Ask approval before substantive changes (restructuring, removing sections, changing meaning)
3. Update the document inline--no separate files, no metadata sections

Simplification Guidance

Simplification is purposeful removal of unnecessary complexity, not shortening for its own sake.

Simplify when:

• Content serves hypothetical future needs, not current ones
• Sections repeat information already covered elsewhere
• Detail exceeds what's needed to take the next step
• Abstractions or structure add overhead without clarity

Don't simplify:

• Constraints or edge cases that affect implementation
• Rationale that explains why alternatives were rejected
• Open questions that need resolution

Step 7: Reader Test (Optional)

For standalone documents that must be self-contained (onboarding guides, ADRs, external-facing docs), dispatch a zero-context sub-agent to simulate a first-time reader. The sub-agent has no conversation history — it sees only what a future reader would see.

How to run the test:

1. Predict 5-10 reader questions from the document's stated goals — one per major section or decision. Mix three kinds:
   • Concrete retrieval: "What command sets up the dev environment?"
   • Decision rationale: "Why did we pick X over Y?"
   • Ambiguity probe: "Could a reader interpret <specific phrase> in more than one way?"
2. Dispatch a fresh sub-agent with the document attached and the questions. No prior context, no session history.
3. Compare the sub-agent's answers against author intent. Also ask the sub-agent directly: "What feels ambiguous? What prior knowledge does this assume? Are there internal contradictions?"

Interpret results:

• Correct, confident answers → document is self-contained for that question.
• Wrong answer with high confidence → document actively misleads. Highest-priority fix.
• Hedged or "insufficient information" → the document has a gap the author didn't notice. Fill it.
• Sub-agent flags ambiguity the author didn't intend → reword for precision.

Skip for context-dependent docs (brainstorm notes, plan files, internal working docs) where the reader will always have prior context. The sub-agent test only adds value when the real reader has no other channel.

Step 8: Offer Next Action

After changes are complete, ask:

1. Refine again - Another review pass
2. Review complete - Document is ready

Iteration Guidance

After 2 refinement passes, recommend completion--diminishing returns are likely. If the user wants to continue, allow up to 4 passes total. After 4, stop and report "review converged -- further changes require new direction." Do not continue past 4 even on user request without a fresh framing.

Return control to the caller (workflow or user) after selection.

Constraints

• Fix targeted sections, don't rewrite the whole document. If the structure is fundamentally broken, surface the structural problem and ask for permission to restructure.
• Flag missing sections in your review, but don't add them. The user decides what to include.
• Keep changes minimal. If a paragraph needs tightening, tighten it. Don't expand scope.
• Review inline. No separate review files or metadata sections.

Success Criteria

• Document read and scored on all four quality criteria
• Relevant review lenses activated and checks applied
• Critical improvements identified with specific suggestions
• User presented with clear next-action choice (refine or complete)
• Revised document saved if changes were approved