plan-review

To review an implementation plan against your codebase, you can ground the plan's assumptions by cross-referencing design docs with real code. This process identifies architectural flaws, verifies correctness, and generates a prioritized, actionable verdict.

Code grounding for design critiques is the process of verifying a proposal's assumptions by cross-referencing it with the actual codebase. This identifies hidden risks and architectural gaps to ensure the plan is technically feasible.

You identify architectural risks in a software proposal by applying a multi-lens analysis that checks correctness, architecture, and risk against the real codebase. This grounds objections in code evidence rather than theoretical assumptions.

Yes, you can generate actionable fixes during a plan review by grounding the critique in code evidence. The process delivers concrete fixes and a handoff-ready summary for execution, prioritizing the most critical flaws first.

Yes, plan review works for design documents and technical proposals. It verifies assumptions, architecture, and risk by cross-referencing the documents directly with the actual codebase to deliver a prioritized verdict.

The best way to verify assumptions in an architecture review is to ground the design critique against the real codebase. This multi-lens analysis identifies flaws and gaps, ensuring objections are backed by concrete code evidence.