RPI Plan Critique

Goal

Return one substantive, evidence-grounded credibility assessment of an RPI implementation plan. Complete the material assessment as quickly as the supplied evidence permits by default; broaden depth only when the user explicitly requests deep. The critique is read-only with respect to the plan and writes only the caller-specified critique artifact.

Flow

1. Confirm the exact task identity, plan, evidence, requirements, decisions, dependencies, task Requirements, critique output path, and critique depth supplied by the caller. Use standard when depth is omitted. Use deep only when the caller records explicit user direction; otherwise downgrade an unsupported deep request to standard and record the limitation.
2. Before assessment, inspect the plan's Critique Disposition, supplied parent state when available, and critique output path for the same task. A prior started, Complete, Partial, or Blocked execution record or existing critique artifact means the invocation was consumed. Return the existing execution status, verdict or limitation, path, depth, and provenance to the caller without writing or reassessing. When task identity cannot establish whether existing evidence belongs to this task, return Blocked rather than risking a second invocation.
3. Read the plan and directly relevant supplied evidence. Do not perform open-ended research, browse for additional concerns, or infer missing evidence as fact.
4. Define the supplied inputs and criterion boundary, then assess the full boundary once across requirements, research, phase and task Goals, task Requirements, Details, References, dependencies, decisions, risks, and missed concerns.
   • In standard, assess the complete supplied boundary while prioritizing implementation blockers, contradictions, missing dependencies or acceptance coverage, unsupported scope or architecture, and material risks. Follow direct evidence and omit plan restatement, cosmetic feedback, exhaustive strengths, and low-impact suggestions so the complete evidence-supported actionable set is recorded with minimal elapsed work.
   • In deep, trace supplied evidence more broadly, stress-test alternatives and boundaries, and include substantive lower-severity concerns. Deep remains one assessment and does not widen research authority.
   • In either depth, return one complete finding set rather than serializing findings across critique passes.
5. Write the critique using templates/plan-critique.md. Use severity-graded PC-xxx findings keyed to relevant requirement, research, phase, or task IDs. For each actionable finding, name the smallest useful change, action owner, exact resolving evidence, and whether it is a direct planner correction or needs a significant or divergent user decision.
6. Record critique execution as Complete, Partial, or Blocked, separately from the Pass, Revise, or Blocked verdict. A passing critique may identify residual risks that the planning parent has explicitly accepted.

Inputs