---
description: "Evaluate an incoming project plan against bigpowers principles and conventions, surface gaps, and produce a READY/NOT READY verdict before engagement begins. Use when a new project arrives, when adapting a foreign plan, or before running seed-conventions on an unfamiliar codebase."
alwaysApply: false
---

# Audit Plan

> **HARD GATE** — Do NOT start build skills (kickoff-branch, develop-tdd) until audit-plan returns a READY verdict. A plan missing test commands, scope boundaries, or success criteria will produce drift and rework downstream.

Assess an incoming project plan for alignment with bigpowers principles, identify what's missing, and produce a structured readiness report before any skill execution begins.

## Three lenses

### 1. Principles alignment
- Are stories vertical slices (not horizontal layers)?
- Is scope bounded — explicit in_scope + out_of_scope?
- Are success criteria defined (how do we know we're done)?
- Are HARD GATE candidates identifiable (critical decision points)?
- Is there a domain language / ubiquitous terminology?

### 2. Conventions completeness
- Does `CLAUDE.md` or `AGENTS.md` exist?
- Does `CONVENTIONS.md` exist?
- Is the `specs/` directory layout in place?
- Are commit conventions documented (Conventional Commits)?
- Is the git workflow mode identified (`solo-git` | `team-pr`)?

### 3. Bigpowers pre-flight (must all be answered before build)
| Question | Why |
|----------|-----|
| What is the **test command**? | `develop-tdd` verify steps require it |
| What is the **build command**? | `verify-work` mechanical gate |
| What is the **lint command**? | `audit-code` lint gate |
| What is the **typecheck command**? | `verify-work` typecheck gate |
| What **CI platform** is in use? | `wire-ci` configuration |
| **Solo or team**? | `release-branch` integration mode |
| Primary **language + framework**? | model routing + conventions |
| **Greenfield or existing** codebase? | determines whether to run `seed-conventions` or `migrate-spec` first |

## Process

1. **Ingest the plan** — accept a file path, pasted PRD text, or existing `specs/` artifacts. Read `CLAUDE.md` and `CONVENTIONS.md` if present.

2. **Score each lens** — for every item above, mark:
   - ✅ Present and adequate
   - ⚠️ Present but incomplete — note what's missing
   - ❌ Absent

3. **Close gaps conversationally** — for each ❌ or ⚠️, ask one question at a time. Record each answer before moving to the next.

4. **Write `specs/PLAN-AUDIT_LATEST.md`**:

```markdown
# Plan Audit — <project>
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD · **Verdict:** READY | NOT READY

## Principles Alignment
| Check | Status | Note |
| Vertical slices | ✅ | 4 stories, each shippable |
| Scope bounded | ⚠️ | in_scope present; out_of_scope missing |

## Conventions Completeness
| Check | Status | Note |

## Pre-flight Answers
| Command | Value |
| test | `npm test` |
| build | `npm run build` |

## Open Gaps
- [ ] Add out_of_scope to scope definition (run scope-work)
- [ ] Create CLAUDE.md (run seed-conventions)

## Verdict
READY — proceed with survey-context
NOT READY — N gaps remain; close before proceeding
```

5. **Recommend next skill**:
   - READY → `survey-context`
   - Needs bootstrapping → `seed-conventions`
   - Needs spec elaboration → `elaborate-spec`
   - Has foreign spec format → `migrate-spec`
   - Plan assumptions need challenging → `grill-me`

## Verify

→ verify: `test -f specs/PLAN-AUDIT_LATEST.md && grep -q Verdict specs/PLAN-AUDIT_LATEST.md`