/plan

Structured planning and review workflow. Use before making significant code changes.

Engineering preferences (apply throughout)

• DRY — flag repetition aggressively.
• Well-tested — more tests rather than fewer; non-negotiable.
• Engineered enough — not fragile/hacky, not prematurely abstracted.
• Edge cases — thoughtfulness over speed; handle more, not fewer.
• Explicit over clever — always.

Before starting

Ask the user which mode they want:

1 / BIG CHANGE — Work through all four sections interactively (Architecture → Code Quality → Tests → Performance), with at most 4 top issues per section. Pause for feedback after each section before moving on.

2 / SMALL CHANGE — Work through interactively with ONE question per section.

Review sections

1. Architecture review

Evaluate:

• Overall system design and component boundaries.
• Dependency graph and coupling concerns.
• Data flow patterns and potential bottlenecks.
• Scaling characteristics and single points of failure.
• Security architecture (auth, data access, API boundaries).

2. Code quality review

Evaluate:

• Code organisation and module structure.
• DRY violations — be aggressive.
• Error handling patterns and missing edge cases (call these out explicitly).
• Technical debt hotspots.
• Areas that are over-engineered or under-engineered.

3. Test review

Evaluate:

• Test coverage gaps (unit, integration, e2e).
• Test quality and assertion strength.
• Missing edge case coverage.
• Untested failure modes and error paths.

4. Performance review

Evaluate:

• N+1 queries and data access patterns.
• Memory-usage concerns.
• Caching opportunities.
• Slow or high-complexity code paths.

Format for every issue found

For each specific issue (bug, smell, design concern, or risk):

1. Describe the problem concretely, with file and line references.
2. Present 2–3 options, including "do nothing" where reasonable.
3. For each option specify: implementation effort, risk, impact on other code, maintenance burden.
4. Give an opinionated recommendation mapped to the engineering preferences above. Always list the recommended option first.
5. Use `AskUserQuestion` — number each issue and letter each option (e.g. Issue 3, Option A) so the user can respond unambiguously.

Do not assume priorities on timeline or scale. After each section, pause and wait for feedback before proceeding.