From 793d010a42a88b0b469c2cfb3abfb45beae982e1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: cube Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2026 23:09:41 +0700 Subject: [PATCH] feat(plan-ceo-review): every approach states whether it ships as independently mergeable phases --- plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md | 2 ++ plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md.tmpl | 2 ++ 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md b/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md index 850a6e7e3f..4c759a0792 100644 --- a/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md +++ b/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md @@ -904,6 +904,7 @@ APPROACH A: [Name] Pros: [2-3 bullets] Cons: [2-3 bullets] Reuses: [existing code/patterns leveraged] + Phasing: [ships as independently mergeable phases? if not, why] APPROACH B: [Name] ... @@ -920,6 +921,7 @@ Rules: - One approach must be the "ideal architecture" (best long-term trajectory). - **These two approaches have equal weight.** Don't default to "minimal viable" just because it's smaller. Recommend whichever best serves the user's goal. If the right answer is a rewrite, say so. - If only one approach exists, explain concretely why alternatives were eliminated. +- Each phase of the chosen approach must be mergeable on its own. A plan where nothing works until every phase lands is a red flag — say so. - Do NOT proceed to mode selection (0F) without user approval of the chosen approach. Present these approach options via AskUserQuestion using the preamble's AskUserQuestion Format section: include RECOMMENDATION and `Completeness: N/10` on every option. These approaches differ in coverage (minimal viable vs ideal architecture), so completeness scoring applies directly. diff --git a/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md.tmpl b/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md.tmpl index 3b59b09990..c3e18ed778 100644 --- a/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md.tmpl +++ b/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md.tmpl @@ -262,6 +262,7 @@ APPROACH A: [Name] Pros: [2-3 bullets] Cons: [2-3 bullets] Reuses: [existing code/patterns leveraged] + Phasing: [ships as independently mergeable phases? if not, why] APPROACH B: [Name] ... @@ -278,6 +279,7 @@ Rules: - One approach must be the "ideal architecture" (best long-term trajectory). - **These two approaches have equal weight.** Don't default to "minimal viable" just because it's smaller. Recommend whichever best serves the user's goal. If the right answer is a rewrite, say so. - If only one approach exists, explain concretely why alternatives were eliminated. +- Each phase of the chosen approach must be mergeable on its own. A plan where nothing works until every phase lands is a red flag — say so. - Do NOT proceed to mode selection (0F) without user approval of the chosen approach. Present these approach options via AskUserQuestion using the preamble's AskUserQuestion Format section: include RECOMMENDATION and `Completeness: N/10` on every option. These approaches differ in coverage (minimal viable vs ideal architecture), so completeness scoring applies directly.