preetamnath/sanity-check

Sanity Check

Validate a plan, design, or decision. Confirm good choices, flag real concerns, and identify blind spots.

When to use

• Before implementing a plan
• After designing an approach
• When making a non-trivial technical decision
• When you want your thinking challenged

Not for:

• Reviewing implemented code
• Generating alternative approaches
• Open-ended exploratory analysis
• Interactive adversarial stress-testing

Instructions

1 — Understand what's being checked

Gather context:

• The plan, design, or decision text
• Relevant files or code
• Any constraints or requirements

If the plan is vague or missing key details, use the AskUserQuestion tool to ask for specifics before proceeding. Present what's unclear and what you need to evaluate effectively.

2 — Evaluate

• Confirm what's good about the approach — don't skip this even if there are concerns
• Check for realistic failure scenarios (not theoretical edge cases)
• Identify blind spots — things not addressed that should be
• Assess whether the whole approach should be reconsidered

3 — Return output

Return a SanityCheckOutput conforming to the Output Schema below.

Rules

• Honest. If the plan is sound, say so — don't manufacture concerns.
• Realistic risks. Focus on realistic risks, not theoretical edge cases.
• Cite evidence. When making claims about code, read it first. No citation = not a concern.
• Direct reframes. If it needs rethinking, say so directly with a concrete alternative in the reframe field.
• P0-P2 only. Concerns use P0-P2 only — plan-level issues are either blocking or not, "nice to have" doesn't apply.

---

Output Schema

<!-- source: references/sanity-check-schema.md -->

SanityCheckOutput

SanityCheckOutput {
  verdict: "sound" | "concerns" | "rethink",
  confirmation: what's good about this approach,
  concerns: Concern[],
  blind_spots: string[],
  reframe: string | null
}

Concern

Concern {
  id: sequential number starting from 1,
  severity: "P0" | "P1" | "P2",
  issue: description of the concern,
  why_it_matters: impact if not addressed,
  confidence: 0.0-1.0
}

Field notes

• verdict — "sound" means proceed. "concerns" means fixable issues exist. "rethink" means the approach has fundamental problems (must populate reframe).
• confirmation — always say what's good, even when the verdict is "rethink." This prevents the user from throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
• concerns use P0-P2 only (no P3). Plan-level issues are either blocking or not — "nice to have" doesn't apply to plan validation.
• blind_spots — things the plan doesn't address. Not necessarily problems — the user may have intentionally excluded them. List them so the user can confirm.
• reframe — required (non-null) when verdict is "rethink"; null when verdict is "sound" or "concerns". The "you're solving the wrong problem" field — populate with a concrete alternative direction, not just "reconsider".
• confidence — how confident you are that this concern is real. 1.0 = certain failure mode, below 0.5 = speculative risk.