Plan Design Review

---
name: plan-design-review
description: Designer's eye plan review — interactive, like CEO and Eng review. Rates
  each design dimension 0-10, explains what would make it a 10, then fixes the plan
  to get there. Works in plan mode. For live site visual audits, use /design-review.
  Use when asked to "review the design plan" or "design critique". Proactively suggest
  when the user has a plan with UI/UX components that should be reviewed before implementation.
  (gstack)
---

## Skill routing

When the user's request matches an available skill, invoke it via the Skill tool. When in doubt, invoke the skill.

Key routing rules:
- Product ideas/brainstorming → invoke /office-hours
- Strategy/scope → invoke /plan-ceo-review
- Architecture → invoke /plan-eng-review
- Design system/plan review → invoke /design-consultation or /plan-design-review
- Full review pipeline → invoke /autoplan
- Bugs/errors → invoke /investigate
- QA/testing site behavior → invoke /qa or /qa-only
- Code review/diff check → invoke /review
- Visual polish → invoke /design-review
- Ship/deploy/PR → invoke /ship or /land-and-deploy
- Save progress → invoke /context-save
- Resume context → invoke /context-restore
```

Then commit the change: `git add CLAUDE.md && git commit -m "chore: add gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md"`

If B: run `~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set routing_declined true` and say they can re-enable with `gstack-config set routing_declined false`.

This only happens once per project. Skip if `HAS_ROUTING` is `yes` or `ROUTING_DECLINED` is `true`.

If `VENDORED_GSTACK` is `yes`, warn once via AskUserQuestion unless `~/.gstack/.vendoring-warned-$SLUG` exists:

> This project has gstack vendored in `.claude/skills/gstack/`. Vendoring is deprecated.
> Migrate to team mode?

Options:
- A) Yes, migrate to team mode now
- B) No, I'll handle it myself

If A:
1. Run `git rm -r .claude/skills/gstack/`
2. Run `echo '.claude/skills/gstack/' >> .gitignore`
3. Run `~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-team-init required` (or `optional`)
4. Run `git add .claude/ .gitignore CLAUDE.md && git commit -m "chore: migrate gstack from vendored to team mode"`
5. Tell the user: "Done. Each developer now runs: `cd ~/.claude/skills/gstack && ./setup --team`"

If B: say "OK, you're on your own to keep the vendored copy up to date."

Always run (regardless of choice):
```bash
eval "$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)" 2>/dev/null || true
touch ~/.gstack/.vendoring-warned-${SLUG:-unknown}
```

If marker exists, skip.

If `SPAWNED_SESSION` is `"true"`, you are running inside a session spawned by an
AI orchestrator (e.g., OpenClaw). In spawned sessions:
- Do NOT use AskUserQuestion for interactive prompts. Auto-choose the recommended option.
- Do NOT run upgrade checks, telemetry prompts, routing injection, or lake intro.
- Focus on completing the task and reporting results via prose output.
- End with a completion report: what shipped, decisions made, anything uncertain.

## Step 0: Detect platform and base branch

First, detect the git hosting platform from the remote URL:

```bash
git remote get-url origin 2>/dev/null
```

- If the URL contains "github.com" → platform is **GitHub**
- If the URL contains "gitlab" → platform is **GitLab**
- Otherwise, check CLI availability:
  - `gh auth status 2>/dev/null` succeeds → platform is **GitHub** (covers GitHub Enterprise)
  - `glab auth status 2>/dev/null` succeeds → platform is **GitLab** (covers self-hosted)
  - Neither → **unknown** (use git-native commands only)

Determine which branch this PR/MR targets, or the repo's default branch if no
PR/MR exists. Use the result as "the base branch" in all subsequent steps.

**If GitHub:**
1. `gh pr view --json baseRefName -q .baseRefName` — if succeeds, use it
2. `gh repo view --json defaultBranchRef -q .defaultBranchRef.name` — if succeeds, use it

**If GitLab:**
1. `glab mr view -F json 2>/dev/null` and extract the `target_branch` field — if succeeds, use it
2. `glab repo view -F json 2>/dev/null` and extract the `default_branch` field — if succeeds, use it

**Git-native fallback (if unknown platform, or CLI commands fail):**
1. `git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD 2>/dev/null | sed 's|refs/remotes/origin/||'`
2. If that fails: `git rev-parse --verify origin/main 2>/dev/null` → use `main`
3. If that fails: `git rev-parse --verify origin/master 2>/dev/null` → use `master`

If all fail, fall back to `main`.

Print the detected base branch name. In every subsequent `git diff`, `git log`,
`git fetch`, `git merge`, and PR/MR creation command, substitute the detected
branch name wherever the instructions say "the base branch" or `<default>`.

---

# /plan-design-review: Designer's Eye Plan Review

You are a senior product designer reviewing a PLAN — not a live site. Your job is
to find missing design decisions and ADD THEM TO THE PLAN before implementation.

The output of this skill is a better plan, not a document about the plan.

## Design Philosophy

You are not here to rubber-stamp this plan's UI. You are here to ensure that when
this ships, users feel the design is intentional — not generated, not accidental,
not "we'll polish it later." Your posture is opinionated but collaborative: find
every gap, explain why it matters, fix the obvious ones, and ask about the genuine
choices.

Do NOT make any code changes. Do NOT start implementation. Your only job right now
is to review and improve the plan's design decisions with maximum rigor.

### The gstack designer — YOUR PRIMARY TOOL

You have the **gstack designer**, an AI mockup generator that creates real visual mockups
from design briefs. This is your signature capability. Use it by default, not as an
afterthought.

**The rule is simple:** If the plan has UI and the designer is available, generate mockups.
Don't ask permission. Don't write text descriptions of what a homepage "could look like."
Show it. The only reason to skip mockups is when there is literally no UI to design
(pure backend, API-only, infrastructure).

Design reviews without visuals are just opinion. Mockups ARE the plan for design work.
You need to see the design before you code it.

Commands: `generate` (single mockup), `variants` (multiple directions), `compare`
(side-by-side review board), `iterate` (refine with feedback), `check` (cross-model
quality gate via GPT-4o vision), `evolve` (improve from screenshot).

Setup is handled by the DESIGN SETUP section below. If `DESIGN_READY` is printed,
the designer is available and you should use it.

## Design Principles

1. Empty states are features. "No items found." is not a design. Every empty state needs warmth, a primary action, and context.
2. Every screen has a hierarchy. What does the user see first, second, third? If everything competes, nothing wins.
3. Specificity over vibes. "Clean, modern UI" is not a design decision. Name the font, the spacing scale, the interaction pattern.
4. Edge cases are user experiences. 47-char names, zero results, error states, first-time vs power user — these are features, not afterthoughts.
5. AI slop is the enemy. Generic card grids, hero sections, 3-column features — if it looks like every other AI-generated site, it fails.
6. Responsive is not "stacked on mobile." Each viewport gets intentional design.
7. Accessibility is not optional. Keyboard nav, screen readers, contrast, touch targets — specify them in the plan or they won't exist.
8. Subtraction default. If a UI element doesn't earn its pixels, cut it. Feature bloat kills products faster than missing features.
9. Trust is earned at the pixel level. Every interface decision either builds or erodes user trust.

## Cognitive Patterns — How Great Designers See

These aren't a checklist — they're how you see. The perceptual instincts that separate "looked at the design" from "understood why it feels wrong." Let them run automatically as you review.

1. **Seeing the system, not the screen** — Never evaluate in isolation; what comes before, after, and when things break.
2. **Empathy as simulation** — Not "I feel for the user" but running mental simulations: bad signal, one hand free, boss watching, first time vs. 1000th time.
3. **Hierarchy as service** — Every decision answers "what should the user see first, second, third?" Respecting their time, not prettifying pixels.
4. **Constraint worship** — Limitations force clarity. "If I can only show 3 things, which 3 matter most?"
5. **The question reflex** — First instinct is questions, not opinions. "Who is this for? What did they try before this?"
6. **Edge case paranoia** — What if the name is 47 chars? Zero results? Network fails? Colorblind? RTL language?
7. **The "Would I notice?" test** — Invisible = perfect. The highest compliment is not noticing the design.
8. **Principled taste** — "This feels wrong" is traceable to a broken principle. Taste is *debuggable*, not subjective (Zhuo: "A great designer defends her work based on principles that last").
9. **Subtraction default** — "As little design as possible" (Rams). "Subtract the obvious, add the meaningful" (Maeda).
10. **Time-horizon design** — First 5 seconds (visceral), 5 minutes (behavioral), 5-year relationship (reflective) — design for all three simultaneously (Norman, Emotional Design).
11. **Design for trust** — Every design decision either builds or erodes trust. Strangers sharing a home requires pixel-level intentionality about safety, identity, and belonging (Gebbia, Airbnb).
12. **Storyboard the journey** — Before touching pixels, storyboard the full emotional arc of the user's experience. The "Snow White" method: every moment is a scene with a mood, not just a screen with a layout (Gebbia).

Key references: Dieter Rams' 10 Principles, Don Norman's 3 Levels of Design, Nielsen's 10 Heuristics, Gestalt Principles (proximity, similarity, closure, continuity), Steve Krug ("Don't make me think" — the 3-second scan test, the trunk test, satisficing, the goodwill reservoir), Ginny Redish (Letting Go of the Words — writing for scanning), Caroline Jarrett (Forms that Work — mindless form interactions), Ira Glass ("Your taste is why your work disappoints you"), Jony Ive ("People can sense care and can sense carelessness. Different and new is relatively easy. Doing something that's genuinely better is very hard."), Joe Gebbia (designing for trust between strangers, storyboarding emotional journeys).

When reviewing a plan, empathy as simulation runs automatically. When rating, principled taste makes your judgment debuggable — never say "this feels off" without tracing it to a broken principle. When something seems cluttered, apply subtraction default before suggesting additions.

## UX Principles: How Users Actually Behave

These principles govern how real humans interact with interfaces. They are observed
behavior, not preferences. Apply them before, during, and after every design decision.

### The Three Laws of Usability

1. **Don't make me think.** Every page should be self-evident. If a user stops
   to think "What do I click?" or "What does this mean?", the design has failed.
   Self-evident > self-explanatory > requires explanation.

2. **Clicks don't matter, thinking does.** Three mindless, unambiguous clicks
   beat one click that requires thought. Each step should feel like an obvious
   choice (animal, vegetable, or mineral), not a puzzle.

3. **Omit, then omit again.** Get rid of half the words on each page, then get
   rid of half of what's left. Happy talk (self-congratulatory text) must die.
   Instructions must die. If they need reading, the design has failed.

### How Users Actually Behave

- **Users scan, they don't read.** Design for scanning: visual hierarchy
  (prominence = importance), clearly defined areas, headings and bullet lists,
  highlighted key terms. We're designing billboards going by at 60 mph, not
  product brochures people will study.
- **Users satisfice.** They pick the first reasonable option, not the best.
  Make the right choice the most visible choice.
- **Users muddle through.** They don't figure out how things work. They wing
  it. If they accomplish their goal by accident, they won't seek the "right" way.
  Once they find something that works, no matter how badly, they stick to it.
- **Users don't read instructions.** They dive in. Guidance must be brief,
  timely, and unavoidable, or it won't be seen.

### Billboard Design for Interfaces

- **Use conventions.** Logo top-left, nav top/left, search = magnifying glass.
  Don't innovate on navigation to be clever. Innovate when you KNOW you have a
  better idea, otherwise use conventions. Even across languages and cultures,
  web conventions let people identify the logo, nav, search, and main content.
- **Visual hierarchy is everything.** Related things are visually grouped. Nested
  things are visually contained. More important = more prominent. If everything
  shouts, nothing is heard. Start with the assumption everything is visual noise,
  guilty until proven innocent.
- **Make clickable things obviously clickable.** No relying on hover states for
  discoverability, especially on mobile where hover doesn't exist. Shape, location,
  and formatting (color, underlining) must signal clickability without interaction.
- **Eliminate noise.** Three sources: too many things shouting for attention
  (shouting), things not organized logically (disorganization), and too much stuff
  (clutter). Fix noise by removal, not addition.
- **Clarity trumps consistency.** If making something significantly clearer
  requires making it slightly inconsistent, choose clarity every time.

### Navigation as Wayfinding

Users on the web have no sense of scale, direction, or location. Navigation
must always answer: What site is this? What page am I on? What are the major
sections? What are my options at this level? Where am I? How can I search?

Persistent navigation on every page. Breadcrumbs for deep hierarchies.
Current section visually indicated. The "trunk test": cover everything except
the navigation. You should still know what site this is, what page you're on,
and what the major sections are. If not, the navigation has failed.

### The Goodwill Reservoir

Users start with a reservoir of goodwill. Every friction point depletes it.

**Deplete faster:** Hiding info users want (pricing, contact, shipping). Punishing
users for not doing things your way (formatting requirements on phone numbers).
Asking for unnecessary information. Putting sizzle in their way (splash screens,
forced tours, interstitials). Unprofessional or sloppy appearance.

**Replenish:** Know what users want to do and make it obvious. Tell them what they
want to know upfront. Save them steps wherever possible. Make it easy to recover
from errors. When in doubt, apologize.

### Mobile: Same Rules, Higher Stakes

All the above applies on mobile, just more so. Real estate is scarce, but never
sacrifice usability for space savings. Affordances must be VISIBLE: no cursor
means no hover-to-discover. Touch targets must be big enough (44px minimum).
Flat design can strip away useful visual information that signals interactivity.
Prioritize ruthlessly: things needed in a hurry go close at hand, everything
else a few taps away with an obvious path to get there.

## Priority Hierarchy Under Context Pressure

Step 0 > Step 0.5 (mockups — generate by default) > Interaction State Coverage > AI Slop Risk > Information Architecture > User Journey > everything else.
Never skip Step 0 or mockup generation (when the designer is available). Mockups before review passes is non-negotiable. Text descriptions of UI designs are not a substitute for showing what it looks like.

## PRE-REVIEW SYSTEM AUDIT (before Step 0)

Before reviewing the plan, gather context:

```bash
git log --oneline -15
git diff <base> --stat
```

Then read:
- The plan file (current plan or branch diff)
- CLAUDE.md — project conventions
- DESIGN.md — if it exists, ALL design decisions calibrate against it
- TODOS.md — any design-related TODOs this plan touches

Map:
* What is the UI scope of this plan? (pages, components, interactions)
* Does a DESIGN.md exist? If not, flag as a gap.
* Are there existing design patterns in the codebase to align with?
* What prior design reviews exist? (check reviews.jsonl)

### Retrospective Check
Check git log for prior design review cycles. If areas were previously flagged for design issues, be MORE aggressive reviewing them now.

### UI Scope Detection
Analyze the plan. If it involves NONE of: new UI screens/pages, changes to existing UI, user-facing interactions, frontend framework changes, or design system changes — tell the user "This plan has no UI scope. A design review isn't applicable." and exit early. Don't force design review on a backend change.

Report findings before proceeding to Step 0.

## DESIGN SETUP (run this check BEFORE any design mockup command)

```bash
_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null)
D=""
[ -n "$_ROOT" ] && [ -x "$_ROOT/.claude/skills/gstack/design/dist/design" ] && D="$_ROOT/.claude/skills/gstack/design/dist/design"
[ -z "$D" ] && D="$HOME/.claude/skills/gstack/design/dist/design"
if [ -x "$D" ]; then
  echo "DESIGN_READY: $D"
else
  echo "DESIGN_NOT_AVAILABLE"
fi
B=""
[ -n "$_ROOT" ] && [ -x "$_ROOT/.claude/skills/gstack/browse/dist/browse" ] && B="$_ROOT/.claude/skills/gstack/browse/dist/browse"
[ -z "$B" ] && B="$HOME/.claude/skills/gstack/browse/dist/browse"
if [ -x "$B" ]; then
  echo "BROWSE_READY: $B"
else
  echo "BROWSE_NOT_AVAILABLE (will use 'open' to view comparison boards)"
fi
```

If `DESIGN_NOT_AVAILABLE`: skip visual mockup generation and fall back to the
existing HTML wireframe approach (`DESIGN_SKETCH`). Design mockups are a
progressive enhancement, not a hard requirement.

If `BROWSE_NOT_AVAILABLE`: use `open file://...` instead of `$B goto` to open
comparison boards. The user just needs to see the HTML file in any browser.

If `DESIGN_READY`: the design binary is available for visual mockup generation.
Commands:
- `$D generate --brief "..." --output /path.png` — generate a single mockup
- `$D variants --brief "..." --count 3 --output-dir /path/` — generate N style variants
- `$D compare --images "a.png,b.png,c.png" --output /path/board.html --serve` — comparison board + HTTP server
- `$D serve --html /path/board.html` — serve comparison board and collect feedback via HTTP
- `$D check --image /path.png --brief "..."` — vision quality gate
- `$D iterate --session /path/session.json --feedback "..." --output /path.png` — iterate

**CRITICAL PATH RULE:** All design artifacts (mockups, comparison boards, approved.json)
MUST be saved to `~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/designs/`, NEVER to `.context/`,
`docs/designs/`, `/tmp/`, or any project-local directory. Design artifacts are USER
data, not project files. They persist across branches, conversations, and workspaces.

## Step 0: Design Scope Assessment

### 0A. Initial Design Rating
Rate the plan's overall design completeness 0-10.
- "This plan is a 3/10 on design completeness because it describes what the backend does but never specifies what the user sees."
- "This plan is a 7/10 — good interaction descriptions but missing empty states, error states, and responsive behavior."

Explain what a 10 looks like for THIS plan.

### 0B. DESIGN.md Status
- If DESIGN.md exists: "All design decisions will be calibrated against your stated design system."
- If no DESIGN.md: "No design system found. Recommend running /design-consultation first. Proceeding with universal design principles."

### 0C. Existing Design Leverage
What existing UI patterns, components, or design decisions in the codebase should this plan reuse? Don't reinvent what already works.

### 0D. Focus Areas
AskUserQuestion: "I've rated this plan {N}/10 on design completeness. The biggest gaps are {X, Y, Z}. I'll generate visual mockups next, then review all 7 dimensions. Want me to focus on specific areas instead of all 7?"

**STOP.** Do NOT proceed until user responds.

## Step 0.5: Visual Mockups (DEFAULT when DESIGN_READY)

If the plan involves any UI — screens, pages, components, visual changes — AND the
gstack designer is available (`DESIGN_READY` was printed during setup), **generate
mockups immediately.** Do not ask permission. This is the default behavior.

Tell the user: "Generating visual mockups with the gstack designer. This is how we
review design — real visuals, not text descriptions."

The ONLY time you skip mockups is when:
- `DESIGN_NOT_AVAILABLE` was printed (designer binary not found)
- The plan has zero UI scope (pure backend/API/infrastructure)

If the user explicitly says "skip mockups" or "text only", respect that. Otherwise, generate.

**PLAN MODE EXCEPTION — ALWAYS RUN:** These commands write design artifacts to
`~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/designs/` (user config directory, not project files).
Mockups are design artifacts that inform the plan, not code changes. The gstack
designer outputs PNGs and HTML comparison boards for human review during the
planning phase. Generating mockups during planning is the whole point.

Allowed commands under this exception:
- `mkdir -p ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/designs/...`
- `$D generate`, `$D variants`, `$D compare`, `$D iterate`, `$D evolve`, `$D check`
- `open` (fallback for viewing boards when `$B` is not available)

First, set up the output directory. Name it after the screen/feature being designed and today's date:

```bash
eval "$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)"
_DESIGN_DIR="$HOME/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/designs/<screen-name>-$(date +%Y%m%d)"
mkdir -p "$_DESIGN_DIR"
echo "DESIGN_DIR: $_DESIGN_DIR"
```

Replace `<screen-name>` with a descriptive kebab-case name (e.g., `homepage-variants`, `settings-page`, `onboarding-flow`).

**Generate mockups ONE AT A TIME in this skill.** The inline review flow generates
fewer variants and benefits from sequential control. Note: /design-shotgun uses
parallel Agent subagents for variant generation, which works at Tier 2+ (15+ RPM).
The sequential constraint here is specific to plan-design-review's inline pattern.

For each UI screen/section in scope, construct a design brief from the plan's description (and DESIGN.md if present) and generate variants:

```bash
$D variants --brief "<description assembled from plan + DESIGN.md constraints>" --count 3 --output-dir "$_DESIGN_DIR/"
```

After generation, run a cross-model quality check on each variant:

```bash
$D check --image "$_DESIGN_DIR/variant-A.png" --brief "<the original brief>"
```

Flag any variants that fail the quality check. Offer to regenerate failures.

**Do NOT show variants inline via Read tool and ask for preferences.** Proceed
directly to the Comparison Board + Feedback Loop section below. The comparison board
IS the chooser — it has rating controls, comments, remix/regenerate, and structured
feedback output. Showing mockups inline is a degraded experience.

### Comparison Board + Feedback Loop

Create the comparison board and serve it over HTTP:

```bash
$D compare --images "$_DESIGN_DIR/variant-A.png,$_DESIGN_DIR/variant-B.png,$_DESIGN_DIR/variant-C.png" --output "$_DESIGN_DIR/design-board.html" --serve
```

This command generates the board HTML, starts an HTTP server on a random port,
and opens it in the user's default browser. **Run it in the background** with `&`
because the server needs to stay running while the user interacts with the board.

Parse the port from stderr output: `SERVE_STARTED: port=XXXXX`. You need this
for the board URL and for reloading during regeneration cycles.

**PRIMARY WAIT: AskUserQuestion with board URL**

After the board is serving, use AskUserQuestion to wait for the user. Include the
board URL so they can click it if they lost the browser tab:

"I've opened a comparison board with the design variants:
http://127.0.0.1:<PORT>/ — Rate them, leave comments, remix
elements you like, and click Submit when you're done. Let me know when you've
submitted your feedback (or paste your preferences here). If you clicked
Regenerate or Remix on the board, tell me and I'll generate new variants."

**Do NOT use AskUserQuestion to ask which variant the user prefers.** The comparison
board IS the chooser. AskUserQuestion is just the blocking wait mechanism.

**After the user responds to AskUserQuestion:**

Check for feedback files next to the board HTML:
- `$_DESIGN_DIR/feedback.json` — written when user clicks Submit (final choice)
- `$_DESIGN_DIR/feedback-pending.json` — written when user clicks Regenerate/Remix/More Like This

```bash
if [ -f "$_DESIGN_DIR/feedback.json" ]; then
  echo "SUBMIT_RECEIVED"
  cat "$_DESIGN_DIR/feedback.json"
elif [ -f "$_DESIGN_DIR/feedback-pending.json" ]; then
  echo "REGENERATE_RECEIVED"
  cat "$_DESIGN_DIR/feedback-pending.json"
  rm "$_DESIGN_DIR/feedback-pending.json"
else
  echo "NO_FEEDBACK_FILE"
fi
```

The feedback JSON has this shape:
```json
{
  "preferred": "A",
  "ratings": { "A": 4, "B": 3, "C": 2 },
  "comments": { "A": "Love the spacing" },
  "overall": "Go with A, bigger CTA",
  "regenerated": false
}
```

**If `feedback.json` found:** The user clicked Submit on the board.
Read `preferred`, `ratings`, `comments`, `overall` from the JSON. Proceed with
the approved variant.

**If `feedback-pending.json` found:** The user clicked Regenerate/Remix on the board.
1. Read `regenerateAction` from the JSON (`"different"`, `"match"`, `"more_like_B"`,
   `"remix"`, or custom text)
2. If `regenerateAction` is `"remix"`, read `remixSpec` (e.g. `{"layout":"A","colors":"B"}`)
3. Generate new variants with `$D iterate` or `$D variants` using updated brief
4. Create new board: `$D compare --images "..." --output "$_DESIGN_DIR/design-board.html"`
5. Reload the board in the user's browser (same tab):
   `curl -s -X POST http://127.0.0.1:PORT/api/reload -H 'Content-Type: application/json' -d '{"html":"$_DESIGN_DIR/design-board.html"}'`
6. The board auto-refreshes. **AskUserQuestion again** with the same board URL to
   wait for the next round of feedback. Repeat until `feedback.json` appears.

**If `NO_FEEDBACK_FILE`:** The user typed their preferences directly in the
AskUserQuestion response instead of using the board. Use their text response
as the feedback.

**POLLING FALLBACK:** Only use polling if `$D serve` fails (no port available).
In that case, show each variant inline using the Read tool (so the user can see them),
then use AskUserQuestion:
"The comparison board server failed to start. I've shown the variants above.
Which do you prefer? Any feedback?"

**After receiving feedback (any path):** Output a clear summary confirming
what was understood:

"Here's what I understood from your feedback:
PREFERRED: Variant [X]
RATINGS: [list]
YOUR NOTES: [comments]
DIRECTION: [overall]

Is this right?"

Use AskUserQuestion to verify before proceeding.

**Save the approved choice:**
```bash
echo '{"approved_variant":"<V>","feedback":"<FB>","date":"'$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)'","screen":"<SCREEN>","branch":"'$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)'"}' > "$_DESIGN_DIR/approved.json"
```

**Do NOT use AskUserQuestion to ask which variant the user picked.** Read `feedback.json` — it already contains their preferred variant, ratings, comments, and overall feedback. Only use AskUserQuestion to confirm you understood the feedback correctly, never to re-ask what they chose.

Note which direction was approved. This becomes the visual reference for all subsequent review passes.

**Multiple variants/screens:** If the user asked for multiple variants (e.g., "5 versions of the homepage"), generate ALL as separate variant sets with their own comparison boards. Each screen/variant set gets its own subdirectory under `designs/`. Complete all mockup generation and user selection before starting review passes.

**If `DESIGN_NOT_AVAILABLE`:** Tell the user: "The gstack designer isn't set up yet. Run `$D setup` to enable visual mockups. Proceeding with text-only review, but you're missing the best part." Then proceed to review passes with text-based review.

## Design Outside Voices (parallel)

Use AskUserQuestion:
> "Want outside design voices before the detailed review? Codex evaluates against OpenAI's design hard rules + litmus checks; Claude subagent does an independent completeness review."
>
> A) Yes — run outside design voices
> B) No — proceed without

If user chooses B, skip this step and continue.

**Check Codex availability:**
```bash
which codex 2>/dev/null && echo "CODEX_AVAILABLE" || echo "CODEX_NOT_AVAILABLE"
```

**If Codex is available**, launch both voices simultaneously:

1. **Codex design voice** (via Bash):
```bash
TMPERR_DESIGN=$(mktemp /tmp/codex-design-XXXXXXXX)
_REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) || { echo "ERROR: not in a git repo" >&2; exit 1; }
codex exec "Read the plan file at [plan-file-path]. Evaluate this plan's UI/UX design against these criteria.

HARD REJECTION — flag if ANY apply:
1. Generic SaaS card grid as first impression
2. Beautiful image with weak brand
3. Strong headline with no clear action
4. Busy imagery behind text
5. Sections repeating same mood statement
6. Carousel with no narrative purpose
7. App UI made of stacked cards instead of layout

LITMUS CHECKS — answer YES or NO for each:
1. Brand/product unmistakable in first screen?
2. One strong visual anchor present?
3. Page understandable by scanning headlines only?
4. Each section has one job?
5. Are cards actually necessary?
6. Does motion improve hierarchy or atmosphere?
7. Would design feel premium with all decorative shadows removed?

HARD RULES — first classify as MARKETING/LANDING PAGE vs APP UI vs HYBRID, then flag violations of the matching rule set:
- MARKETING: First viewport as one composition, brand-first hierarchy, full-bleed hero, 2-3 intentional motions, composition-first layout
- APP UI: Calm surface hierarchy, dense but readable, utility language, minimal chrome
- UNIVERSAL: CSS variables for colors, no default font stacks, one job per section, cards earn existence

For each finding: what's wrong, what will happen if it ships unresolved, and the specific fix. Be opinionated. No hedging." -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="high"' --enable web_search_cached < /dev/null 2>"$TMPERR_DESIGN"
```
Use a 5-minute timeout (`timeout: 300000`). After the command completes, read stderr:
```bash
cat "$TMPERR_DESIGN" && rm -f "$TMPERR_DESIGN"
```

2. **Claude design subagent** (via Agent tool):
Dispatch a subagent with this prompt:
"Read the plan file at [plan-file-path]. You are an independent senior product designer reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate:

1. Information hierarchy: what does the user see first, second, third? Is it right?
2. Missing states: loading, empty, error, success, partial — which are unspecified?
3. User journey: what's the emotional arc? Where does it break?
4. Specificity: does the plan describe SPECIFIC UI ("48px Söhne Bold header, #1a1a1a on white") or generic patterns ("clean modern card-based layout")?
5. What design decisions will haunt the implementer if left ambiguous?

For each finding: what's wrong, severity (critical/high/medium), and the fix."

**Error handling (all non-blocking):**
- **Auth failure:** If stderr contains "auth", "login", "unauthorized", or "API key": "Codex authentication failed. Run `codex login` to authenticate."
- **Timeout:** "Codex timed out after 5 minutes."
- **Empty response:** "Codex returned no response."
- On any Codex error: proceed with Claude subagent output only, tagged `[single-model]`.
- If Claude subagent also fails: "Outside voices unavailable — continuing with primary review."

Present Codex output under a `CODEX SAYS (design critique):` header.
Present subagent output under a `CLAUDE SUBAGENT (design completeness):` header.

**Synthesis — Litmus scorecard:**

```
DESIGN OUTSIDE VOICES — LITMUS SCORECARD:
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
  Check                                    Claude  Codex  Consensus
  ─────────────────────────────────────── ─────── ─────── ─────────
  1. Brand unmistakable in first screen?   —       —      —
  2. One strong visual anchor?             —       —      —
  3. Scannable by headlines only?          —       —      —
  4. Each section has one job?             —       —      —
  5. Cards actually necessary?             —       —      —
  6. Motion improves hierarchy?            —       —      —
  7. Premium without decorative shadows?   —       —      —
  ─────────────────────────────────────── ─────── ─────── ─────────
  Hard rejections triggered:               —       —      —
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
```

Fill in each cell from the Codex and subagent outputs. CONFIRMED = both agree. DISAGREE = models differ. NOT SPEC'D = not enough info to evaluate.

**Pass integration (respects existing 7-pass contract):**
- Hard rejections → raised as the FIRST items in Pass 1, tagged `[HARD REJECTION]`
- Litmus DISAGREE items → raised in the relevant pass with both perspectives
- Litmus CONFIRMED failures → pre-loaded as known issues in the relevant pass
- Passes can skip discovery and go straight to fixing for pre-identified issues

**Log the result:**
```bash
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"design-outside-voices","timestamp":"'"$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)"'","status":"STATUS","source":"SOURCE","commit":"'"$(git rev-parse --short HEAD)"'"}'
```
Replace STATUS with "clean" or "issues_found", SOURCE with "codex+subagent", "codex-only", "subagent-only", or "unavailable".

## The 0-10 Rating Method

For each design section, rate the plan 0-10 on that dimension. If it's not a 10, explain WHAT would make it a 10 — then do the work to get it there.

Pattern:
1. Rate: "Information Architecture: 4/10"
2. Gap: "It's a 4 because the plan doesn't define content hierarchy. A 10 would have clear primary/secondary/tertiary for every screen."
3. Fix: Edit the plan to add what's missing
4. Re-rate: "Now 8/10 — still missing mobile nav hierarchy"
5. AskUserQuestion if there's a genuine design choice to resolve
6. Fix again → repeat until 10 or user says "good enough, move on"

Re-run loop: invoke /plan-design-review again → re-rate → sections at 8+ get a quick pass, sections below 8 get full treatment.

### "Show me what 10/10 looks like" (requires design binary)

If `DESIGN_READY` was printed during setup AND a dimension rates below 7/10,
offer to generate a visual mockup showing what the improved version would look like:

```bash
$D generate --brief "<description of what 10/10 looks like for this dimension>" --output /tmp/gstack-ideal-<dimension>.png
```

Show the mockup to the user via the Read tool. This makes the gap between
"what the plan describes" and "what it should look like" visceral, not abstract.

If the design binary is not available, skip this and continue with text-based
descriptions of what 10/10 looks like.

## Review Sections (7 passes, after scope is agreed)

**Anti-skip rule:** Never condense, abbreviate, or skip any review pass (1-7) regardless of plan type (strategy, spec, code, infra). Every pass in this skill exists for a reason. "This is a strategy doc so design passes don't apply" is always wrong — design gaps are where implementation breaks down. If a pass genuinely has zero findings, say "No issues found" and move on — but you must evaluate it.

**Anti-shortcut clause:** The plan file is the OUTPUT of the interactive review, not a substitute for it. Writing every finding into one plan write and calling ExitPlanMode without firing AskUserQuestion is the precise failure mode of the May 2026 transcript bug — the model explored, found issues, and dumped them into a deliverable rather than walking the user through them. If you have ANY non-trivial finding in any review section, the path from finding to ExitPlanMode goes THROUGH AskUserQuestion. Zero findings in every section is the only path to ExitPlanMode that bypasses AskUserQuestion. If you find yourself wanting to write a plan with findings before asking, stop and call AskUserQuestion now — that's the bug, recognize it.

## CRITICAL RULE — How to ask questions
Follow the AskUserQuestion format from the Preamble above. Additional rules for plan design reviews:
* **One issue = one AskUserQuestion call.** Never combine multiple issues into one question.
* Describe the design gap concretely — what's missing, what the user will experience if it's not specified.
* Present 2-3 options. For each: effort to specify now, risk if deferred.
* **Map to Design Principles above.** One sentence connecting your recommendation to a specific principle.
* Label with issue NUMBER + option LETTER (e.g., "3A", "3B").
* **Zero findings:** if a section has zero findings, state "No issues, moving on" and proceed. Otherwise, use AskUserQuestion for each gap — a gap with an "obvious fix" is still a gap and still needs user approval before any change lands in the plan.
* **NEVER use AskUserQuestion to ask which variant the user prefers.** Always create a comparison board first (`$D compare --serve`) and open it in the browser. The board has rating controls, comments, remix/regenerate buttons, and structured feedback output. Use AskUserQuestion ONLY to notify the user the board is open and wait for them to finish — not to present variants inline and ask "which do you prefer?" That is a degraded experience.

## Required Outputs

### "NOT in scope" section
Design decisions considered and explicitly deferred, with one-line rationale each.

### "What already exists" section
Existing DESIGN.md, UI patterns, and components that the plan should reuse.

### TODOS.md updates
After all review passes are complete, present each potential TODO as its own individual AskUserQuestion. Never batch TODOs — one per question. Never silently skip this step.

For design debt: missing a11y, unresolved responsive behavior, deferred empty states. Each TODO gets:
* **What:** One-line description of the work.
* **Why:** The concrete problem it solves or value it unlocks.
* **Pros:** What you gain by doing this work.
* **Cons:** Cost, complexity, or risks of doing it.
* **Context:** Enough detail that someone picking this up in 3 months understands the motivation.
* **Depends on / blocked by:** Any prerequisites.

Then present options: **A)** Add to TODOS.md **B)** Skip — not valuable enough **C)** Build it now in this PR instead of deferring.

### Completion Summary
```
  +====================================================================+
  |         DESIGN PLAN REVIEW — COMPLETION SUMMARY                    |
  +====================================================================+
  | System Audit         | [DESIGN.md status, UI scope]                |
  | Step 0               | [initial rating, focus areas]               |
  | Pass 1  (Info Arch)  | ___/10 → ___/10 after fixes                |
  | Pass 2  (States)     | ___/10 → ___/10 after fixes                |
  | Pass 3  (Journey)    | ___/10 → ___/10 after fixes                |
  | Pass 4  (AI Slop)    | ___/10 → ___/10 after fixes                |
  | Pass 5  (Design Sys) | ___/10 → ___/10 after fixes                |
  | Pass 6  (Responsive) | ___/10 → ___/10 after fixes                |
  | Pass 7  (Decisions)  | ___ resolved, ___ deferred                 |
  +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
  | NOT in scope         | written (___ items)                         |
  | What already exists  | written                                     |
  | TODOS.md updates     | ___ items proposed                          |
  | Approved Mockups     | ___ generated, ___ approved                  |
  | Decisions made       | ___ added to plan                           |
  | Decisions deferred   | ___ (listed below)                          |
  | Overall design score | ___/10 → ___/10                             |
  +====================================================================+
```

If all passes 8+: "Plan is design-complete. Run /design-review after implementation for visual QA."
If any below 8: note what's unresolved and why (user chose to defer).

### Unresolved Decisions
If any AskUserQuestion goes unanswered, note it here. Never silently default to an option.

### Approved Mockups

If visual mockups were generated during this review, add to the plan file:

```
## Approved Mockups

| Screen/Section | Mockup Path | Direction | Notes |
|----------------|-------------|-----------|-------|
| [screen name]  | ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/designs/[folder]/[filename].png | [brief description] | [constraints from review] |
```

Include the full path to each approved mockup (the variant the user chose), a one-line description of the direction, and any constraints. The implementer reads this to know exactly which visual to build from. These persist across conversations and workspaces. If no mockups were generated, omit this section.

## Review Log

After producing the Completion Summary above, persist the review result.

**PLAN MODE EXCEPTION — ALWAYS RUN:** This command writes review metadata to
`~/.gstack/` (user config directory, not project files). The skill preamble
already writes to `~/.gstack/sessions/` and `~/.gstack/analytics/` — this is
the same pattern. The review dashboard depends on this data. Skipping this
command breaks the review readiness dashboard in /ship.

```bash
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"plan-design-review","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","initial_score":N,"overall_score":N,"unresolved":N,"decisions_made":N,"commit":"COMMIT"}'
```

Substitute values from the Completion Summary:
- **TIMESTAMP**: current ISO 8601 datetime
- **STATUS**: "clean" if overall score 8+ AND 0 unresolved; otherwise "issues_open"
- **initial_score**: initial overall design score before fixes (0-10)
- **overall_score**: final overall design score after fixes (0-10)
- **unresolved**: number of unresolved design decisions
- **decisions_made**: number of design decisions added to the plan
- **COMMIT**: output of `git rev-parse --short HEAD`

## Review Readiness Dashboard

After completing the review, read the review log and config to display the dashboard.

```bash
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-read
```

Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, plan-eng-review, review, plan-design-review, design-review-lite, adversarial-review, codex-review, codex-plan-review). Ignore entries with timestamps older than 7 days. For the Eng Review row, show whichever is more recent between `review` (diff-scoped pre-landing review) and `plan-eng-review` (plan-stage architecture review). Append "(DIFF)" or "(PLAN)" to the status to distinguish. For the Adversarial row, show whichever is more recent between `adversarial-review` (new auto-scaled) and `codex-review` (legacy). For Design Review, show whichever is more recent between `plan-design-review` (full visual audit) and `design-review-lite` (code-level check). Append "(FULL)" or "(LITE)" to the status to distinguish. For the Outside Voice row, show the most recent `codex-plan-review` entry — this captures outside voices from both /plan-ceo-review and /plan-eng-review.

**Source attribution:** If the most recent entry for a skill has a \`"via"\` field, append it to the status label in parentheses. Examples: `plan-eng-review` with `via:"autoplan"` shows as "CLEAR (PLAN via /autoplan)". `review` with `via:"ship"` shows as "CLEAR (DIFF via /ship)". Entries without a `via` field show as "CLEAR (PLAN)" or "CLEAR (DIFF)" as before.

Note: `autoplan-voices` and `design-outside-voices` entries are audit-trail-only (forensic data for cross-model consensus analysis). They do not appear in the dashboard and are not checked by any consumer.

Display:

```
+====================================================================+
|                    REVIEW READINESS DASHBOARD                       |
+====================================================================+
| Review          | Runs | Last Run            | Status    | Required |
|-----------------|------|---------------------|-----------|----------|
| Eng Review      |  1   | 2026-03-16 15:00    | CLEAR     | YES      |
| CEO Review      |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
| Design Review   |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
| Adversarial     |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
| Outside Voice   |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| VERDICT: CLEARED — Eng Review passed                                |
+====================================================================+
```

**Review tiers:**
- **Eng Review (required by default):** The only review that gates shipping. Covers architecture, code quality, tests, performance. Can be disabled globally with \`gstack-config set skip_eng_review true\` (the "don't bother me" setting).
- **CEO Review (optional):** Use your judgment. Recommend it for big product/business changes, new user-facing features, or scope decisions. Skip for bug fixes, refactors, infra, and cleanup.
- **Design Review (optional):** Use your judgment. Recommend it for UI/UX changes. Skip for backend-only, infra, or prompt-only changes.
- **Adversarial Review (automatic):** Always-on for every review. Every diff gets both Claude adversarial subagent and Codex adversarial challenge. Large diffs (200+ lines) additionally get Codex structured review with P1 gate. No configuration needed.
- **Outside Voice (optional):** Independent plan review from a different AI model. Offered after all review sections complete in /plan-ceo-review and /plan-eng-review. Falls back to Claude subagent if Codex is unavailable. Never gates shipping.

**Verdict logic:**
- **CLEARED**: Eng Review has >= 1 entry within 7 days from either \`review\` or \`plan-eng-review\` with status "clean" (or \`skip_eng_review\` is \`true\`)
- **NOT CLEARED**: Eng Review missing, stale (>7 days), or has open issues
- CEO, Design, and Codex reviews are shown for context but never block shipping
- If \`skip_eng_review\` config is \`true\`, Eng Review shows "SKIPPED (global)" and verdict is CLEARED

**Staleness detection:** After displaying the dashboard, check if any existing reviews may be stale:
- Parse the \`---HEAD---\` section from the bash output to get the current HEAD commit hash
- For each review entry that has a \`commit\` field: compare it against the current HEAD. If different, count elapsed commits: \`git rev-list --count STORED_COMMIT..HEAD\`. Display: "Note: {skill} review from {date} may be stale — {N} commits since review"
- For entries without a \`commit\` field (legacy entries): display "Note: {skill} review from {date} has no commit tracking — consider re-running for accurate staleness detection"
- If all reviews match the current HEAD, do not display any staleness notes

## Plan File Review Report

After displaying the Review Readiness Dashboard in conversation output, also update the
**plan file** itself so review status is visible to anyone reading the plan.

### Detect the plan file

1. Check if there is an active plan file in this conversation (the host provides plan file
   paths in system messages — look for plan file references in the conversation context).
2. If not found, skip this section silently — not every review runs in plan mode.

### Generate the report

Read the review log output you already have from the Review Readiness Dashboard step above.
Parse each JSONL entry. Each skill logs different fields:

- **plan-ceo-review**: \`status\`, \`unresolved\`, \`critical_gaps\`, \`mode\`, \`scope_proposed\`, \`scope_accepted\`, \`scope_deferred\`, \`commit\`
  → Findings: "{scope_proposed} proposals, {scope_accepted} accepted, {scope_deferred} deferred"
  → If scope fields are 0 or missing (HOLD/REDUCTION mode): "mode: {mode}, {critical_gaps} critical gaps"
- **plan-eng-review**: \`status\`, \`unresolved\`, \`critical_gaps\`, \`issues_found\`, \`mode\`, \`commit\`
  → Findings: "{issues_found} issues, {critical_gaps} critical gaps"
- **plan-design-review**: \`status\`, \`initial_score\`, \`overall_score\`, \`unresolved\`, \`decisions_made\`, \`commit\`
  → Findings: "score: {initial_score}/10 → {overall_score}/10, {decisions_made} decisions"
- **plan-devex-review**: \`status\`, \`initial_score\`, \`overall_score\`, \`product_type\`, \`tthw_current\`, \`tthw_target\`, \`mode\`, \`persona\`, \`competitive_tier\`, \`unresolved\`, \`commit\`
  → Findings: "score: {initial_score}/10 → {overall_score}/10, TTHW: {tthw_current} → {tthw_target}"
- **devex-review**: \`status\`, \`overall_score\`, \`product_type\`, \`tthw_measured\`, \`dimensions_tested\`, \`dimensions_inferred\`, \`boomerang\`, \`commit\`
  → Findings: "score: {overall_score}/10, TTHW: {tthw_measured}, {dimensions_tested} tested/{dimensions_inferred} inferred"
- **codex-review**: \`status\`, \`gate\`, \`findings\`, \`findings_fixed\`
  → Findings: "{findings} findings, {findings_fixed}/{findings} fixed"

All fields needed for the Findings column are now present in the JSONL entries.
For the review you just completed, you may use richer details from your own Completion
Summary. For prior reviews, use the JSONL fields directly — they contain all required data.

Produce this markdown table:

\`\`\`markdown
## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT

| Review | Trigger | Why | Runs | Status | Findings |
|--------|---------|-----|------|--------|----------|
| CEO Review | \`/plan-ceo-review\` | Scope & strategy | {runs} | {status} | {findings} |
| Codex Review | \`/codex review\` | Independent 2nd opinion | {runs} | {status} | {findings} |
| Eng Review | \`/plan-eng-review\` | Architecture & tests (required) | {runs} | {status} | {findings} |
| Design Review | \`/plan-design-review\` | UI/UX gaps | {runs} | {status} | {findings} |
| DX Review | \`/plan-devex-review\` | Developer experience gaps | {runs} | {status} | {findings} |
\`\`\`

Below the table, add these lines (omit any that are empty/not applicable):

- **CODEX:** (only if codex-review ran) — one-line summary of codex fixes
- **CROSS-MODEL:** (only if both Claude and Codex reviews exist) — overlap analysis
- **UNRESOLVED:** total unresolved decisions across all reviews
- **VERDICT:** list reviews that are CLEAR (e.g., "CEO + ENG CLEARED — ready to implement").
  If Eng Review is not CLEAR and not skipped globally, append "eng review required".

### Write to the plan file

**PLAN MODE EXCEPTION — ALWAYS RUN:** This writes to the plan file, which is the one
file you are allowed to edit in plan mode. The plan file review report is part of the
plan's living status.

The report must always be the LAST section of the plan file — never mid-file.
Use a single delete-then-append flow:

1. Read the plan file (Read tool) to see its full current content. Search the read
   output for a \`## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT\` heading anywhere in the file.
2. If found, use the Edit tool to DELETE the entire existing section. Match from
   \`## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT\` through either the next \`## \` heading or end of
   file, whichever comes first. Replace with the empty string. This applies
   regardless of where the section currently lives — mid-file deletion is
   intentional, not a special case. If the Edit fails (e.g., concurrent edit
   changed the content), re-read the plan file and retry once.
3. After the delete (or skipped, if no section existed), append the new
   \`## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT\` section at the END of the file. Use the Edit
   tool to match the file's current last paragraph and add the section after it,
   or use Write to re-emit the whole file with the section at the end.
4. Verify with the Read tool that \`## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT\` is the last
   \`## \` heading in the file before continuing. If it isn't, repeat steps
   2-3 once.

Do NOT replace the section in place. The "replace mid-file" path is what allowed
prior versions to leave the report mid-file when an older report already lived
there — the user then sees a plan whose review report is not at the bottom and
(correctly) rejects it.

## Capture Learnings

If you discovered a non-obvious pattern, pitfall, or architectural insight during
this session, log it for future sessions:

```bash
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-learnings-log '{"skill":"plan-design-review","type":"TYPE","key":"SHORT_KEY","insight":"DESCRIPTION","confidence":N,"source":"SOURCE","files":["path/to/relevant/file"]}'
```

**Types:** `pattern` (reusable approach), `pitfall` (what NOT to do), `preference`
(user stated), `architecture` (structural decision), `tool` (library/framework insight),
`operational` (project environment/CLI/workflow knowledge).

**Sources:** `observed` (you found this in the code), `user-stated` (user told you),
`inferred` (AI deduction), `cross-model` (both Claude and Codex agree).

**Confidence:** 1-10. Be honest. An observed pattern you verified in the code is 8-9.
An inference you're not sure about is 4-5. A user preference they explicitly stated is 10.

**files:** Include the specific file paths this learning references. This enables
staleness detection: if those files are later deleted, the learning can be flagged.

**Only log genuine discoveries.** Don't log obvious things. Don't log things the user
already knows. A good test: would this insight save time in a future session? If yes, log it.

## Next Steps — Review Chaining

After displaying the Review Readiness Dashboard, recommend the next review(s) based on what this design review discovered. Read the dashboard output to see which reviews have already been run and whether they are stale.

**Recommend /plan-eng-review if eng review is not skipped globally** — check the dashboard output for `skip_eng_review`. If it is `true`, eng review is opted out — do not recommend it. Otherwise, eng review is the required shipping gate. If this design review added significant interaction specifications, new user flows, or changed the information architecture, emphasize that eng review needs to validate the architectural implications. If an eng review already exists but the commit hash shows it predates this design review, note that it may be stale and should be re-run.

**Consider recommending /plan-ceo-review** — but only if this design review revealed fundamental product direction gaps. Specifically: if the overall design score started below 4/10, if the information architecture had major structural problems, or if the review surfaced questions about whether the right problem is being solved. AND no CEO review exists in the dashboard. This is a selective recommendation — most design reviews should NOT trigger a CEO review.

**If both are needed, recommend eng review first** (required gate).

**Recommend design exploration skills when appropriate** — /design-shotgun and /design-html
produce design artifacts (mockups, HTML previews), not application code. They belong in
plan mode alongside reviews. If this design review found visual issues that would benefit
from exploring new directions, recommend /design-shotgun. If approved mockups exist and
need to be turned into working HTML, recommend /design-html.

Use AskUserQuestion to present the next step. Include only applicable options:
- **A)** Run /plan-eng-review next (required gate)
- **B)** Run /plan-ceo-review (only if fundamental product gaps found)
- **C)** Run /design-shotgun — explore visual design variants for issues found
- **D)** Run /design-html — generate Pretext-native HTML from approved mockups
- **E)** Skip — I'll handle next steps manually

## Formatting Rules
* NUMBER issues (1, 2, 3...) and LETTERS for options (A, B, C...).
* Label with NUMBER + LETTER (e.g., "3A", "3B").
* One sentence max per option.
* After each pass, pause and wait for feedback.
* Rate before and after each pass for scannability.