adom-plan — Exhaustive Plan Review

{
  "schema_version": 1,
  "type": "skill",
  "slug": "adom-plan",
  "title": "adom-plan — Exhaustive Plan Review",
  "brief": "Expand a sketch into a full plan, then stress-test it with 6+ adversarial debate agents (Opus vs Sonnet pairs) plus a red-team consensus attack and a scored synthesis.",
  "version": "1.2.0",
  "tags": [
    "planning",
    "multi-agent",
    "adversarial",
    "claude-code",
    "skill"
  ],
  "license": "MIT",
  "sample_prompts": [
    {
      "label": "Review plan",
      "prompt": "/adom-plan"
    },
    {
      "label": "Vet this plan",
      "prompt": "vet this plan"
    },
    {
      "label": "Review specific file",
      "prompt": "/adom-plan plans/my-feature.md"
    },
    {
      "label": "Stress-test",
      "prompt": "stress-test the plan"
    },
    {
      "label": "Harden",
      "prompt": "harden the plan"
    }
  ],
  "source_path": "SKILL.md",
  "readme": "# adom-plan — Exhaustive Plan Review\n\nEnd-to-end planning pipeline: expand a sketch into a detailed plan, then stress-test it via adversarial multi-model debate. Runs a built-in Opus expansion pass to flesh out the sketch, then launches **three adversarial pairs** (6 agents: Opus vs Sonnet per category) arguing architecture, implementation, and security from opposite dispositions. A 7th agent red-teams the consensus. Final output is a scored, vetted plan with validation strategies, E2E testing, a risk register, and prioritized action items.\n\n**Total agents: up to 8** (1 expansion + 6 debate + 1 red-team consensus).\n\n![How the agents coordinate](/blob/skill/adom-plan/screenshots/coordination.png)\n\n## How it works\n\n1. **Phase 0** — Locate the plan (plan file, file path argument, or conversation context)\n2. **Phase 0.5** — Expand the plan via a built-in Opus expansion agent\n3. **Phase 1** — Fetch platform context (wiki catalog, installed skills, recent commits, existing plans)\n4. **Phase 2** — Launch 6 adversarial debate agents in parallel (3 pairs):\n   - Architecture: Opus advocate vs Sonnet challenger\n   - Implementation: Sonnet roadmap-builder vs Opus gap-finder\n   - Security & Risk: Sonnet auditor vs Sonnet red-team attacker\n5. **Phase 3** — Red-team the consensus with one final Opus agent\n6. **Phase 4** — Scored synthesis: scorecard, contested decisions, risk register, E2E strategy, action items\n7. **Phase 5** — Present the summary to the user\n\n## Key features\n\n- **Adversarial pairing** — two agents argue each category from opposite dispositions, surfacing disagreements a single model would self-censor\n- **Multi-model diversity** — Opus reasons conservatively and architecturally; Sonnet is pragmatic and detail-oriented\n- **Structured scoring** — 1–5 scale across Feasibility, Maintainability, Platform Leverage, Simplicity; 2+ point deltas auto-flagged\n- **Platform awareness** — fetches the wiki catalog so agents reference real tools, not hypothetical ones\n- **The 30-Day Failure Scenario** — forces concrete, actionable thinking about what will actually go wrong\n- **Consensus red-team** — attacks the \"safe\" decisions everyone agrees on, because the most dangerous risks are the ones nobody flags\n\n## Then build it — pairs with `three-musketeers`\n\nadom-plan is the **plan half** of Adom's complex-project pipeline. Once the plan is vetted here, build it with **[`three-musketeers`](/drew2/three-musketeers)** — the companion skill that drives the actual build through a Builder → Adversarial Reviewer → Verifier loop until it genuinely works:\n\n1. **Plan robustly** with adom-plan — 6+ vetting agents harden *what to build*.\n2. **Build robustly** with three-musketeers — 3 building agents harden *that it was built and actually works* (the Verifier confirms behavior as a user, not against the plan, so the builder is free to correct anything adom-plan got wrong).\n\nExpensive but effective — reach for the full plan→build pipeline on high-stakes or long-running work.\n\n## Invocation\n\n```\n/adom-plan                          # review the active plan file\n/adom-plan path/to/plan.md          # review a specific file\n```\n\n## Output\n\nThe skill appends a **Debate Review Summary** to the plan file containing:\n\n- **Scorecard** — per-section grades (A/B/C/F) with dimensional scores\n- **Consensus Decisions** — verified safe items\n- **Contested Decisions** — where agents disagreed, with recommendations\n- **Fragile Consensus** — items the red-team flagged\n- **Risk Register** — consolidated threat table with mitigations\n- **Validation & E2E Strategy** — complete test plan\n- **The 30-Day Failure Scenario** — the most likely production failure\n- **Action Items** — numbered list tagged BLOCKING / RECOMMENDED / NICE-TO-HAVE\n",
  "author": {
    "name": "Kyle Bergstedt",
    "email": "[email protected]"
  },
  "visibility": {
    "public": true
  },
  "hero": {
    "type": "image",
    "path": "screenshots/hero.png"
  },
  "discovery_triggers": [
    "review my plan",
    "vet this plan",
    "stress-test the plan",
    "harden the plan"
  ],
  "discovery_pitch": null,
  "metadata": {},
  "description": "Expand a sketch into a full plan, then stress-test it with 6+ adversarial debate agents (Opus vs Sonnet pairs across architecture, implementation, and security) plus a red-team consensus attack and a scored synthesis. The plan half of the plan->build pipeline; pairs with three-musketeers.",
  "dependencies": {},
  "scripts": {
    "install": "./install.sh",
    "uninstall": "./uninstall.sh"
  },
  "org": "adom"
}